Paul Krugman wins Nobel economics prize

Like many progressives I’ve read and followed Paul Krugman for a number of years now, and consider him, not only prescient about the Bush presidency, but brave for speaking against the Iraq war when it was politically dangerous for public figures do so. To date, Paul Krugman has been thoroughly vindicated on economic policy, the Iraq invasion and, too, the catastrophe that is the Bush administration.

It is because of my respect for him that I’m sincerely happy to read that Paul Krugman has today been awarded the Nobel prize in economics:

Paul Krugman, the Princeton University scholar and New York Times columnist, won the Nobel economic prize Monday for his analysis of how economies of scale can affect trade patterns and the location of economic activity.

Krugman has been a harsh critic of the Bush administration and the Republican Party in The New York Times, where he writes a regular column and has a blog called “Conscience of a Liberal.”

[…]

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences praised Krugman for formulating a new theory to answer questions about free trade.

“What are the effects of free trade and globalization? What are the driving forces behind worldwide urbanization? Paul Krugman has formulated a new theory to answer these questions,” the academy said in its citation.

Sean Tavis’ “The 3000″

This is a great example of how creative and enterprising candidates are availing themselves of the Internet to connect to like-minded constituents to organize, and summon resources.

From the LA Times:

OLATHE, KAN. — When Sean Tevis decided to run for a seat in the Kansas Legislature, he faced a serious problem: money. Local political advisors warned the campaign novice that he would need a war chest of at least $26,000 to compete against his entrenched Republican rival.

[…]

So Tevis created a droll online cartoon strip to appeal to potential supporters wherever they might be, using stick figures to represent himself, his GOP opponent and others.

More importantly, this is a great lesson for progressives running for office at the local level.

Oh yeah, here’s a snippet of Sean Tavis’ comic strip that’s helped him raise over $90,000 so far:

Feeling good about Sen. Obama — er, President Obama!

I‘ve expressed early reservations about Sen. Obama as the Democratic nominee because of what I’ve interpreted as a cautious nature, and an over conciliatory tone towards republicans. I’m a partisan Democrat that prefers my candidates with strong accents of Progressive Populism, thus I preferred John Edwards over the other Democratic nominees.

However, after Edwards dropped his bid for the Democratic nomination, I turned my support for Sen. Obama, though I remained guarded over his caution and the conciliatory nature of his campaign (of course, I realized that during the general election the Democratic candidate would need to pivot and make necessary adjustments; but while the electorate was largely composed of Democratic party voters, I expected some meat — the bloodier the better, silly me).

All that said, I’ve come to appreciate the value of Sen. Obama’s approach, and I especially respect the decision making process that he has exhibited. Here, for example, is another illustration of Sen. Obama’s thinking and decision making approach:

Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday that he’s in no rush to pick a vice presidential candidate, telling CNN “everybody needs to settle down” and let the vetting process run its course.

Speaking with CNN’s Candy Crowley on Thursday in Bristow, Virginia, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said it’s not in his best interest — or in the interest of former rival Sen. Hillary Clinton — to make a hasty decision about whom his running mate will be.

“We just completed this arduous process,” Obama said. “It’s only been two days, and I think it’s not just in my interest and Sen. Clinton’s interest, but in the Democratic Party’s interest and the country’s interest to make sure I make this decision well.”

Calling his choice of running mate “the most important decision that I will make before I am president,” the senator from Illinois said he would “be deliberate and systematic about it, because this will be my final counselor when I am making decisions in the White House, and I want to make sure I get it right.”

Sure, that’s a great answer that skirts the question; however, it is an answer that is consistent with the approach to issues that Sen. Obama has exhibited thus far, and it is reassuring — considering the last seven years under Bush’s republican administration.

Now, if his approach to making tough decisions weren’t reason enough to feel reassured and confident about Sen. Obama, he’s gone and officially endorsed Howard Dean’s “50 State Strategy,” which is simply brilliant:

A slew of political factors will determine Obama’s success in turning red states blue. But the Senator, in no small measure, will be aided in his task by reforms that preceded his run for the presidency. For all of the hoopla surrounding the candidates, the 2008 presidential election will be the first truly national test of the viability and prescience of Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy.

Four years ago, when Dean was vaulted to the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee — following a failed presidential bid months earlier — he pledged to rewrite the rules concerning where and how Democrats would compete. In the subsequent months, resources and staff were invested into unconventional and even previously untouched locales. The idea was that the party simply couldn’t compete without a margin for error.

[…]

On Thursday, Obama symbolically endorsed the DNC’s efforts, declaring that Dean would remain party chairman heading into the general election.

As Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, told The Huffington Post: “I think that we are going to have a larger battlefield in 2008… I think we are going to stretch the Republicans. I don’t think they can take for granted nearly as many states as they have in the past. And I think we are going to add several to the Democratic column this year and so our coalition is going to be broader.”

This is huge, and it can easily translate into major gains for Democratic candidates down the ballot all across our country, marking the beginning of a new realignment. Yes, it’s a long shot, but it’s possible.

Counting Their Coins…

And this is where we, Progressives, stand… establishment Democrats counting their few gold coins, while Roman soldiers point their lances in our direction…

With the announcement that Lieberman is going to give the Democratic radio response to Bush on Walter Reed, it’s pretty well confirmed that progressives are shut out of the Congressional halls of power.  First it was Feingold’s defunding proposal being poleaxed, then Hoyer winning the Majority Leader contest, then it was Murtha’s plan sandbagged by Blue Dogs, then it was Reid allowing Fox News as the anchor for the Nevada Presidential debate, then it was Joe Biden and Carl Levin failing to do anything substantive on Iraq, and now it’s a full-throated embrace of Lieberman.  And yes, this was Harry Reid’s choice.

From what I understand from talking to a few progressives on the Hill, the freshmen in Congress are being extensively ‘trained’ by Rahm Emanuel’s DLC band of consultants and pollsters, which is one reason they’ve been silent.  

Tying the Thread of American Social Progress

It’s incredibly moving and great to see how when one is cognizant of our nation’s history the thread of social progress is readily visible; thus, one can see how at different times, for various reasons, different communities have broadened our understanding of American citizenship and thereby expanded the universe of the phrase, “We the People.”

Van Jones, over that the HuffingtonPost.com, writes:

At this week’s "Dia Sin Inmigrantes/Day Without Immigrants" march in San Francisco, I saw a beautiful, exciting and hopeful vision of the future of this country.

I also caught a glimpse of a familiar past, fading away. And I shed a few tears for both.

From the moment I climbed aboard the BART subway cars Monday morning, I knew this May Day march and rally would differ from the Bay Area’s usual protest fare.
The trains headed into downtown San Francisco were filled with working-class Latinos, all wearing white; most had kids in tow.

A DIFFERENT KIND OF RALLY

There were few protest signs or banners. But the stars and stripes were everywhere. One tyke on my train kept trying to poke his cousin with a little American flag.

Some of the teeniest kids were wearing their older sibling’s white Tees – with their shirt hems hanging down past their knees. The children were all well-scrubbed and happy … and very proud.

So were their parents. They knew they were part of something new, and big, and promising.

The bright mood contrasted starkly with the dreary atmosphere that chokes most protests nowadays. On this march, I saw no resigned shuffling of already-defeated feet. No sea of scowls. No pierced tongues, screaming. Nor could I spy a single person dragging behind her the weighty conviction that resistance – though obligatory – was futile.

To the contrary. Beaming, brown-skinned families walked off those trains with their heads held high. Sure, they may have been poor, facing tough challenges in the near term. But they stepped like they were marching into a future of limitless promise and potential.

[...]

Deep inside, I was grieving for my own people. I wished that my beloved African-American community had managed – somehow – to retain our own sparkling sense of faith in a magnificent future. There was once a time when we, too, marched forward together – filled with utter confidence in the new day dawning. There was a time when we, too, believed that America’s tomorrow held something bright for us … and for our children.

[...]

By simply standing up for their own kids and grandparents – for their own dignity and futures – activist Latinos today are pulling the nation to a higher level of fairness and inclusion.

They are posing a simple and devastating question: should U.S. society continue to profit from the labor of 11 million people – many of whom pick our fruit, nurse our children, clean our workplaces – without embracing them fully, without honoring their work, without extending to them the same rights and respect we would want for ourselves?

Can we countenance or tolerate a Jim Crow system – in brown-face – with a shunned tier of second-class workers, enriching society but lacking legal status and protections?

Or are we willing to change our laws – and change our hearts – to embrace those upon whom our economy has come to rest? This is a simple moral challenge. The right answers are not easy, but they are obvious.

I know that there will be a backlash (there always is when people push for fairness), even coming from some Black folks. But I also know that the Latino-led struggle for justice and inclusion offers hope to all of us. A national conversation about the true meaning of dignity, equality, opportunity and fair play in the modern economy can ultimately benefit every American community.

I am confident that it will. Because during the two prior centuries, it was the African-American community that performed this service for the country. And we paid a high and awful cost in blood and martyrs. Unfortunately, we did not achieve all of our aims. But we did tear apartheid from the pages of U.S. law books.

And in the course of that struggle, we did improve the lot of all Americans – expanding social programs, democratic rights and social tolerance for all people. And our efforts opened the doors for today’s equality struggles. Our marching feet moved the whole nation forward.

The entire piece is incredibly moving, I urge you to read it and, if so inclined, leave note of appreciation over at the HuffingPost.com blog.