They haven't been approving my comments over at his blog recently, so I'll reproduce it here:
Prof. Krugman-
You have been doing a great service by criticizing Obama's policy positions on health care, for example. But your political instincts have deserted you, for some reason.
That the primary season has been contentious, there is no doubt. That Sen. Obama bears the responsibility for bitterness (there's that word) among Hillary supporters is a joke. Hillary's fans are suffering from the emotional letdown of losing after being sure as recently as December that it was a lock. I thought it was a lock, too, but was just surprised, not angry - as you obviously are - that it was not so.
Your column today approaches concern troll level. There is nothing that Sen. Obama can do now that will appease the outraged Clinton partisans, short of dropping out himself. Once Sen. Clinton drops out, however, I have no doubt that Sen. Obama will do a very good job at bringing the vast majority of her supporters to his side. If you haven't noticed, he's quite good at making people like him. And his campaign is remarkably competent, especially by contrast to Sen. Clinton's.
Of course, there are those who claim now that they will never vote for Obama. Never, I say! Others actually declare they will campaign for McCain. Maybe some of these fools mean it, and will do it. But they are a vanishingly small minority, I trust.
I also trust you will tone down your rhetoric after Obama does unite the party behind him. Perhaps you'll give yourself a little pat on the back for giving him the "right advice" way back in May, during the throes of the primary fight.
I have great respect for Krugman, usually. I told him at Eschacon that I liked the fact that he was criticizing Obama's policy positions, because liberal criticism can produce better policy. I still think so, as far as that goes. But his little campaign on Hillary's behalf is perplexing. I don't understand what's going on with him, because most of his political commentary relies on using common sense and looking at the big picture. The level of derangement he's shown over the Obama-Clinton contest implies the opposite. I have had the uncharitable thought that maybe he has more of a dog in the fight than we know - like the promise of an appointment. Who knows?
Stick to policy, Paul.
(Via the extremely astute Prometheus 6, who you should be reading if you aren't already.)
Update: dNa at Too Sense:
The truth of the matter is Hillary Clinton has recieved grotesque treatment...at the hands of the press, not the Obama campaign. Conversely, Obama has recieved grotesque treatment at the hands of the Clintons, from Bob Johnson to Geraldine Ferraro to Stephanie Tubbs-Jones lauding Obama's "native dress" on television. Clinton supporters seem as incensed by her loss as they are at Obama's graciousness in response to Clinton's attacks, they wish, desperately, that he behaved in the same manner she has, because then it would provide some excuse for their continued animosity.
(Via Cole.)
I have had the uncharitable thought that maybe he has more of a dog in the fight than we know - like the promise of an appointment.
That only occurred to me after reading Krugman endorsing her (OK, insisting she be selected) for Veep. Ugh.
Posted by: calling all toasters | May 26, 2008 at 03:40 PM
I'm beginning to wish I hadn't bought Krugman's book. Even though it was a very good book.
As I have pointed out (I'll accept Mithras's kind invitation to advertise myself here), the farther the nomination has slipped from Clinton's hands, the nuttier her and her supporters' behavior has become.
Posted by: Frank | May 26, 2008 at 06:01 PM
c.a.t.-
I'm most likely wrong, and it's just a political/emotional attachment. But, who knows?
Frank-
I think it's a strategic move. They have to shake the race up because otherwise the inertia will swamp them. The only way to do that is to introduce risky messages that might pay off big in the media narrative, or might come back to bite them in the ass, or both. So far, their asses are black and blue, but they haven't gotten enough of a bounce.
Posted by: Mithras | May 27, 2008 at 08:17 AM
not everyone is in love with obama...i cant stand him....i cant stand his attitude, i cant stand his demeaner, i think he is a low down dirty dog for what he did to rev wright....i dont miss the dog whistle sound every time he refers to clinton as MRS clinton instead of senator clinton....im disgusted by his choice not to be seen with the likes of gavin newsome, al sharpton, jesse jackson, almost every black congressional person, and in any black neighborhood in the country....bill clinton went to more black neighborhoods than obama has.....i cant stand michelle either....but i will gladly vote for obama in the general election....im not throwing my vote away this election....im not going to do a protest vote....i feel like this is a battle for the supreme court....i doubt obama will be the savior or the unifier everyone thinks he will be....and i think mccain has a chance of winning....if clinton is so bad why do people keep voting for her? i personally like her about as much as i like him which isnt much but i cant deny that people keep voting for her...a lot of people....and if you want to blame it on racism thats fine but dont be scratching your head in november when obama loses because of all the racist people in pa, oh, and fl.
Posted by: anna in philly | May 27, 2008 at 11:45 AM
i doubt obama will be the savior or the unifier everyone thinks he will be....and i think mccain has a chance of winning.
Clinton people have this idea that all Obama people are swept up in a cult. It's just not true. We don't all think he'll be a savior. I hate it when people just throw that out like we're all a bunch of saps.
Of course McCain has a chance of winning. That's why I'm volunteering.
if clinton is so bad why do people keep voting for her?
Compared to McCain, she's great. If she had been the nominee, I would have voted for her in a heartbeat. I don't know if I would have been as enthusiastic about her, but still ... she's popular, she's a bit more polarizing, and the people who dislike her dislike her as strongly as you dislike Obama. Maybe more.
if you want to blame it on racism thats fine but dont be scratching your head in november when obama loses because of all the racist people in pa, oh, and fl.
Or she could have been the nominee and lost because of all the sexist people everywhere. Either of them could win against McCain and either of them could lose. What's your point?
Posted by: Mithras | May 27, 2008 at 05:48 PM
my point is your arguments are lopsided....you say clinton fans are suffering from the emotional letdown of losing...your generalizations are just as wrong as everyone elses generalizations.....im suffering because they both suck....and neither has lost or won anything yet....im happy to see it continue....keep registering those voters mithras...im doing the same....im sick of this stupid delegate system...i hate caucuses....whomever wins the popular vote should get the nomination....i cant see why it should be any different...lets go to the convention and have a knockdown drag out fight...its worth fighting for....in the end whoever's penis is bruised and bleeding but still erect wins.
Posted by: anna in philly | May 28, 2008 at 12:33 AM
Someone wins, someone loses. That's politics. No bruised penises, thanks. It will all be over soon after June 3.
Posted by: Mithras | May 28, 2008 at 12:50 AM