Krugman takes another shot at Obama

In today's NY Times, Paul Krugman discusses the various candidates economic stimulus plans. The Republicans, he concludes, don't have any. He praises the plans set forth by Edwards and later Hillary and then has this to say about Obama's plans:

The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?

Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.

For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.

In short, the stimulus debate offers a pretty good portrait of the men and woman who would be president. And I haven’t said a word about their hairstyles.

I sometimes wonder whether Krugman has a grudge against Obama. On the other hand, all his criticisms I've seen seem fair. Obama has been less progressive than his rivals on domestic policy -- at least on health care and economic stimulus.

I still like Edwards best, but let's face it, the press has destroyed him. On one of the talking heads shows yesterday I heard one commentator say something like, "Edwards seems to be the only one that doesn't realize his candidacy is a comedic sideshow." Being dismissed as laughable like that puts him out of the running.

That leaves Obama and Clinton. I've indicated here that I have some misgivings about Clinton. First, I really don't like the family political dynasties that this country seems to be growing. Second, I fear Hillary would want to hang on to many of the powers Bush has arrogated unto himself. I will give her credit for having made some contrary noises in recent weeks, but she certainly hasn't been out front in public about this in the past. On the other hand, I'm somewhat disconcerted by Obama's unwillingness to take more progressive positions on some of the issues.

So, I haven't decided for sure which I prefer. One's thing's certain though. Whichever gets the nod will get my wholehearted support in the general election campaign. Isn't it great to have a wealth of good candidates?