bothered me about Obama.  I offered my reaction to his answer to a question in a debate.  Someone asked him what his worst defect was, and he suggested he was disorganized (something Michelle had earlier indicated.)  I was unsure how to react.  On the one hand, I thought it was refreshing how direct he was about a serious defect.  On the other hand, I worried whether he was just too damned green to know what a serious deficiency disorganization is for someone who aspires to be president.  

I can see why Krugman thinks Obama is clueless.  His repeated gaffs build the case for it.

Krugman is back on the anti-Obama war path.

I wonder what job the Clintons (won't) give him when they (don't) win the nomination?

Well, it's great that from one line in Krugman's article you were able to fashion this eloquent diary. Well done.

By the way, I'd argue that Krugman (in his bias) is reading more into Obama's speech than was actually there. Obama didn't only "blame the war for our current economic mess." He pointed to the war as a major factor in the current mess. This was because he was giving back-to-back speeches about the war, one of which focused on its economic impact. But that's not the same thing as blaming the entire current economic fiasco on the war.

I think how well the democrats can paint the link between the war and the economy is crucial to winning the presidency.  Face it, the masses have stopped caring about the war, there just isn't the outrage there was in 2006.  We put the f'n war on credit card... and it is critical that Americans link that with our current economic woes.  

none of the candidates come off well in the column.  And McCain comes off not only clueless, but comatose.  

This column doesn't hurt either Dem more than the other - but I would like to hear from them more about the economy.  the natives are getting restless out here.  It is a scary economic time.

After listening and reading McCain et al's take on our economy - both Dems look good to me at any rate.  

Hmmm, tying the war to the economy is a very effective political move, yet Krugman criticizes Obama for it even as he admits that the war has indeed been a net negative for the economy.  

What exactly is the point of this column?  I like Paul, despite his obvious dislike for Obama, but this  really seems stupid to me.  Obama has never argued the war is "the" cause of our economic problems.  He's said it is "a" cause.  Krugman essentially agrees that's true.  What's the problem?  

hmmm Krugman has blamed Alan Greenspan for the current economy problems, just a few days ago HRC was calling for Greenspan to "step in and help rescue" the economy...

hmmm i wonder what Krugman has to say about that.