The Glaring Hole Krugman Missed

You by now know the general story.  Krugman aimed a shot at Obama over Social Security and healthcare, after which Obama answered back with a bit of “oppo”, and from that point, it has been on like Donkey Kong.

While the Obama camp was content to drop a fact check on Krugman and be done with it, it has felt an awful lot like Krugman got a little hot under the collar and has decided to retaliate by dropping as much criticism as he possibly can at the junior senator form Illinois.

Only, the thing is, it may have gotten to him a little bit.  Krugman goes on the offensive against Obama yet again, again attacking him for his healthcare history.  He waffles a bit, first taking him to task for watering down legislation, but then giving him credit for chastizing insurance companies.

But the primary point is that Krugman faults Obama for compromizing.  Yes, he faults the man for doing exactly what he promises to do when he gets into the White House which is to quit playing partisan warrior and try and hammer out solutions despite party-line gridlock.  He grudgingly cedes that Obama was successful, but then warns that he won’t be successful in the White House.

No, the White House must have a hardcore left leaning warrior.

The only glaring hole in Mr. Krugman’s analysis is not merely the fact that he brushes far too easily over the fact that Obama was successful, but also that the last time someone was in the White House and did try to bully a more liberal healthcare plan into law, she not only failed, but she took the entire prospect off the table for fifteen years.

Her name is Hillary Clinton, and I would like to remind everyone that this is the kind of experience she promises to bring to the White House.

In fact, it’s important to know that White House aides have since then acknowledged that Hillary’s involvement with healthcare that sunk the motion in the first place.  Which all brings me back to a point that I return to from time to time.

There seems to be a divide right now among both Democrats and the left in general on how to see the world.  There are those who believe that every battle should be entrenched, dig in your heels, and don’t give an inch, while others, myself included, feel there are some battles that you have to treat as such, but there are many other battles where compromise is necessary.

This is particularly true when you are trying to get something that isn’t there before.  So, for something like torture, which on principle we disagree with mightily, but thus far enough controls and restrictions are apparently not in place to keep it from happening, you dig in, and you don’t budge an inch.  On the other hand, for something like universal healthcare which we don’t have, and must be judicious in plotting our path to attaining, the only thing that not budging an inch will achieve is not gaining an inch.

After all, Obama may not have hit paydirt, but he moved the ball.  Hillary, on the other hand, just got sacked for a loss of yards.  Which seems more favorable to you?

No Responses to “The Glaring Hole Krugman Missed”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. On Krugman’s Attacks and Hillary’s Actual Experience | The State We’re In - A Look at Dishonesty in America. - [...] E. Moore writes a nice post at Comments from Left Field where in he states: The only glaring hole…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook