Divided we fall

This is an example of what is meant when one questions whether a candidate has experience. Paul Krugman (via t/o):

   

Mr. Obama has lashed out at Mr. Edwards because two 527s – independent groups that are allowed to support candidates, but are legally forbidden from coordinating directly with their campaigns – are running ads on his rival’s behalf. They are, Mr. Obama says, representative of the kind of “special interests” that “have too much influence in Washington.”

    The thing, though, is that both of these 527s represent union groups – in the case of the larger group, local branches of the S.E.I.U. who consider Mr. Edwards the strongest candidate on health reform. So Mr. Obama’s attack raises a couple of questions.

    First, does it make sense, in the current political and economic environment, for Democrats to lump unions in with corporate groups as examples of the special interests we need to stand up to?

    Second, is Mr. Obama saying that if nominated, he’d be willing to run without support from labor 527s, which might be crucial to the Democrats? If not, how does he avoid having his own current words used against him by the Republican nominee?

    Part of what happened here, I think, is that Mr. Obama, looking for a stick with which to beat an opponent who has lately acquired some momentum, either carelessly or cynically failed to think about how his rhetoric would affect the eventual ability of the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, to campaign effectively. In this sense, his latest gambit resembles his previous echoing of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security.

Aren’t people free to choose the primary candidate they think best represents them? Barack Obama apparently inspires many people and impresses them as being a fresh voice, not tied to the entrenched Washington interests that have managed to screw things up so badly both internationally and economically. When he talks like this, he sounds to me like a “Third Way” sort, a Blairite… a guy who doesn’t understand why unions are so important to progressive politics.

Uh-Oh! Ron Paul Defends (GASP!) Earmarks!

Yessir, he did!  Timmy Russert valiantly called him on it!  Because of course all good Republicans are all about earmark reform, so Dr. Paul must not be a good Republican!

Of course, Mr. Russert was too busy grilling Dr. Paul to take the time to mention that earmarks became wildly popular under the GOP Congress of 1994-2006.  Before then, a typical budget bill might have had at most a few hundred earmarks; in the last twelve years, the earmarks on those bills have been in the thousands each, and even passing the fourteen-thousand mark in 2005.