Paul Krugman on Obama's Pennsylvania defeat

Anyone interested in the Democratic primary (and who isn't?) should read Paul Krugman's excellent column in the April 25th issue of the NY Times. Krugman suggests that perhaps Hillary managed to triumph in Pennsylvania (despite heavy odds) because of her no-nonsense style, her command of details, her economic policies-- that these resonate with voters "in a way that Obama's eloquence does not."

Krugman's analysis of how the Obama campaign has slipped over from "Yes we can" to "No she can't" is enlightening. As is Krugman's observation that the Obama campaign has "put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton's health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage." Krugman has elsewhere pointed out in convincing detail the clear superiority of Hillary's health care plan. In this column he goes on to question whether the supposed "new politics" espoused by the Obama campaign is a useful way to clarify the huge disparity between Bush politics and the Democrats' message. The Democrats, he says, can (and should) present themselves as the party of prosperity and economic security-- the party responsible for Social Security and Medicare, the party responsible for the splendid surpluses of the Clinton years. Indeed, the "contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement the Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover." Yet the Obama campaign's "new politics" tries to blame both parties for our current disastrous situation. Krugman sees that tactic as very dangerous-- "a self-inflicted state of confusion." Even, perhaps, a recipe for defeat in the fall.