If you have "no place to go," come here!

If there were a Nobel prize for Obotics, Paul Krugman would surely win it

I believe that letsgetitdone has a more comprehensive takedown of this loathesome crotte of modified rapture and excuse-making from Krugman in Rolling Stone, but thought I'd just call attention to this one statement, if only to show you that I read all the way to the end:

I don't care about the fact that Obama hasn't lived up to the golden dreams of 2008...

Well, I care. A lot.

First, note the curious lack of agency in Krugman's phrasing: "The golden dreams of 2008." Well, did people find those dreams under a cabbage leaf, or were they consciously crafted, say by the Obama campaign? Of course they were, and these "dreams" were also used by adherents of that campaign to whip me and people like me out of the Democratic party. Not that I'm not happy to have been defenestrated, as it turns out, but it certainly was painful at the time, and after.

So who's responsible for turning those "golden dreams" to dross, instead of making them real? Well, that would be Obama and the Democrats themselves, who didn't abolish the filibuster with the "nuclear option" in 2009, and drive a stake through the heart of the Republican obstructionism they've been whining about ever since. (And if Reid can drop a mini-nuclear option to get a few judges through in 2013, why the heck didn't Democrats do the same thing in 2009, when it might have mattered on policy? A question that answers itself, once asked.)

Finally, I really take exception to Krugman's "church of the savvy"-style sneering. A lot of people, many of them innocently, many of them desperate, bought the dreams that Obama sold them. After Lehman went down and Obama won going away, Republicans were completely discredited, and the country was ready for a second FDR. And what did they get? Besides the largest upward transfer in world history -- from them -- and no prosecutions whatever of bankster executives? They got this. Pavlina Tcherneva's famous chart:

Come on. Shouldn't even a career "progressive" like Krugman be able to tell the difference between losing golden dream and being completely fucked?

Obama's a superlative con man, and the American people were conned. So what's Krugman doing? He's cooling the mark [source]. Shame!

No votes yet


jo6pac's picture
Submitted by jo6pac on

hope you have or will post this over at Ives. The guy has always been a sell out to corp. owned media.

Submitted by lambert on

It might be a good link, though. We'll see. Probably Let's massive demolition will be more appropriate.

However, "cooling the mark" is gold. I hope it propagates.

albrt's picture
Submitted by albrt on

Why is Krugman writing for Rolling Stone?

In other words, why does Krugman suddenly feel a need to reach out to white males five to ten years younger than himself who don't read the New York Times?

I assume it's because the New York Times is no longer sufficient, but the Rolling Stone demographic is about as far as he thinks he can reach.

Rainbow Girl's picture
Submitted by Rainbow Girl on

Maybe Rolling Stone is trying to patch up the gash created by Taibbi's formerly non-Obotic coverage of financial class warfare and looting. Krugman would be the perfect bandaid for that, especially since he is so ignorant on basic facts re finance.

Rainbow Girl's picture
Submitted by Rainbow Girl on

Another pretend discipline, like economics of political "science."

The Swedish bank that made up the pretend economix "Nobel" to give the neo-liberal class warfare looting programme an air of Very Serious Seriousness should sprout a cousin pretend "Nobel" for Obotics to honor all and any who scribe for the lackey politicians (Obama being only Exhibit 1 at the moment) who are busy using our government infrastructure to aid and abet the elite looters.