NYTimes' Paul Krugman: (On Not Heeding the) Lessons of 1992

The only remaining credible columnist on the pages of the New York Times reminds us of what things were really like, politics-wise, in 1992.

(Emphasis mine)


==============

Op-Ed Columnist

Lessons of 1992

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: January 28, 2008



It’s starting to feel a bit like 1992 again. A Bush is in the White House, the economy is a mess, and there’s a candidate who, in the view of a number of observers, is running on a message of hope, of moving past partisan differences, that resembles Bill Clinton’s campaign 16 years ago.

(...)

Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried.

This bitter partisanship wasn’t the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.

For those who are reaching for their smelling salts because Democratic candidates are saying slightly critical things about each other, it’s worth revisiting those years, simply to get a sense of what dirty politics really looks like.

No accusation was considered too outlandish: a group supported by Jerry Falwell put out a film suggesting that the Clintons had arranged for the murder of an associate, and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page repeatedly hinted that Bill Clinton might have been in cahoots with a drug smuggler.

So what good did Mr. Clinton’s message of inclusiveness do him?

(...)


================

Read the entire article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


(Edited title for clarity)

Is Krugman that desperate for a job in her administration?

Because it certainly wasn't what was in the printed text. :shrug: :eyes:

...because he isn't jumping on the overloaded anti-Clinton bandwagon like majority of the media are doing doesn't mean he's so desperate about his career and wants something from them. Please take your blinders off, my friend.

Has it ever occurred to you that he mightjust be seeing things with a clearer perspective from the rest of the pundits, whose vision is constantly obscured by the fog of unreasonable anti-Clinton hatred? Go through Mr Krugman's previous columns over the years and tell me who else has been writing more genuinely about economic issues amongst the Maureen Dowds, the Frank Riches, etc. of the once-highly esteemed NYT (it's still hanging on to that title thanks only to writers like Krugman).

Thank you.

I just finished reading the whole piece myself and I have no idea what you are referring to.

Perhaps you are reading something or reading something into it that I am not.

The last paragraph is golden:

What the Democrats should do is get back to talking about issues — a focus on issues has been the great contribution of John Edwards to this campaign — and about who is best prepared to push their agenda forward. Otherwise, even if a Democrat wins the general election, it will be 1992 all over again. And that would be a bad thing.

They would throw the election to Edawrds.
Clinton/Obama MUST keep this election about the Horse Race, and "Hope" or "Change" but NEVER discuss "Issues".

about the true structure and intent of our government and our elected representatives. And we can't have that, now can we?

I'll say again, American politicians like the American electorate fat, dumb and happy. Just like cattle headed for slaughter.

That sounds like pandering to Hillary to *you*?

I recall Republicans (Gingrich?) crowing right after the election in '92 that they were going to go after Clinton on Day 1, and not let up for a minute. They didn't. I think whoever the nominee is can look forward to the same treatment.

control of every resource, and to bleed every last memory of democratic idealism from the Public soul. Mission Accomplished will be acheived when wealth is concentrated at the top and there are no stratifications underneath. This enslavement will be mostly voluntary, even though that is hard to believe. This enslavement will not be permanent because the Earth's resources are finite, and will intensify inhospitable living conditions.

Welcome to the New World Globalization, Citizen. Master bids you Greetings for your brief stay.

NoFederales

president is under attack 24/7 from Matthews and Blitzer right down to every local Limpballs wannabe. I have some ideas...

He calls out that the Clinton is "too divisive" and thus would be a hindrance in the White House as nothing would get done, promoting the absurd notion that if he were president, all of that would magically disappear in a cloud of cheery non-partisan hand-holding.

The reality is that conservative hatred is going to be directed at any Democrat in office, and Obama is demonstrating by the day that he is wholly unprepared for the coming shit-storm that is the right-wing agenda.

Before I read this thread I posted this on DU:

Barack Obama is the 2008 version of Bill Clinton's 1992 "New Democrat"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4244229&mesg_id=4245615

I have a difficult time trying to find actual issues Obama's supporters are fundamentally prepared to discuss.

...much too defensive most of the time, pushing all this 'inspiration', 'change' and 'fresh face' stuff all the time. Right now, we need someone more practical, competent, who knows the ropes, and who'll hit the ground running on his/her first day. Personally, I've given up looking for more meaty discussions from them on DU or anywhere else on the 'net, since it's all about the saintliness and exceptionalism of their perfect candidate. (I know that the one I support isn't perfect - no one is!)

edwards, hillary and Obama are very similar on most issues. the big difference are in their personalities, leadership styles, and rhetoric, among other factors and "intangibles".

we have 3 great liberals running great campaigns, but the policy differences are very minor. besides, Gore and Kerry spent a lot of time detailing the issues and the nuances of their policy plans. I don't remember that working out too well.

and that is precisely why I compare them (some) to the Bush followers...there is no discussion..just knee jerk name calling..I can't tell you how many times I;ve been called a racist since I joined DU. very sad.

Aren't they all?

:kick:

And if you doubt it, ask Bob Dole. He got his butt kicked. You can't kick butt without gathering the support of many segments of the population.