The case against Obama, by Paul Krugman (in two parts):
1- the mandate muddle
2- big table fantasies
In each case Obama tries to stake out some "non-ideological" or "post-ideological" terrain, which seem thought out less for policy merit and more for how to avoid provoking Republican wrath. The idea seems to be that by framing issues in ways that Republicans are comfortable with they will feel less threatened and will be more open to working with Dems to get stuff done. He's a charming guy, but is he that charming?
This post highlights what a Democratic President would face in '09. This is the one area where Obama strikes me as the weakest of the three candidates.
1- the mandate muddle
2- big table fantasies
In each case Obama tries to stake out some "non-ideological" or "post-ideological" terrain, which seem thought out less for policy merit and more for how to avoid provoking Republican wrath. The idea seems to be that by framing issues in ways that Republicans are comfortable with they will feel less threatened and will be more open to working with Dems to get stuff done. He's a charming guy, but is he that charming?
This post highlights what a Democratic President would face in '09. This is the one area where Obama strikes me as the weakest of the three candidates.
This is a good summary of the Dems stump speeches.
and, finally, here's some video humor:
kant
jefferson
romney
huckabee
dem comp
gop comp
No comments:
Post a Comment