Krugman is pretty good about admitting he's wrong when he's wrong. So why not join him in congratulating himself when he finds he got it right?
Here he is on Obama's legacy, posted yesterday afternoon:
Last fall I wrote a longish article for Rolling Stone arguing that Obama will, in the end, be judged pretty well by history:
Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history. His health reform is imperfect but still a huge step forward – and it’s working better than anyone expected. Financial reform fell far short of what should have happened, but it’s much more effective than you’d think. Economic management has been half-crippled by Republican obstruction, but has nonetheless been much better than in other advanced countries. And environmental policy is starting to look like it could be a major legacy.
This was, at the time, very much at odds with the preferred pundit narrative, according to which Obama was teetering on the edge of a failed presidency, under which his decision to pursue health reform was a big mistake, etc etc. But suddenly it seems as if conventional wisdom is coming around. ...Krugman,NYT
Well, you never know. Obama has a year and a half left as president. And plenty of chores ahead. I doubt he'll improve in the area I think he left most wanting: communication. Oh, and NSA.
But the surge of opinions about his importance as a president are not off-target. He has indeed been "consequential."