So the two camps here are people who defend Obama at all costs and people who defend Krugman

[GarbagemanLB]

at all costs?

Both can do no wrong!

[saltpoint]

1. For my part, I defend Gordon Lightfoot and Joni Mitchell at all costs.

Thank you.

[pipi_k]

34. I defended Tiny Tim once, but he didn't appreciate it.

I'd tell him to kiss my ass if he weren't still dead.

[saltpoint]

39. LOL. I saw Tiny Tim on the Johnny Carson program at the height of his

popularity.

He seemed friendly enough and was reasonably accomplished on the ukelele, which is more than I could ever say for Mitch McConnell.

[Jennicut]

2. Bingo. I already posted about this.

Hypocrisy on so many levels. I think criticism for both is acceptable except when people start personally attacking each other.

[elleng]

6. Exactly.

Have said that forever. CIVILITY! and everyone learns something.

[ErinBerin84]

12. yes

Sometimes the tone that some posters take undermines their relative points. Calling people freepers won't help, and calling others (I read general discussion: presidential called general discussion DLC the other day) cultists won't help each other understand our points either. That said, most of the extremes are probably in the minority, just the loudest.

[DevonRex]

16. There is one horrible thread right now. I don't come here very often anymore.

And when I do, it's mostly the Lounge. And you know, before I could justify being on the board for long periods each day because at least I was well informed and up to date on the news.

Now, with most of my time spent in the Lounge, I can't use that excuse to stay very long. In a way, it's a good thing. I've had some gardening to do, rooting some cuttings from my indoor tomato plants and doing some early weeding in the garden outside.

[dbonds]

3. I defend the country and the world.

Whatever is best for all. I don't defend people, just progress and ideals.

[elleng]

4. If you MUST form 'camps.'

But I see no need to do that.

Go watch basketball instead.

[joshcryer]

5. The difference is one is a liberal progressive.

...the other just got liberal progressive votes and made *no illusions* about being a progressive. I agree with Krugman on most issues. I don't agree with Obama on most issues.

But here's the important part. *I had no illusions* about Obama, I know that he's not a liberal progressive and I know he never made any indiciations as such.

The confusion stems from the fact that many liberal progressives thought he would actually do things that they wanted when there was no evidence to those ends at any point in time. I am happy with what Obama is doing because I knew what to expect. He's done a fine job so far. Exceptionally fine if you ask me, given how far in his admin he is.

Here's a bone: I disagree with Krugman that things will get worse because of Obama's policies.

[elleng]

10. I don't know what your labels mean,

and I don't think its important to most.

I appreciate what you've said about Prez O, and I don't have a position on your Krugman point. I guess I'm willing to wait and see. Don't have much choice.

[elocs]

7. I reject the premise that there are (just or only) "two camps here".

That's a rather simplistic notion.

[GarbagemanLB]

9. Oh, excuse me. There's a third camp: people who live in reality and accept both have flaws.

I include myself in that one.

[elocs]

22. But your OP stated: "So the two camps here..." implying there are only 2 camps.

DU is like herding cats and there are only rarely 2 camps on anything.

[GarbagemanLB]

24. You'll forgive me if it doesn't appear that way simply by looking at the thread titles?

[elocs]

33. "So the two camps here are people who defend Obama at all costs..."

I think that thread title is pretty self explanatory and it clearly states: "so the two camps here..." which implies that there are just two camps. So it does appear exactly that way simply by looking at the thread title.

[ErinBerin84]

8. sometimes it feels that way

Where do the rest of us fit in? Most of us are somewhere in the middle. A few people on both sides think that there needs to be a consensus on everything here, or you're either not an Obama supporter, or not a progressive.

[WeDidIt]

11. It's research scientists vs. engineers

REsearch Scientists couldn't design their way out of a wet paper bag. They're all theory and no application.

[peace13]

13. Nice try.

I love Obama but I think he should be impeached for his heartless comment about SO.

[GarbagemanLB]

15. I agree! An off-color joke is an unspeakable crime!

[ruggerson]

23. Yes, let's demean the feelings of disabled people!

[GarbagemanLB]

27. I was referring to the ridiculous 'impeachment' statement.

[ruggerson]

35. Most of the folks who wrote about the SO slip up

understood that it was a stupid aside and that Obama probably regretted it the moment he said it. It wasn't a huge deal, but it warranted people speaking out and saying it was unacceptable for the President to make idle jokes about disabled people.

What wasn't warranted was for those people to then be attacked with the usual "poutrage" bullshit.

As you point out, none of this is black and white. Regardless of how many here try to make it that way.

[BlooInBloo]

14. What about the idiot camp, who can't characterize either camp correctly?

[GarbagemanLB]

17. I can only wish I wasn't accurately characterizing either camp. Sadly, I am right.

[Occam Bandage]

18. So the two camps here are people who are incapable of thinking except in broad-brush strokes,

and the people who are not.

[ruggerson]

19. I agree with Obama on this issue and disagree with Krugman

but I think it's fine and healthy to criticize and push the President when one disagrees with him.

It's also perfectly valid to express concern when Obama makes a dumb remark about disable people or associates with virulently homophobic pastors.

We voted for him. He's our employee. We should praise him when he does the right thing and let him know when he doesn't.

[BeFree]

29. In that regard 3 items of relative value

Is it perfectly valid for those who didn't vote for him to want him fail?

The 'I want it all, and I want it now' crowd, is the third camp that could rightly be called the idiots and be encamped with those who never even voted.

And, if you can dish it out, can you take it? Remember, I never even voted for you. Is it perfectly valid for me to take actions that cause you to fail or to lose your following? Like the way rush L. goes about it?

[pot luck]

20. Sometimes it feels like we're stuck in "Groundhog Day" in here.

Every month this forum divides into two camps and bash each other. Same fight, different banner.

[peace13]

21. I think it is time to let this piece of crap drop. n/t

[LakeSamish706]

25. I think it's fine to criticize President Obama, but it's the constant threads....

that continue to hammer at him that irks my ass. It's not bad enough that the media and the Repugs. constantly hammer him, we have many Democrats in DU that are helping them out. He's not perfect and he has made that point over and over. Maybe some of his picks are not good ones; ie: Geithner and possibly others but if Obama thinks that they are doing serious harm, I'm certain he will react swiftly.

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. Many people are trying to work out the policy implications

The fanatics on all sides are plying their usual stupid trade of elevating personalities over policies. It's not surprising. Fanatics are essentially non-thinkers. They find an object to become a fan of, and then pretend that they are thinking by supporting that fan object. In this case, it is either Obama or Krugman, but the principle is the same anywhere. They find a little signifier to invest in, then throw all their energy behind that signifier. Very few posts on this board are actually about politics. Most are about a little soap opera with heroes and villains that goes on inside the heads of non-thinkers.

[Jennicut]

32. I agree. Is that not what the epic primary fights were all about?

Personality? Because Obama and Clinton did not have huge differences.

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. Pretty much

...

[AndyA]

28. I think Krugman has made some very good points.

Logically, we should not allow the same people who participated in the financial disaster to remain in their positions. They are either corrupt or incapable of doing their jobs (or unwilling to do their jobs), and should be removed. This is a mess of epic proportions; anyone involved who didn't see it coming shouldn't be left in their position. Anyone who saw it coming but did nothing to stop it should be removed for their complicity in the disaster. Some did warn that this was coming, if more had stepped forward and spoken up, perhaps measures could have been taken to prevent it or lessen its severity.

That said, I'm sure Obama is privy to information that others, including Krugman, are not. Obama may not be in a position yet to do what he feels needs to be done, based on some unknown factor. We just don't know at this point.

Obama knows he will be a one term President if he doesn't get this mess under control, and quickly. So I'm sure he's going to do everything he possibly can to straighten things out. I don't like some of the things that have been done, nor do I understand the reluctance to do some of the things experts like Krugman have recommended.

At this point, I think we just have to wait and see what happens. Obama hasn't even been in office for 60 days yet, and this crisis was well underway by the time he arrived. It will take some time to stop the damage and turn things around.

[liberalmuse]

30. I don't think it's fair to pigeonhole the people here in just two camps.

There are those here who respect both men. I have disagreed with both, but I'm not going to jump in with both feet and slam either one or another. Both are men whose judgment I've come to respect through watching them.

I'm really uncomfortable with Geithner and Summers for some reason--call it my gut, which is pretty good, but certainly not what I would go with in any circumstance (like Bush did). The odds are the President has a lot more info than I do. Or it is possible he has allowed himself to be hoodwinked like much of Congress was in the run up to the Iraq War, even though most of us knew it was wrong and actually had more information than they did. That being said, President Obama seems to have better judgement than most members of Congress, for what that's worth, so I'm going to wait more than 60 days into his Presidency, to see what unfolds before I start with the criticism.

I've read Krugman enough to know the man has a really good idea of what he's talking about. I cringe at his harsh criticisms of the President, but that doesn't mean I'm going to completely discount what he has to say simply because I disagree with the 'shrill' way he is saying it.

[KittyWampus]

31. speaking for myself, I defended Obama up until his economic team's performance became indefensible

and their philosophy has become all too apparent.

As for Krugman, I respect what he says and sometimes don't agree. When it comes to which direction the "bailout" should take, I side with Krugman. On how to implement Health Care? I'd side with Obama, as long as we aren't shooting for Single Payer all in one go.

[Uzybone]

36. What about a 3rd camp: everyone who is an economic expert

because suddenly 95% of this site know exactly what to do and who to listen to and fully understands everything that is proposed about the ecoonomy. I am not in that camp. I have no idea if what Krugman proposes will work or not. All I know is that he has a pretty good record of being right. But even he didn't see the depth of this crisis coming.

[Vinca]

37. Not necessarily, but given the length of Obama's time in office ,

I give him the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I'm not a fan of Geithner, but since I'm not a Washington "insider" or an economist and given the trust I have in Obama, I'm assuming he knows better than a cranky, old woman on a New Hampshire hilltop.

[Runcible Spoon]

40. Nope, I think they are both neoliberal apologists.

I just happen to think Krugman is a little bit more credible and not as far over on the spectrum.