Speaking slowly, so that the slower among us might understand, is difficult in blog form. Yet, if I were in a room with Paul Krugman right now, I would elongate every vowel, like I was speaking to an especially stupid child.
Now, I like Paul Krugman. He's one of the left's strongest allies. But he has gone off the deep end when it comes to Obama. His support of Clinton is so thorough that he is unable to see the forest for the trees.
Here's a link to his latest NYT column.
Krugman begins with a bevy of the most popular fallacies of all Clinton supporters.
Well, now [Obama] has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.
As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain.
This is idiocy. It is true that Obama is having trouble winning over the white working class, but what Krugman either fails to realize or chooses to ignore is Obama's trouble in this demographic against Clinton does not translate to the same difficulty against McCain. These are Democratic primaries. Once Obama goes toe to toe against McCain, Clinton's base is going to flock to Obama, because this is an election where the alternative is a very stark contrast. If Clinton's voters really care about health care, ending the war in Iraq, green energy, and restoring our standing in the world there is no way they vote for McCain.
It is also true that McCain is running level even in the polls with Obama right now, but that is while Obama is being attacked on two sides in a heated primary, and McCain receives little to no scrutiny. Once the nomination is decided, Obama is going to pull away and never look back.
I would also add that while Obama "keeps losing big states," the converse, that Clinton has only won big states, is also true. Clinton's strategy in a general election is no different than the failed strategy of all the losers that litter the Democratic past. Obama runs much better than her in Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, the Pacific Northwest, Virginia, and North Carolina. Obama expands our map, and Clinton is content to fight the same battles that has served our party so poorly.
And speaking of serving our parties electoral prospects poorly:
Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.
Because wonkery is exactly what works in a general election. Just ask Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and John Kerry.
What's worse, Krugman apologizes for the worst tactics of the Clinton campaign.
But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? Yes, it ran an ad that included Osama bin Laden in a montage of crisis images that also included the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina. To listen to some pundits, you’d think that ad was practically the same as the famous G.O.P. ad accusing Max Cleland of being weak on national security.
It wasn’t. The attacks from the Clinton campaign have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?
Wrong. Using bin Laden in an ad against another democrat is inexcusable. It is the worst kind of fearmongering, and it is exactly the kind of dirty tactic used against Max Cleland. Just because the Republicans will do it too, and possibly worse, is not a good reason to participate in their treachery.
Perhaps it is not surprising that Krugman does not see what is wrong with this kind of politics. He is a firm proponent of the central theme of Clinton's campaign; "The Washington game cannot be changed, so you better know how to play it."
But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn’t mesh well with claims to be bringing a “new politics” and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties.
I have news for Paul Krugman. The blame for our current state can be placed equally on both parties. The Republican's have perpetrated the crimes, but the Democrats stood idly by while it happened. That makes them both culpable in my mind. For too long Democrats have had to apologize for being Democrats. That's the way we play the current game in Washington, and it's what brought us here. Obama is right, the game needs changing, and he has already proven adept at it. Imagine if Kerry had to deal with the Wright controversy. He couldn't even convince America that his Purple Hearts were legit. Clinton is willing to play by the Republican rules. Obama will reject them outright.
So, Krugman, whether by blind support or active mendacity, continues to disparage the greatest strengths of our eventual nominee as his greatest weaknesses. I hope Krugman comes to his senses soon, because we need him, badly.
Oh, and here's my favorite part of the of the Op-Ed.
David Brooks is off today.
Thank God for small favors.