To me, Krugman accidentally proves the point that Obama is trying to make. You have to ignore the things that whipped up the partisan battles of the 1990s, rapid-response policy "debate," and 24-hour cable news in order to deafeat them.
How many people do you know were really considering their support or opposition to the President's healthcare plan and thought, "I like the focus on reducing medicare costs, and I like the potential insurance reform, but wait a minute, this plan has death panels in it, so.... maybe not." That's never, ever what happens.
Instead, people decide to engage or not engage, they think about momentum and political capital. And then, they make decisions based on whether or not they generally trust or favor the people proposing things. This process has some very important feedback effects, because people have opinions, but they only vote once every two years (if ever). Congressman vote week or so, not only by voting on bills, but also by voicing support or opposition to other politicians, and very importantly, by feeding the feedback loop. The TV shows 'vote' basically every day or two.
Death panels, Harry and Louise, smoking guns that turn in to mushroom clouds, and a thousand other little passenger pigeons get some people excited. Getting some people excited makes news. Making news manipulates the feedback loop. To use the ready musical analogy, I'm all for a little grind in the lead guitar sound, but Krugman is listening to the distortion that comes from the amp, not the music that comes from the guitar.
I like Obama's way better. I can almost guarantee that we will not win the healthcare debate by aggressively rebutting the aspersions of least responsible opponents. We might win, however, by talking about healthcare.
