Tristero, writing at Hullabaloo, has a different take on Krugman’s column today on Obama and reminding people that Republicans are wrong:

Krugman’s final point is that all the Dem candidates are missing an excellent opportunity to debunk the rightwing myths that have made it so difficult for liberal, Democratic, and even moderate candidates to wield national influence. I think that is absolutely true. But that is far more difficult for a serious national candidate to do than it is to say. Let’s not forget that in Krugman’s own paper serious people don’t include those favoring withdrawal from Iraq. That means that most of the world, including its political and cultural leaders, do not hold realistic-enough views on Iraq to be worthy of Mr. Gordon’s keen attention.

In other words, the “acceptable” mainstream discourse really is, as the liberal blogosphere has argued since time immemorial, incredibly restricted. It is doubtful that any potential candidate who criticized St. Ron of Hollywood would ever be granted the standing the press has willingly accorded the less-than-worthless Huckabee. To criticize Reagan is the height of unseriousness.

Of course, I’m not saying that’s appropriate. I’m saying that is how corrupted and claustrophobic our public discourse has become. I don’t think any candidate who dared to bash Reagan would receive that much coverage – good, bad, or indifferent. S/he’d be ignored. [emphasis added]

As I see it, Tristero’s point is that criticizing Obama for not taking his unique opportunity as a presidential candidate to reshape how America thinks about the Reagan years is unfair because while Obama should do this, he might lose his veneer of seriousness with the press if it did so. A less charitable reading of this would be that speaking truth to power is hard, so Obama is justified for not doing it. I’m glad Tristero isn’t saying that this is “appropriate,” because I think it’s an awful way for a leader to assess how and when he speaks on a subject.

I think Tristero is probably right about the negative response any criticism of Reagan would receive from the press. But stepping back from the blogger argument about how the media Heathers decide what’s OK and not OK for people to say before they wander off into Kucinich land, I think our concern in this instance should be focused more on the power that a “serious national candidate” has to do and say things that challenge conventional wisdom.

If Barack Obama can’t stand up and speak out on Reagan with his unique platform as a front-running presidential candidate, who ever will be able to? The standards of decorum usually prevent sitting presidents from bashing previous presidents, so don’t expect any ground changing critique of Reagan to come from Obama once he’s in office.

All I’m looking for – and I think Krugman, too – is leadership from Obama. We have a whopping two people in this country that we as progressives and Democrats can hang our hats on to see change brought at the highest levels. Asking Obama and Clinton to act like leaders is not a huge request to put at the feet of people who aim to lead our whole country.

Yesterday Obama proved that he is capable of speaking truth to an audience that may not receive it well. Pam Spaulding at her blog and Stephanie Hunt in the comment here, among others, have suggested that doing so could actually hurt Obama’s chances to win votes in South Carolina. That is as tangible a consequence, if it materializes, as facing a skeptical press.

Tristero is right, there is risk to challenging the conventional wisdom about Ronald Reagan, most of which plays out in how the press will respond to such heresy. But asking someone who purports to be a transformational leader to actually stand up and lead in a transformational way is not only a reasonable request, but a predictable one. Being a leader means doing hard things because they’re the right thing to do and effectively no one else in America has been afforded the same set of tools to speak out on an issue.

I fundamentally disagree with Tristero that it is “far more difficult for a serious national candidate to do than it is to say.” Sure, there will be blowback, but we’re talking about someone who wants to be President of the United States. A national candidate has the microphone needed to say something on a subject that changes the way people think about that issue. A House or Senate candidate can’t do that. Obama has a legion of press that record and replay every word he utters. Every statement or criticism of a bold faced name by Obama becomes a swirling media story that commands attention. If there is someone better suited to challenge the status quo and have the country listen than Barack Obama, I look forward to finding out who that person is.