In his
column in today's New York Times, "Deliverance or Diversion", Paul Krugman continues his "assault" on Barack Obama. Here is a letter I sent to the Times.
In his column today, Paul Krugman writes:"And some Illinois legislators apparently feel that even [in the Illinois state senate] Mr. Obama got a bit more glory than he deserved. 'No one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit,' one state senator complained to a local journalist."
The "some" appears to be "one", and he doesn't even say who that "one" is. Krugman is now truly grasping at straws in his ongoing effort to trivialize Barack Obama. In recent months, he has appeared to be having a "temper tantrum" because things aren't going the way that he deems they should in the Democratic primaries. I say he should "get over it". Either that or stick to economics, his area of expertise.
And speaking of economics, has Krugman ever written about Obama's formidable group of economic advisors, or isn't that relevant?
Don't hold your breath waiting for this to appear (How many times have I written this?) The Times doesn't mind sarcasm from some of its columnists, but apparently not from its readers. Krugman is one of Princeton's professors, so I guess we should add them to the list, which already includes former First Ladies and "cultural columnists", of those who feel "entitled" to have elections go the way they think they should.
As for Obama's advisers, economic and otherwise, here are two excerpts from
The Opinionator, a blog at the "Times Online" hosted by Tobin Harshaw and
Chris Suellentrop.
The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber analyzes Barack Obama’s policy shop. “Sociologically, the Obamanauts have a lot in common with the last gang of Democratic outsiders to make a credible run at the White House,” Scheiber writes. “Like Bill Clinton in 1992, Obama’s campaign boasts a cadre of credentialed achievers.” He continues:
Intellectually, however, the Obamanauts couldn’t be more different. Clinton delighted in surrounding himself with big-think public intellectuals — like economics commentator Robert Reich and political philosopher Bill Galston. You’d be hard-pressed to find a political philosopher in Obama’s inner wonk-dom. His is dominated by a group of first-rate economists, beginning with [the University of Chicago’s Austan] Goolsbee, one of the profession’s most respected tax experts.
The difference between Bill Clinton’s 1992 team and Obama’s is “the difference between science-fiction writers and engineers,” Scheiber says. “Reich and Galston are the kinds of people who’d sketch out the idea for time travel in a moment of inspiration. Goolsbee et al. could rig up the DeLorean that would actually get you back to 1955.”
and
Greg Mankiw, the Harvard economist who served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush, likes Obama’s team of wonks a lot more than he likes the candidate. “Absolutely true,” Mankiw writes on his blog, responding to the idea that Obama’s policy shop is “surprisingly non-ideological.” But Mankiw adds, “But I doubt any of those excellent economists in the policy shop would be willing to defend the anti-NAFTA, anti-Walmart rhetoric of their candidate.”
I know, I know, Obama may not be able to deliver on his promises, or he may not follow his advisers' recommendations, as implied above. Nevertheless, I feel that he is enough of a heavyweight to make it worth a try. As for Hillary's recent television ad about who would you want answering the phone in the White House at 3:00 AM, the idea that as First Lady she obtained foreign policy experience is laughable. An example of
her inexperience was her over-simplified reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, which I dealt with in an earlier
post.
Well, enough of this already! Krugman may be "grasping", but I appear to be "harping."
