I understand Krugman's urging of Democrats to be more partisan, since he is a true, old school liberal. However, as a young voter, I am really tired of this fight. Any Democratic push to the left, even if it results in victory in 2008, would simply embolden the old school conservatives in 2010 and / or 2012, resulting in more disaster and partisanship. Seeing how Congressional Republicans behave now, imagine how difficult they could make politics for a partisan Democratic president a few years from now when they get their first sniff of blood. There are solutions to many of our problems that can be reached without the political gamesmanship that has decined politics since the 1960's. To me, the most successful executive politicians this decade have been Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg, both of whom are essentially non-partisan, socially liberal, economically moderate / conservative "Republicans" who work with and endorse politicians of all parties. Hate it or love it, this is the model we are moving towards and Obama is really the first presidential candidate we have seen with this type of outlook. 10 or 15 years from now, the Obamas of the world are going to dominate American politics...

There's an old political term for when one side decides to be "non-partisan" in order to avoid all that rancor and political fighting.

LOSERS.

Feel free to convince the Republicans to give up their partisanship. Confrontational politics is in their DNA. From all appearances, they appear to oppose many sensible policies simply because Democrats support them.

Paul is so right even though he is left. It is time for the democrats to place their full agenda on the table and let the american people see what is stood for. You cannot get elected by wavering on the issues, nor by the polls. Be bolder than newt was, and place 50 policy changes that the progressives could show the american people what it is the democrats want for the american people, reguardless of what the pollsters say. We know that they are wrong most of the time anyway.

Alcibiades, Bloomberg and Schwarzenager are essentially liberals. I suppose they define themselves as centrist\moderates, or maybe just-left-of-center thinkers, but I think the majority of the nation would see them as liberal. Certainly Hillary Clinton is about on par with their policies.

Both of them are financially somewhat conservative - but thats the easiest thing to be conservative about. Its more of a management issue than an actual policy issue. They aren't interested in rolling back social security or welfare in the way that many conservatives are.

Socially, they are liberal. This is a more galvanizing issue for many conservatives than finances. There's a reason they are in California and New York.

I do agree that their approach is correct... but its a liberal approach. They're not splitting the difference between liberals and conservatives, they're seeing how far they can push republicans while still maintaining a coalition. So long as we recognize that it IS a leftward push, I'm all for more like them.

I'm tired of this fight too, but the ultra-right has been waging a war on other americans since FDR and they aren't going to stop just because you don't like it.

You call Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger "republicans." However, in pre-proto-fascist America, (proto-fascist is a John Dean coinage, not mine) they would have been considered plain old Republicans while the current ones in power would have been called "ultra right-wing John Bircher nutcases."

If you think they want to compromise...well, that's what they want you to believe while they crush Constitutional protections and destroy the middle class.

It's important to face reality even when you don't like that reality.

if your young and a conservative, your hard hearted, if your old and a liberal, your hard headed...still true now...

Someone named Alcibiades shunning partisanship and looking for compromise? That's a little surprising. How did that approach work out in that Sicilian adventure?

Krugman is a weasel and his ilk is the very reason we are so divided that the monorities end up making all the decisions because the majority is so partisan they would agree with anything regardless of how it may help all of us. I am sick of the likes of Krugman. Ha has no brain and wants division and hate to ferment on and on and on.

He has yet to write anything that helps the USA. Have any of you actually seen this guy? He is truly a weasel - like a munchkin with a chip on his shoulder. How he gets an audience is astounding.

Now, now. I think we're reading into the handle a bit too much. We might as well blame him for vandalizing statues.

Then again, didn't the real Alcibiades go over the the Spartans not long after that? That might be interpreted as nonpartisanship. ;-)

FWIW, I read that article more as a wish to return to true progressive politics rather than a return to petty party squabbling. One problem now is that the "conservatives" are not conservative and the "liberals" are not liberal; at least not by the classical definitions of those terms. Neither party presents a coherent message right now, and that makes any battle between parties effectively a mere power struggle; meaningless in any overarching ideological context.

I really wouldn't mind that changing. :-)

yep. also- Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? and A cheat believes that everyone cheats. and Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. and You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. true dose!