<p>In it, Mark McKinnon, McCain’s chief media adviser, is asked about his statement (in an upcoming Texas Monthly interview and one other place) that if Obama is the Dem candidate, McKinnon won’t work in the general election.</p>
<p>I found that fascinating. </p>
<p>As a side note (since the Krugman thread has morphed into healthcare), I think Krugman’s been fair–if unrelenting–in his columns on Obama and healthcare. And if you read Krugman on any sort of a regular basis, you’d know and understand a lot more about healthcare, since it’s one of Krugman’s primary concerns–as it should be for any economist. </p>
<p>And, as others have pointed out, ad hominem attacks on Krugman (no facts? puh-leeze) just make the attacker look, well, uninformed.</p>
<p>Krugman’s worry that Obama is going to hit a brick wall with his non-partisanship tack is understandable, but I think the interview I cited above illustrates very well that Obama is a phenomenon we haven’t seen in a very long time–if ever. The excitement and passion he’s generating may–just may–be enough to surmount the vicious and immoral politics we’ve seen.</p>
<p>I don’t know. I’m too old and jaded to jump heedlessly into Obama-mania myself, but I sure love watching all the folks who are.</p>
<p>I think we saw the same thing in 1960 and 1980 – someone with charisma who was very talented in speaking in terms that resonate with the current zeitgeist. </p>
<p>For what it’s worth, I am still flabbergasted that people pay so much attention to speaking skill and looks in politicians. On the other hand, those were the major attractions of Reagan and Kennedy, so – there you go. I’ve been outvoted.</p>
<p>WashDad, I think the value of speaking skills has been illustrated by the Current Occupant of the White House. And, heck, we do have to listen to that person quite a lot, so why not have someone who speaks well and inspirationally.</p>
<p>I don’t think that speaking skill in and of itself is so important for a president, but uniting and inspiring citizens to action is very important. And obviously speaking skill plays a large role in that.</p>
<p>Well, as someone who criticized Krugman for providing more rhetoric than facts in his columns, I will stand my ground. Krugman the scholar and Krugman the columnist seem to be quite different people. As I’ve said, I came to that conclusion before the campaign, before he wrote one word about Obama. The fact that I tend to agree with many of the things he writes is neither here nor there. What is important is that he comes across as intemperate and partisan. This, by the way, is also the opinion of some people who have known him personally for a long, long time and are staunch supporters of Clinton. As for health care expertise, David Cutler, the Harvard economist who advises Obama, has been described as the foremost expert on health care. He may or may not be THE expert, but he can hold his ground against Krugman on this issue.</p>
<p>Ah ha! The part of language arts that has gone to hell in a hand-basket. (Now what in the world does that mean. I just know it’s right.) I have a young-un who is involved in mock trial proceedings and is over the moon. All that drama, music performance, being on stage really has a place in the end.</p>
<p>Marite, my guess is that the fact that Krugman the scholar and Krugman the columnist are different–whether by design or temperament–is one reason why he’s the latter for the NY Times.</p>
<p>I think I’m not offended by Krugman because I tend to share his partisanship. ;)</p>
<p>I’m bookmarking this to listen to later because I heard only the tailend of the piece on NPR - I’m very concerned about Obama’s published positions vs rhetoric - how can he orchestrate bipartisanship and consensus building when his positions are so far left of the general American public? Krugman definitely sounds like he has an agenda, but Obama sounds naive.</p>
<p>Obama and Clinton are well to the right of the American public on the aggressive, hostile occupation, on NAFTA and so-called “free trade”. They are both rightwing Dems - I happen to prefer one to the other, but has nothing to do with “positions” on the issues.</p>
<p>limner: tend to agree with much of what Krugman writes, too, but I don’t read the paper to see myself think. I am not offended by him, just disappointed that he does not make a better case for his positions, which are, in most cases, positions I share. I also wonder if his columns persuade anyone not yet on his wavelength. I am dismayed that criticizing anyone these days is considered tantamount to hating that someone.</p>
<p>marite, you’re right. I can’t imagine that Krugman’s columns persuade anyone not already on his side of the partisan line. I guess I do sometimes read to see myself think, at least after I’ve read one of Kristol’s column’s and need to bring down my blood pressure.</p>
<p>And you had stated in an earlier post that you didn’t necessarily disagree with Krugman’s positions (maybe in the Krugman vs. Obama thread), so I wasn’t assuming that your criticisms stemmed from disagreement with him.</p>
<p>WashDad, until recently I had the exact same feeling as you! I never understood the emphasis on facade over substance. Never voted for someone on personality, but on policy. </p>
<p>Now I’ve been wowed by Obama and Michelle, I get it. And despite myself, I have admit I’m now like everyone else when it comes to being influenced this way. Never been excited about any politician, ever, until now. </p>
<p>On the upside, there are true benefits to a charismatic national leader, especially at certain times. Moreover, the reality of politics today means you really don’t actually learn a whole lot about what politicans will really do in office anyhow. By design, these elections are full of sound bites, generalities, false promises, and hard-to-disagree-with platitudes. No surprise then, voters have to put so much stock in how someone speaks or how good their speech writer is.</p>
<p>I want to also add that I think the empty nature of campaigns is also the explanation for the negativity we often see. I despise the negativity, but often its the only way real issues are brought up. Only through one’s opponent aree substantive issues or specifics brought to the surface for debate (because surely the politicans themselves are never going to offer it up about themselves and take the risk of being to specific).</p>
<p>Because speaking skills are a tool to get things done. MLK and Lincoln used their rhetorical and oratory skills to do things.</p>
<p>Obama has clearly used his rhetorical and oratory skills to do something: become the frontrunner for the nomination. In the general, he will use those skills to get elected President (if he gets in the general).</p>
<p>But now, having parlayed his oratory skills into a remarkable position atop the nomination front runner podium, informed voters would like to see something other than oratory. I want to see some concrete policy talked about in his speeches; I want him to engage HRC on healthcare (though I know, given his comparative policy weakness, that is anathema to him - engaging her could be suicidal). I’m tired of hearing about how “inspiring” and “hopeful” Obama is. I want to hear about how good his policies will be! And so far, there has been a lot of the former and little of the latter.</p>
<p>I don’t read Kristol, as well, but that’s because, like you, it would make my blood pressure go up. Another person I know will be predictable, and predictably, I will disagree with.</p>
<p>I’ve said elsewhere that debates are not the proper forum for discussing in detail complex policy issues; nor are rallies. Obama has plenty of ideas on a variety of issues. And guess what, for the most part, they do not differ significantly from Clinton’s. The greatest area of difference is health care. And on this, I side with Obama.<br>
I’ve already stated elsewhere that my own state, MA, is grappling with its commitment to provide health care for all. No sense penalizing those who do not buy health insurance because they cannot afford it. But it grossly underestimated the number of uninsured, as a result of which the cost of health care is double what it had estimated. How many states could afford to pass such budget-breaking reforms? Schwarzenneger cannot. To be for Obama’s health care is not to abandon one’s commitment to extend health care to all; it’s to be realistic as to what can be done in this environment, then seek to push the envelope.</p>
<p>marite: Then what is the right forum for policy debates? So far, Clinton has seemed far more inclined to engage in substantive debate on policy than Obama, and while both have similar policies, I feel her basic understanding of policy is significantly better, which is why Obama seeks so much to avoid debate with her on that turf.</p>
<p>As for the specifics of healthcare, I have read a few articles that suggest that Clinton’s healthcare plan would cover more than Obama’s for a similar cost. I’ve also read others that think that both suck, some that like Obama’s more… it’s a bit of a mess, but as one of the single most important issues this cycle, it needs to be examined in detail, not covered under inspired rhetoric about “hope” and “change”.</p>