1. Whatever was true to say a few months ago, it's true we're in or near a recession.
2. Republicans are blinkered--their leading candidate thinks it serves America's strategic interests to stay mired in Iraq forever, admits he knows little economics, does know enough economics to see that cutting taxes cuts revenue but doesn't dare say so--because his fellow Republicans' views are blinkered.
3. Monetary policy is 80% of the game, and has long lasting effects. And the Fed has regulatory powers. So who else is to blame if not Greenspan (or Bernake, or, most likely, the market)?
4. Edwards only matters as somebody who likes Obama but hurts the one he loves by taking votes from him.
5. Obama is not significantly less liberal than Clinton-but in a heated election season he can be made to look like he is.

"their leading candidate...admits he knows little economics"

As much as I enjoy bashing on politicians as much as the next guy and speaking as someone who has an undergraduate exposure to Economics, I can give him a pass that he doesn't firmly understand the voodoo that is economics--which it still is when dealing with federal economic policies.

While I'm not a "Sarge" supporter, I can't ding him for being honest about his understanding of economics. Find me a candidate in this race who could write an graduate paper on Federal Economic Policies that is halfway valid and well-thought out, and we can go from there.

Dan: What is the formula after Obama gets the nomination?

It is sorta amusing watching liberal Democrats slapping each other silly like a bunch of wobbly bar drunks.

Oh my, the race baiting among the liberals.

Whatever Krugman's shortcomings as a columnist, he's a much better political analyst than Drezner is an economist.

You're saving us the trouble of reading Paul Krugman? While I appreciate your thoughtful gesture, I think that you are making a foolishly bold assumption.

Anyone else read this one, too?

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/the_goods.php

Anyone else read this one, too?

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/the_goods.php

Whatever Krugman's shortcomings as a columnist, he's a much better political analyst than Drezner is an economist.

Spit-take.

Whatever Krugman's merits as an economist, he's an absolutely horrible political analyst. He doesn't understand Washington at all.

Dan, I don't quite get your Krugman bashing. I think he brings up some legit points about a canidate who has for the most part gotten a free pass from the press. The twisting of the remarks Bill Clinton made in New Hampshire by Obama's people, shows that Obama, especially his policy positions, needs more scrutiny. To everyone else: Can't Dan & Paulie Krug both be superstars?

Look he has been far more right than wrong in the last few years, especially on important issues (e.g Iraq). This is something that cannot be said about distinguished professional political scientists like the host of this blog. I find these attacks on Krugman curious.

Krugman's right on a lot of things as is Edwards, but I find both somewhat disingenuous at times. Krugman tends to ignore or dismiss points that run against his position. Edwards pretends that he is some sort of "outsider" that can just waltz into Washington and shake up the town. There's a degree of demagoguery in both Krugman and Edwards.

I just got the syllabus for a class that I'm taking. A BUNCH of Paul Krugman pieces are required readings. ARRGGH!