Krugman - Lessons of 1992...

'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.

Now, I’m not sure that’s a fair characterization of the 1992 Clinton campaign, which had a strong streak of populism, beginning with a speech in which Mr. Clinton described the 1980s as a “gilded age of greed.” Still, to the extent that Barack Obama 2008 does sound like Bill Clinton 1992, here’s my question: Has everyone forgotten what happened after the 1992 election?

Let’s review the sad tale, starting with the politics.' http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/opinion/28krugman.html?ex=1359176400&en=403bdab91438a4d4&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

...here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=334613&mesg_id=334613

I'd really appreciate a kick and rec on that, too, if that's not too much of a bother. Good article it is!

but i'll still kick it cause i'm a nice person ;)

...can't hurt.

Thanks for the Kick. Here's a Rec for you.

:hug:

"...The blame is widely shared. Yes, Bill Clinton has been somewhat boorish (though I can’t make sense of the claims that he’s somehow breaking unwritten rules, which seem to have been newly created for the occasion). But many Obama supporters also seem far too ready to demonize their opponents.

"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."

Word, Mr. Krugman.