Krugman vs. ObamaThere is no question that I will vote for President this fall and I will gladly vote for whoever ends up as the Democratic candidate. As I believe is the case for most fellow Dems, we're got a number of candidates that I would be proud to vote for (although I'm still hoping for a John Edwards miracle). However, a number of Paul Krugman's columns have echoed some misgivings I've had about the Obama campaign (I differentiate the campaign from the way I think Obama would actually preside were he to win) - he seems determined to stake out territory to the right of Edwards and Clinton and I think that's exactly the wrong place to be. If he does nothing else, Edwards has framed much of the debate of this campaign and Clinton seems to be following fairly close behind. Obama's approach seems in most cases to be along sort of similar lines but not nearly as aggressive and his criticisms of Edwards' and Clinton's position and policies are fuel for the Repuglicans when the real campaign begins. As Krugman's last column points out, Obama's praise of Ronald Reagan (which Obama has backed away from) rightfully comes under fire. Any Democrat that thinks that Reagan was a good president (while he ignored the growing AIDS crisis, dealt secretly and illegally with Iran, turned out tens of thousands of people from mental institutions into the street and was responsible for an economy that started the serious increase in the gap between rich and poor) needs to rethink where they think their priorities are.
I want to like the guy, I really do. And if he wins the nomination, I will vote for him without hesitation and with a smile on my face. But I hope he rethinks his approach now rather than waiting until his opponent is a Republican rather than a fellow Dem.