Revealing moment

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on July 13th, 2017 at 01:36 pm

The NYT’s Paul Krugman in 2004:

There was actually a kind of revealing moment recently – Bush gave an interview, was more or less dragooned into an interview on Meet The Press and the interviewer said: “Well, what if you lose the election?” And he said: “I’m not going to lose the election.”

And the interviewer said: “But what if you do lose?” He said: “I’m not going lose the election.” The possibility that they just would not regard it as a legitimate thing if someone else were to take power.

Let’s see, then, what Krugman has to say about Hillary Clinton:

Democrats who’d been in awe of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s perfect campaign believe she made her first serious blunder last Monday by indicating to CBS’s Katie Couric that her election as president is inevitable.

Couric asked, “How disappointed will you be” if she doesn’t win; Clinton replied: “Well, it will be me.” “Clearly,” the CBS anchor persisted, “you have considered” the “possibility of losing”? “No, I haven’t,” said Clinton. “So you never even consider the possibility?” “I don’t. I don’t.”

She doesn’t regard it as “a legitimate thing”, apparently. Krugman will be aghast.

Posted by Tim B. on 12/02/2007 at 08:34 AM
    1. It’s ironic given Krugman’s hysteria about Bush that the party that is always the elast willing to take electoral defeat on the chin is the democratic party. Remember Al Gore’s attempt to overturn the Florida result, or the endless conspiracies about Ohio in 2004. Not to mention the stuf about Diebold machines etc.

      Posted by Ross on 2007 12 02 at 09:18 AM • permalink


    1. Well, no, Krugman won’t be aghast, but he agrees.  Hillary will win, must win.  Or it simply won’t be legitimate.

      Posted by wronwright on 2007 12 02 at 09:27 AM • permalink


    1. Why does every halfwit talking head in the world ask the same inane question of people who believe they’re going to win (whatever it is, from politics to a motor race to a taiddlywinks marathon) and are then “surprised” by the inevitible answer?

      People don’t enter these sorts of freys with any thought of defeat- if they did they wouldn’t have made it through the first round of eliminations.

      Why anyone pays any heed whatsoever to these emptyheaded flibertygibbets and overdressed numpties is beyond my ken.

      Posted by Habib on 2007 12 02 at 09:27 AM • permalink


    1. I would like to ask our American friends a question.

      How likely is either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama to be elected POTUS?

      Are there any bookies posting odds? (follow the money).

      My limited exposure to US politics was over a feed of prawns and several gallons of beer in Savannah GA with a bunch of ex SF soldiers, so I suspect that I may not have heard the all encompassing “voice of the people” on that particular occasion.

      (It wasn’t complimentary to either of the Democrat candidates, BTW)

      Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2007 12 02 at 10:10 AM • permalink


    1. 4 Pedro

      Latest polls of likely candidates

      Posted by El Cid on 2007 12 02 at 10:20 AM • permalink


    1. 4 Pedro

      My limited exposure to US politics was over a feed of prawns and several gallons of beer in Savannah GA

      Lovely city, Savannah is…:)

      Posted by El Cid on 2007 12 02 at 10:22 AM • permalink


    1. Pedro the Ignorant

      To answer more directly, there is a damn good chance that Hildebeast will win the nomination of Democrats to run for President.

      Don’t think Obama, will make it…UNLESS ‘The Bitch’ really screws the pooch.

      Now as to POTUS…the theme of a Clinton/Bush dynasty, (from 1989-present) is (my opinion) gaining traction.

      Giuliani, will be smeared unmercifully (there again, my opinion)

      Posted by El Cid on 2007 12 02 at 10:38 AM • permalink


    1. I agree with El Cid as to Clinton winning the Democratic nomination. The Dems want to win and despite all the noise made by the far left of their party Obama will not beat her even with Oprah behind him.

      The dynasty aspect of the Clinton and Bush families taking turns is off-putting IMO but if she gets the nod, Hillary’s machine will smear unmercifully whoever her opponent is.

      Posted by Retread on 2007 12 02 at 11:10 AM • permalink


    1. the interviewer said: “Well, what if you lose the election?”

      That is the stupidest question ever to be asked of a politician.  What are they supposed to say?  “Oh, yeah, I might lose this election.” There’s no surer way of making that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 12 02 at 11:36 AM • permalink


    1. #9 RebeccaH

      Most questions are either stupid or produce evasive answers, it’s what politicians do.

      Posted by Retread on 2007 12 02 at 11:48 AM • permalink


    1. I think if Hillary doesn’t at least win the Democratic nomination, she will have an embarassingly public, years long, mental melt down.

      It will begin with a divorce from Bill (she’ll see it as his fault after all), erratic diva behavior (marry a billionaire like Jane Fonda or Jackie Kennedy), and increasingly bizarre pronouncements well into her 80’s (ala Jimmy Carter and Ramsey Clark).

      She’ll be so pissed off with us Americans for rejecting her that we’ll never be able to make it up to her. She may even go live in France!

      Posted by JDBagain on 2007 12 02 at 12:35 PM • permalink


    1. JDBagain—Well,just make her shake out her pockets before she leaves.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 12 02 at 12:53 PM • permalink


    1. Somebody needs to ask Krugman what he’ll do if he’s fired.  And his house burns down.  And an airplane crashes on his car.  And a wildebeest eats his cat.  Because ya gotta plan for these things.

      Oh, and ask how the non monumentally stupid amongst us (which is nearly everyone but him and his colleagues) can get a cushy job writing asinine ideas derived via the rectal extraction method.

      Pedro, right now I’d say Hillary’s nomination is inevitable, as is her defeat.  But the election is nearly a year off, and her campaign’s going to be digging and smearing and spinning and lying and covering up, so maybe she’ll manage to be somewhat less abhorrent to the voters by then.

      Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2007 12 02 at 02:08 PM • permalink


    1. Hitlery made a very revealing statement a couple of weeks back. In taking a opt shot at Obama, she said the US can not afford On the Job Training for the Presidency. I guess her vast experience as Co-President uniquely qualifies her, at least own mind her own mind. My first thought was, well if it is really true that the world is so hazardous that we can’t afford OJT, let’s just keep W on. I even had the slogan/bumper sticker all worked out “Bush/Cheney 2008. Selected Once and Elected Twice.” But on a more serious note, imagine Hitlery going into the final year of her second term and still convinced we can’t afford OJT, concludes Hugo Chavez- like, that the country needs her, so attempts the repeal of the 22nd Ammendment.

      Posted by baslimthecripple on 2007 12 02 at 02:38 PM • permalink


    1. Don’t blame me.  I voted for Kodos

      Posted by Carl H on 2007 12 02 at 03:27 PM • permalink


    1. They have to say they’re going to win.  If they don’t, worms like Krugman will spin it as “Bush has doubts”, or “Bush knows he can’t win”.

      Plagarism is the sincerest form of flattery, so it is nice to see Hillary acknowledging that Bush is pretty smart.

      Posted by mr creosote on 2007 12 02 at 03:28 PM • permalink


    1. #15 Carl H,

      Dammit man!!!  how many times do I have to tell you it’s Kang needs your vote. NOT Kodos. Sheesh!!!

      Posted by Pogria on 2007 12 02 at 04:00 PM • permalink


    1. In fairness, Krugman lives his life in a permanent state of ‘aghast’.

      Posted by blogagog on 2007 12 02 at 04:06 PM • permalink


    1. Nope – Big K will be a ghost.

      Sans boo.

      Posted by mojo on 2007 12 02 at 04:45 PM • permalink


    1. #3
      A little like the loved one of the deceased being asked how they felt.
      Or someone just diagnosed with cancer.They’re not terribly bright.

      Although when I ‘lost’ my husband I was asked at work by someone who suspected something was wrong, “What’s wrong?” To which I repied “My husband is leaving me and (bursting into tears), I’m overjoyed.”

      Maybe that’s what they’re looking for.

      Posted by kae on 2007 12 02 at 06:08 PM • permalink


    1. has a sports book for political races. Right now Hillary is at 67 cents for the Democratic nomination, meaning that the bettors regard her has having a 67% chance of winning the nomination. Obama is a 22, Edwards at 6.

      It’s still early and the odds are distributed across several candidates, but Hillary is the leading candidate for the overall election in November at 45 cents, while Giuliani at 19 cents.

      Posted by Ernst Blofeld on 2007 12 02 at 06:13 PM • permalink


    1. and if hillary doesn’t win she will cut off all oil to the usa

      Posted by missred on 2007 12 02 at 07:24 PM • permalink


    1. Personally I’m voting for Cthulhu in preference to Hillary.  Why settle for the lesser evil?

      Besides that, we need some real ruthlessness in th next administration to fight the war against the jihadists.  Dubya has been far too easy-going.  Hillary is ruthless enough, but she has never directed it against enemies of the USA, only against personal, domestic enemies, as Obama has been finding out.

      Posted by Michael Lonie on 2007 12 02 at 08:12 PM • permalink


    1. Yeah, Hillary will really take off the gloves. She’ll have Sid Blumenthal spread nasty rumors about Osama bin Laden.

      Posted by Ernst Blofeld on 2007 12 02 at 10:39 PM • permalink


    1. Hillary … what an amazing development. The former bagman for a sleezy law firm in the capital of a backwater state … married to a charming ne’er-do-well who squeaks into the White House thanks to that bat-eared lunatic Ross Perot, and is proclaimed the second coming of FDR by the liberal media … who stands by her man despite his repeated public humiliation of her … is elected to the senate from the state of New York, despite never having lived there … and is now the leading candidate to becoming president of the United States, despite never having run so much as a hot-dog stand in her life. It’s appropriate that she should be the candidate of the Democrats, the party that nominated William Jennings Bryan for president three times.

      Man, it’s going to be a looooong four years.

      Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2007 12 03 at 01:01 PM • permalink


    1. Don’t blame me.  I voted for Kodos

      Kodos from Simpsons, or Kodos the Executioner from Star Trek?

      Posted by Kent on 2007 12 03 at 02:33 PM • permalink


    1. Michael Lonie wrote:

      Personally I’m voting for Cthulhu in preference to Hillary.  Why settle for the lesser evil?

      Are you certain which is the lesser evil?

      Posted by Patrick Chester on 2007 12 03 at 08:11 PM • permalink


  1. Did anyone ever ask Krugman, “What if you take the job of columnist at the NYT and you expose yourself as a partisan idiot in permanent print?  Do you ever worry about that?” I wonder what his answer would have been.  After all, this is the guy that said, in print, that in years to come the Enron debacle would be seen by everyone to be more important than 9/11.

    And, of course, no matter how crappy a president Hillary might turn out to be, Krugman and others will sing Hosannas to her.

    I’m breaking out my “Cheney/Cuthulhu 2008” t-shirt.  (I know who is the lesser evil.)

    Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2007 12 04 at 12:41 AM • permalink