Paul Krugman never ceases to amaze...

And, no, I don't mean that in a complementary way.

I essentially agree with the column on his blog today which says that even without the public option, progressives would have to be nuts to oppose health care reform. But he can't resist getting off a swipe at President Obama: "A lot of people seem shocked to find that [Obama’s] not the transformative figure of their imaginations. Can I say I told you so?"

Nobody like a guy who says "I told you so," Paul...

And, besides that, no. I disagree. You're completely wrong about Obama.

Krugman faults Obama for not being bold enough with his proposals, starting with the stimulus plan. But, as I alluded to a week or two ago, Obama always had an uphill climb. Because of a united GOP minority, moronic parliamentary procedure, and an idiotic band of blue dog Democrats, a minority of senators have the power to do serious damage to the Obama agenda. And Obama has been very mindful of that fact -- much to his credit.

A lot of my fellow Democrats can't understand why the GOP was allowed to get away with so much under George Bush, and the Democrats get away with so little. I think the answer essentially lies in what Van Jones said: It's because the Republicans are assholes. (Not you, my dear GOP readers, whoever you are. I'm speaking purely of the party bosses and the elected leaders.)

Say what you will about the GOP, when it comes to votes, there is not much room allowed for dissent. They rigidly enforced party loyalty and cracked the whip when a senator or two had an attack of conscience. But most Republicans didn't need the crack of the whip. They are inherently a lot more loyal to their party than Democrats. And they are always thinking of the party's interests.

The GOP would never allow Joe Lieberman to fuck around with them like the Democrats have. And, yes, Democrats can learn something from them. After healthcare is passed do I think Lieberman should be punished? Without question. Given the fact that Lieberman was basically a Republican on foreign policy, it makes little sense to keep him in the caucus if he's turning against the party on domestic affairs as well. Lieberman's last few years in the senate should be made as unpleasant and as humiliating as possible for him. A message should be sent that there are limits to the amount of dissent the party will tolerate. (Allowing dissent is one thing; turning the Democratic party into Joe Lieberman's personal doormat is something else.)

But the question is: where, Mr. Krugman, does Mr. Obama's fault lie in all this?

Obama had two choices when he came into office:

1) Take as conciliatory a tone as possible, try to pick off Republicans, and keep the Democratic coalition as cohesive as he could.

2) Declare war on Republicans and ram as much Progressive legislation through as he can.

Obviously, Obama picked option (1) -- but let's briefly try to imagine what would have happened if Obama picked option (2).

Let's say he said: "The stimulus cannot be less than $1 trillion. Any lesser number will not do."

When the $787 billion plan actually passed the vote was 61 to 38. Does Krugman really think Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter would have all voted for it if the figure was higher? Please. And Obama might have lost a few blue dog Democrats in the process. If he had lost two votes on the stimulus, it could have been filibustered.

So, instead of a $1 trillion stimulus, we would have gotten nothing.

This is Paul Krugman's solution?

As for healthcare, let's say Obama pulled a Bill Clinton. Let's say in his speech before Congress back in September he held up a pen and said that he would veto any legislation that did not include a public option.

I don't see how that would change anything as it currently stands now -- except it would have been highly embarrassing for Obama when the public option was rejected. There are at least four Democrats who are refusing to vote for anything that smacks of a public option. Nothing would delight Joe Lieberman more than sticking the knife into Barack Obama. (He might do it anyway -- even if he gets all he says he wants.)

I don't see how Obama taking a more aggressive stand would do anything. Let's say instead of appeasing Lieberman, Harry Ried started threatening him: If you don't vote for it you're out of the caucus. You lose your seniority. You're getting the shittiest committee assignments out there. We are declaring war on you.

I doubt very much that this would change Lieberman's vote. It might. But it might also prevent him from voting for a healthcare bill that doesn't have a public option in it. Which is much better than nothing. And (unfortunately) the Democrats have to keep their powder dry until after this vote.

Sorry Paul. Obama isn't the problem. Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson are the problem. If you wrote a column about what assholes they were, then you can tell me you told me so.

Lieberman's political gamble

I think there's something slightly off in the most recent spate of Joe Lieberman coverage.

Nate Silver points out the myriad reasons why Lieberman coming out against the public option make no sense politically.

He's not winning over any voters. He doesn't owe the insurance lobby the kinds of favors one might think. And he's risking his seniority.

Moreover, substantively this is outrageous. Jonathan Chait points out why saying that healthcare reform hurts the economic recovery is an utterly spurious argument.

So a lot of writers are now in Sigmund Freud mode: Lieberman's doing this to get attention. He's doing this to lash out at the Democratic party. He's doing this to fit with his "holier than thou" persona (which made him so unbearable) and that he's convinced himself that the only Democrat who's being "responsible" fiscally speaking.

All of these psychological explanations have some merit -- but I think it's slightly off, in that there is a political method to this madness. Politically Joe Lieberman has nothing to lose. He has to know at this point that his career in politics is more or less over. His best bet is a cabinet position in some sort of future GOP administration. And maybe that's what he's shoring himself up for. Democratic catastrophe = Joe Lieberman's ascent to the hearts of the radical right = Secretary of Defense in the Romney administration.

Do I think this has a realistic chance of happening? Who knows. Lieberman might hurt the final bill quite a bit. He could force Harry Reid to take the public option out of the final bill. But would he go so far as to filibuster if the final bill didn't contain the public option? I find that difficult to believe -- but then nothing Lieberman does could surprise me that much.

But it's not such a stretch to believe that Lieberman is hoping for a Democratic failure for more than just psychological satisfaction. This is his best road to some sort of future in politics.

Sorry!

I realize I have not been blogging much over the last week. (Or at all, if we're going to be honest.) Call it euphoria over our new President. And the fact that I was blogging for Jewcy (although, in honesty, that was over a week ago). And a tremendous amount of work...

But, like the President-elect, I promise change.

I also looked over some of my old blog posts and realized I never quite updated my readers on my travels in Italy... my mistake. I will write up a post either tonight or tomorrow about some of the places in Campania and Rome where you can find a decent slice of pizza. And as for my adventures in Italy in general, I wrote most of it into a travel piece for the Post's travel web site. It should be up next week. I'll be sure to link to it.

Also, I have a number of book recommendations waiting for my bored readers, restaurant reviews waiting for my hungry readers and two movies I'm dying to tell you about. At least one of these things will be up today.

As for political musings, well, they will be fewer and farther between in the future -- thank the good lord the campaign is finally over. (Although I actually found myself agreeing with Bill Maher a week or two ago when one of his "New Rules" was to stop wishing that the election was over. "This is the most exciting election of all time!" he screamed. He's right.)

As one of the Obama supporters who feels slightly aimless now that the job is finished (I'm no longer checking Fivethirtyeight, Talking Points Memo and Andrew Sullivan 18 times a day) I think it'll be good to actually start thinking about things a little more lofty than the latest Virginia Rasmussen poll.

But because we're all sort of still addicted to the history and drama of it all, I would strongly recommend shelling out $5.95 for the latest issue of Newsweek for one last hurrah. (Or reading it online.)

It was a tremendous seven-part chronicle of the campaign -- and even though there was a lot I knew, there was much I didn't. (Moreover, when you start reading it all the anger and frustration and excitement starts to return.)

It really starts getting good when you get to the section on the post-Palin McCain campaign. (Greeting Mark Salter and Steve Schmidt in nothing but a towel is a classic! Straight out of a movie! Maybe even a blue movie!)

While I remain convinced that Palin was probably the worst pick McCain could have made politically (doomed to do much more harm than good) you've got to hand it to Johnny Mac -- he definitely spiced things up. An already dramatic campaign became downright surreal. And I think that when you get right down to it -- aside from the fact that the country is in shambles, every one was really eager change, etc. -- the thing that made this campaign so compelling was because it was a really odd cast of characters who did the strangest things under pressure.

Half of them were very familiar players who had already made their mark on our collective consciousness (McCain, the Clintons, Biden) and half of them were a total mystery (Obama, Palin). Obama was everything we could have hope for; Palin was a walking nightmare. It wasn't just that her gaffes were so numerous -- it was that they were so unexpected. You knew some bomb was going to go off -- you just didn't know where or when. The $150,000 shopping spree was something that, frankly, I didn't much care about (pretty silly stuff when you get right down to it) -- but it was such a bush league thing to be caught out on! Those interviews filled with gibberish! The fact that she didn't know Africa was a continent?!? (How can that be taken "out of context"?) And the meek defenses from Bill Kristol et al.

But the more interesting thing (as far as I was concerned) was seeing how Obama caught so many tried and true people off guard.

The Hillary implosion (wonderfully detailed in the Newsweek piece) was something pretty shocking to behold. Her staff was just about dysfunctional as the current administration. (Which I know is slightly unfair -- but really only slightly). Bill, who had spent his entire life courting the love of blacks, showed his ugliest and most mean-spirited side.

Who could have guessed that the handsome, white male from a southern state (Edwards) would have been the least electable of the bunch?

And how could John McCain -- every Democrat's favorite Republican -- have allowed himself to fall so far so quickly? How could a man of such good sense put himself in the hands of such ideological fruitcakes? (I think he was more out of it than he let on, after reading the Newsweek article. He was, apparently, stunned to find himself badly behind in New Hampshire with only a few days to go.)

And what of all the cross party shenanigans?! Colin Powell and Ken Adelman endorsing Obama -- and the former Democratic VP nominee being vetted to be the GOP VP nominee?! (Although that wasn't a first. John C. Calhoun -- the ideological father of secessionism -- was VP under John Quincy Adams and then under his rival, Andrew Jackson.)

(For the record, Josh Marshall had the best thing for Harry Reid to say to Joe Lieberman about keeping his committee chair: "My offer is this. Nothing.")

OK. Maybe there will be political musings in the future...

Sabotage!

OK, Sean Wilentz gets the award for biggest douchebag of the week.

In this week's Newsweek he likens Barack Obama to... (wait for it) Jimmy Carter.

Jesus, these Clintonites are spoiled brats!

The assumptions and criticisms in this incredibly stupid piece are really too petty (and in some cases just too ridiculous) to dive into one by one. And Wilentz (whose book, The Age of Reagan, I am reluctant to admit I liked) takes out a number of insurance policies: "As a lifelong Democrat who supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton during the primaries, I would like to see him succeed in fulfilling his promise," he writes.

And then proceeds to trash everything about Obama -- including the fact that he was right about the Iraq war... (Obama is dismissed by Wilentz as a mere state senator at the time of the vote, and his antiwar speech didn't warrant a mention in the Chicago Tribune. Well, I'll take Obama's more humble perch if it's a voice and a vote against that stupid adventure, thank you very much.)

Towards the end, Wilentz takes out another insurance policy: The press didn't do their "professional duty" by not raking Obama over the coals during the primary.

Whatever.

I seem to remember a hell of a lot of stories about Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko and all the rest from late last year until now. If Wilentz really thinks that these weren't issues that the Obama campaign didn't overcome than Wilentz really wasn't paying attention.

Of course, Wilentz is free to say what he chooses. But if he really thinks that this kind of article is "helpful" to the Democratic Party (and that he's just asking the questions Obama needs to answer) he's stupider than I know he is. We should call this what it is: a political hit job for his buddies, Bill and Hillary.

Second place for douche of the week goes to the always-good-for-an-angry-Max-Gross-rant Joe Lieberman.

Please shut up. Please.

I've generally avoided talking politics on this blog (mostly because I'd like liberal and conservative alike to buy FSTS) but I have to get this off my chest:

Joe Lieberman might be the biggest douche bag on the planet.

And my hatred is partially born out of the fact that (for a few years, anyway) I defended Lieberman from attacks by my fellow lefties. I thought that there was a lot of piling on. But I think Lieberman's intentions on Iraq were more noble than the administration's. And I don't discount Lieberman's youth when he marched for civil rights -- which required real physical courage in the 1960s. (For an excellent discussion of the courage required, pick up Rick Perlstein's great new book, Nixonland.)

But, I have to say, he's really been disgracing himself in his advocacy for John McCain.

If he had simply endorsed McCain it would have been an act of stunning disloyalty to the party. But I get that McCain and Lieberman are friends, so I could have understood this. (E.M. Forster once said that if he had to betray his friend of his country, he hoped he would have the guts to betray his country.)

It's the fact that he's made himself into an attack dog against Obama that is unconscionable.

I didn't watch his appearance on Meet the Press this morning but I read the transcript. When Lieberman says that Obama is a "good young man" I thought he was being enormously condescending. Barack Obama is a man in his late-forties. A father. A husband. A senator. The author of two best selling books. He's older than JFK was when he was shot. Lieberman talks about him like he's a precocious college student.

And as for the substance of Lieberman's critique -- that he's unready -- I don't know, Joe. He's demonstrated throughout the campaign intelligence and grit. You weren't savvy enough to win the Democratic primaries. He was. And he was up against the Clintons.

Do yourself a favor. Please shut up.