I attribute it to the fact that Krugman appears to understand absolutely nothing about politics.  On policy of all kinds, most particularly economic policy of course, he is quite brilliant.  But, as I have said elsewhere, I wouldn't have him run a campaign for dog-catcher.  

I think Professor Krugman just responds to Hillary's wonkishness -- in a sense he wants to see someone more like him become president -- and resents the fact that political gifts are gifts of another kind.  Being first in the class just doesn't get you all that much in life.

It is ironic that Krugman recites Roosevelt who was a political genius and had the brains to hire better brains to manage policy.  I think Roosevelt was just trying to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear of partisan hatred that already existed.  In a multitude of ways, he tailored his policies to that which was politically achievable rather than simply pushing what he thought best.  He understood that part of his job, the most important part of his job, was to create the political environment in which his agenda could succeed.  Obama seems to understand that.  Hillary seems not to.

I often disagree with Krugman's op ed pieces but one thing I admire about his writing is his forthrightness.

Let's face it Obama is much more conservative than Hillary who is herself more conservative than Edwards.

Krugman's criticism of Obama has to do with his accurate perception of Obama's conservative views on economic issues.

If you like Obama's approach to domestic economic issues, fine, but let's not pretend that he a "real liberal.

My own original hostility to his candidacy had to do with his economic program as well as his inexperience. I also believe that Obama’s belief in political unity answers some deep psychological need in him rather than a well thought out political philosophy.

Krugman has raised legitimate, substantive questions about Obama's proposals and leadership style. If the Democrats nominate Obama, they should do so with open eyes. I share Krugman's concern that Obama has already given the game away on mandatory universal national health insurance. This is such an important issue as America struggles to reconstruct its social safety net in an age of rapid economic structural changes and globalization. We need a leader who will fight for ordinary people who can be financially and emotionally destroyed by an accident or catastrophic illness. This is no time to compromise with the powerful entrenched interests who benefit from the current unjust patchwork of health insurance. Obama seems too conciliatory.  

".....and surely Obama would, on those issues, be willing to fight for his commitments." Really? How do we know that? That's exactly the doubt some of us have had about Obama (although I support him now that Edwards has dropped out). There have been too many Democratic nominees already who were NOT willing to fight. Obama's reasons might be different from, say, Michael Dukakis', but the disastrous result could well be the same.

I've read the Krugman columns in question, and he seems to believe that Obama -- whatever his "temperament" -- is just factually mistaken about the nature of the opposition, that he mistakes modern, extremist movement conservatism (so-called) for the affable old Republicanism of Gerald Ford. That's a serious error if it's in fact what's happening. If Sunstein knows that it isn't (and I'm aware that he and Obama were colleagues at one time), he should explain what he knows instead of just asserting Obama's willingness to fight as if it were self-evident.

I don't know.  He did manage to push through legislation in Illinois requiring that police interrogations be taped, in order to staunch police brutality.   I know that is just illinois, but it was very tough legilation, as the police unions were very opposed.  They aren't easy, politically, to go against.  But without compromising his bill Obama managed to work with everyone to get it through.  Just a small example, perhaps, but I think it showed his unique skills.

The point is taken that these skills in IL might not translate, but I don't think they can be discounted, either.

Obama knows how to speak to the American people.  His stated positions have to be more conservative because he is a black man and if his rhetoric were to the left of either Hillary or Edwards, he would be totally discounted by the electorate as a radical.  For my money, Hillary isn't even of the left,  I think she's still a Goldwater Girl.  On the big stuff, she votes Republican.  I give Obama enormous credit for discerning just how to position himself politically. That is just one more indication that he is extremely politically talented, something the Democrats need desperately and used to have in abundance until the Boomer policy wonks (like me) took over.  

Anyone who believes that in the funhouse that American politics has become the candidates policy positions are more than a vague indication of the direction they will take in office has missed most of the last 30 years of political history, at least.   And that most definitely includes Dr. Krugman.

"Visceral hostility?" Show us, please, what Krugman has written that displays "visceral hostility" to Obama. Krugman's criticisms of Obama have been inside the strike zone. Sunstein wants to play umpire and give Obama a very little person's strike zone.

It's pretty simple if you think about it. Krugman is firmly entrenched in a democratic elite that genuinely thinks of voters decent but essentially ignorant sheep (dogs works too) who need to be cared for by their betters (Krugman, Clinton, et al) and occasionally fed bitter medicine hidden within lumps of peanut butter  (read: mandates no one should be required to get into the details of). Reading his screeds, it's pretty clear that Obama's faith in the poor dumb citizenry strikes Krugman as dangerously naive. Likewise Obama's contention that doing the nation's business in the light of day, will help eliminate the kind of hyper partisan knife fighting Clinton is accustomed to, strikes him as just plain silly. You know 'cause sheep can't be trusted to stand up for themselves.

I see his point. Voters need warrior shepherds to protect and care for them not some guy who's noticed that they aren't sheep.

Obama's only too conciliatory if you think voters need to be tricked into agreeing with his positions.

The job of president is not policy-bureaucrat-in-chief, it is politician-in-chief, something the Democrats forgot after about 1968 and the reason why they have had so much difficulty winning presidential elections.  Bill Clinton was almost an accident they fell into.

Politics is disproportionately the career of choice for people who want to be famous and/or important and don't have the talent to be artists or writers or scientists or professional athletes (although they aren't the only people in politics).  They would like the political world to be congenial for their studious wonkishness.  They resent those who simply have political talent -- what Hillary so tellingly described in South Carolina as "leapfrogging" rather than working hard day in, day out for years.  It reminds them of all the literary, artistic, scientific, and athletic talent they don't have.

It is annoying, isn't it, that some people are just better at stuff?  Until you can learn to accept it and appreciate the benefit to the world of having such people.

I appreciate Krugman as a writer, and I believe that his partisan columns have been extremely useful over the past 7 years. But the problem that I have with his form of partisanship is something that has become evident to anyone reading his pieces over the past few months: once he's let that tiger out of the cage, he becomes unable to control it. Krugman has become an anti-Obama partisan. No where has this become more evident than in Krugman's column in today's NYT, where he effectively compares Obama to Nixon and argues that his supporters are breeding hate.

Roidubouloi has got it right.

Mr. (Dr? Professor?) Krugman has no political sense, believes that the partisanship of the last 25 years or so will always be with us and has little faith in the possible common sense of ordinary people or a deep hunger for a change in the public discourse.  There is another reason.  What he probably perceives as the "messianic" fervor of some Obama supporters gives him the willies I'll bet... Sabbatai Zviv in the 17th century and all that...

There is also a question of temperament that divides the Clinton from the Obama supporters... Obama seems like the bigger risk, Clinton seems like the safer candidate.  I said seems... it may in fact be the other way around, particularly when one takes into account how badly Clinton has done when she actually managed anything, most recently her own campaign, both strategically and tactically.

But like some of you, I have never been very impressed with Krugman's political savvy or of his understanding that the great leaders, FDR, Churchill, Lincoln, Mandela, Ghandi... were not great "managers."  But you know what, Herbert Hoover was one of the really first rate managers of all time, not only in business but he managed to get a starving Europe fed after WWI.  He even had a great character.  But you know what... he had a lousy temperament,

Mr. Krugman might wish to read some more biographies.

What most everybody else said about Krugman's blatant wrongness on this issue. But to answer the question - why? - because of his ego and his investment in previously made pronouncements. He vilified Obama - I think to help Edwards - and now that Edwards is gone and he's faced with helping the woman who helped get us into the war and voted against banning land mines - well, ok, he's just going to yell louder. People yell louder when they're wronger, a lot of the time. Particularly at the moment that they're facing their wrongness and have just decided - to hell with it. To wit: Bill Clinton yelling about the disenfranchisement of Nevada voters - and insisting that the only way to remedy this was to close the casino caucus sites. Man was he loud.

"I think Professor Krugman just responds to Hillary's wonkishness -- in a sense he wants to see someone more like him become president -- and resents the fact that political gifts are gifts of another kind.  Being first in the class just doesn't get you all that much in life."

This is ridiculous, roidubouloi. Where do see "resentment" of those with "political" skills in Krugman’s writing’s?

Some of us may admire Obama’s rhetorical style (I don’t see them as political skills since he is playing to the choir, so far) without wanting to elect him President just yet. Maybe in four or eight years I’ll be ready to vote for him. In any case, Krugman raises dome important questions about his qualifications and I don’t think he is being driven by “resentment.”

JacksonDyer says that Obama is "much more conservative" than Hillary, who is herself more conservative than Edwards. This is a very strange claim. As far as I can tell, the only way in which Obama is more "conservative" than Hillary that he's more pragmatic and concilliatory. (They have a few policy differences, but neither's program is further right or left across the board.) I would hope conservatives can't claim a monopoly on these two admirable qualities.

In the end, it's a pointless thing to debate; "conservative" and "liberal" are just words, and we'd be better off arguing about who's right rather than who better fits what label. As long as we're talking in that vein, though, I disagree with you as to whether having the more conservative candidate (whomever that is) win the primary would be a bad thing.

JZuraw:  If you'd like an example of Krugman's "visceral hostility" towards Obama, read his most recent column. Short version: Obama's supporters are primarily responsible for the Democrats' descent into "Nixonland" (with a suggestion later in the article that Nixonism entails "racism" and "misogyny" -- what on earth is that supposed to mean in this context?); Obama is reminicent of G.W. Bush (keeping in mind that Krugman really, really hates Bush); and Obama's supporters are producing "most of the venom" in the campaign. Sounds hostile to me.

I think Roi is absolutely on the money wrt Obama having to not appear as an angry leftist/progressive. Krugman and much of the netroots have wanted Obama to behave this way, this would've been crazy. Obama as Howard Dean? An angry liberal black man? Yeah, that would've played.

Clinton might be (we're really not sure yet) slightly leftier than Obama on domestic issues (although it's most likely a very close call).

I think however that Obama is considerably "leftier" (or at least more conciliatory) than Clinton is on foreign policy.

One thing no one has mentioned: Several months ago, this seemed to escalate when some Obama operatives (stupidly, in my opinion), stated that Krugman had 'flip flopped' on some issues.

After this happened, this tone seemed to change from mostly constructive criticism to a touch of jihad.

" but it is not otherwise easy to explain Krugman's seemingly visceral hostility to Barack Obama"

Are you kidding?

The mildest possible criticism of Obama is “visceral hostility” according to Sunstein.  I’m starting to think that maybe Horowitz is right after all.  If even liberal icon Krugman is being denounced for a mild  criticism of Obama, there is no freedom of thoughts and freedom of speech and diversity of opinions in  Universities. This campaign is a really teaching moment about group thinking intolerant Left.

I suppose the question that needs to be asked is Krugman right? Is the best option for Democrats a highly partisan battle with Republicans to pass as leftist an agenda as possible, or is a conciliatory middle way, a diluted progressivism, the better option today. I think that since we are entering a shitstorm economically and internationally we need a President who can at least muster goodwill on both sides of the aisle. Both McCain and Obama can do this. Hillary is promising far more in substance than she can deliver. Obama is only promising to change the tone. Guess in this environment who can succeed.

What roi said. A reading of Krugman's columns over the years-- and I include columns going back to the early 1990s, when much of his ink was spilled in elegant, midly ironic attacks on the Clintonites' "Pop Internationalism" (see the collection of essays published under that name in the mid-1990s)-- shows him to have a tin ear when it comes to politics.

In the mid-90s he took a completely wonkish approach to free trade, almost completely ignoring the political context for selling such agreements. In 1999-2000 he went on a crusade to tell everyone that social security was broken and desperately needed fixing (tick-tock, tick-tock...). Then he went into all-ChimpyBusHitler-all-the-time mode, to the point of asserting, with high snark and maximalist rhetoric, that the **only** cause of GOP dominance over the last 28 years was southern white racism. Period. "Yes Virginia, it's that simple."

Heaven deliver us from such stupidity.

I saw Walter Shapiro over at Salon write a piece a couple of months ago stating rather mildly that Obama wasn't necessarily all that clear and it was a bit hard to tell precisely what he cared about, what motivated him.

I'm a staunch Obama supporter, and I found the piece perfectly reasonable, and the criticism interesting and constructive.

The reaction from many supporters (including someone I'd consider a highly intelligent semi-famous media personality) was swift and extreme. I was kind of shocked.

The only significant difference in Obama's and Clinton's domestic agendas is the mandate (Clinton) or lack thereof (Obama) on health insurance.  But both would require community rating (i.e., no denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions).  And with community rating, it is the insurance companies that will be insisting on the mandate.  Too clever by half?  I think not.

"In the mid-90s he took a completely wonkish approach to free trade, almost completely ignoring the political context for selling such agreements."

Tep, wrt Krugman on "free-trade" or int'l. economics generally, he's a super big deal. I mean, his influence in the field cannot be overstated.

Any int'l. economics text book will always mention these 6 guys: Ricardo, Hechscher, Olin, Stolper, Samuelson, and yes, our friend Krugman.

As for Clinton years, I'm sorta intrigued by the Rubin-Reich fight, Rubin 'won' but maybe Reich was right.

Matt, of course you're right. Krugman-Obstfeld was my introduction to international economics. A great book, and his work on trade is what (once) made Paul a good bet for a Nobel. My point is that even when he's stunningly brilliant on economics, the man simply doesn't understand anything about practical _politics_. I'd guess that this is why you will never see him anywhere near a  government position, anywhere. He's almost anti-magnetic, in political terms.

What is the point of electing a president?  Is it to make lots of noise about "fighting" and generally hewing to strict ideological pronouncements while accomplishing little if anything of substance?  Or is it to accomplish substantial goals in legislation, persuasion and explication, i.e. to govern?  Methinks sometimes Krugman prefers the former.

Krugman, no doubt, was being purposefully incendiary with any kind of comparison to Nixon.  He's a smart fellow who doesn't throw this kind of inflammatory rhetoric around without expecting the kind of response we see above.  Krugman is a partisan who thinks Obama's attempts to "change the tone" or "rise above the fray" won't last 30 seconds past the selection of the Democratic candidate, once the Republicans pull out their well-tested slime machine.  By setting this trap (that he knows the Obama supporters will respond to in a partison fashion) he demonstrates the falseness of their approach.  We see above more than a few responses above that are easily more ad hominem and slanderous than the initial Krugman piece.  So, if the above-the-fray Obama folks are so easily drawn into this kind of sliming when their saint is questioned, why should anyone believe they are part of a movement to change politics-as-we-know it?  Isn't the whole point of Obama's shpeil (sp?) that he, like Jesus, listens to his enemies with respect and thus is more likely to bring them on board?

Perhaps, I'm naive, but what makes Obama anything but leftist? (Though he speaks against using labels.) Does leftist refer to policy agendas? Or to processes? When I research Obama's policy work in both the Ilinois State and the US Senate, he seems very lefty to me.

What impresses me is how he pushes for policies that are so left nobody supports them and he gets them passed with everybody buying in. Someone mentioned the police interrogation videos above. There is also the anti-racial profiling law. And in the US Senate, no one expected him to have success with the ethics reform. It is my sense that everyone in the Senate is impressed with HOW he gets things done.

He may not have many years in DC, but he seems to have some kind of savvy. It seems to me that he's sponsored more bills than Hillary. And I can't think of one where she stood up for the underdog and fought against all odds. I don't get this paean to her "experience" and "accomplishments." It takes more than getting elected. I need to know how she gets things done. You can stand on a stage and claim that you'll "fight" for universal health care all you want. How will you actually manage that? What in your resume exemplifies your ability to do so?

Has anybody examined the health care reforms that Obama sponsored in Illinois? Is it an improvement over what was? Are there major complaints about it? Would it be an okay starting point for our movement out of the horrible system we have? We have made a single step out of our current health care morass and we're going to argue over mandate or no mandate? How about getting someone in there who can get us anything to change the momentum from private insurer-controlled health care?

By the way, the fact that so many foul-mouthed Americans are willing to get on the internet and vow their support for Obama while not at all reflecting his style, doesn't mean that Obama is false or that his style will change.

And, I'm sorry, I see a lot of muck being spewed by both sides when I peruse the comment threads on many sites. (The Huffington Post is a fun one.) Of course, Krugman isn't going to hear from any ugly Clinton supporters when he's speaking out against Obama. But if he did criticize Hillary, you can bet that he'd start hearing that he was a misogynist and worse. Perhaps he'd hear from the head of NOW in NY and she could include in her list of "gang-rapists".

I don't defend this mindless, self-destructive stuff from either side. At times it's entertaining, but mostly it's sad and pathetic that, as a society, we can't have a civil dialog. But, really, it springs forth from all camps.

Who gives a damn what former Enron director Krugman thinks? So now liberals are screaming cause he's attacking Osama and not Bush?

ha ha, good one jwl!

Krugman did consult with Enron in the mid 90s (maybe late 90s?) Actually, as corrupt as Enron turned out to be, they invented some pretty cool stuff.

Peggy Noonan also consulted for Enron at the same jwl, do you hate her too?

Does every human, by mere dint of their association with Enron, lose all credibility?

I also like your Dems = Al Queda, I think the word for that is.... ironic?

Prof. Sunstein's analysis of Dr. Krugman's columns is surprising vague and reflects a lack of awareness regarding the foundation of Dr. Krugman's opinions.  From my perspective, the issue is not one of temperament or the belief that a leader needs to be contentious; instead, Prof. Krugman has clearly delineated his primary concern, which is that the next president will enact important changes only if he/she is willing to take on entrenched, well-moneyed interests, such as pharmaceutical and oil companies.  Moreover, Prof. Krugman has stated that it is naive to think that these corporations will simply come to table and relinquished the advantages that they have purchased over the past eight (or 16) years (e.g., no compete contract for Medicare).  Although it would be nice if all parties would negotiate in a fair and equitable manner, history suggests that will not happen.  Thus, from the perspective of a pragmatist and a historian, Prof. Krugman concluded that Barack Obama's approach of "we'll sit at the table and talk it out" probably will be ineffective.  

Obama will have to watch out for the jealousy that is inevitably coming from many sources - I'm surprised it hasn't surfaced more.  It will.

Krugman is mild version of Hitchens in this case - he'd give his left arm to have the native political charisma of Obama (in Hitchens case, Bill Clinton, who he resembled in uncomfortable ways) and doesn't have the ego strength to admit it.  

ari111, you make the assumption that just because Obama would have everyone sit at the table he won't stick to his goals and do what it takes to get there. Yet, that's what he's know for. When he sponsored the bill in Illinois to require that interrogations and confessions be videotaped, no one supported it. For various, and sometimes twisted, reasons, every constituency - except the minorities who suffered from the unfair interrogation practices - was against it. The cops were against it. The death penalty opponents were against it. He didn't have a single senator supporting him. In the end, he passed exactly the legislation he wanted with a unanimous vote and no complaints from the constituents that were originally opposed.

I sense that he understands the real meaning of consensus. He knows how to talk to people about their fears and objections and how help them accept what he is suggesting. He doesn't have a reputation for caving in and over-compromising. He has a reputation for accomplishing what no one thought possible.

Interesting post but nothing including the comments resonates.  Maybe the real reason is too deep seeded to be perceivable to readers.  My guess is that Obama reminds Krugman of a brash charming young fella who he once lost a girlfriend to or perhaps got called a "dork" by.  

Perhaps it's as simple as Krugman being a New York Jew and Obama being a "Schvartze."  :-)  

For all your education and liberal leanings, it's often hard to shed some of the ugly baggage of your upbringing and where you come from.  I'm not saying that Paul is a racist on any conscious level, but these things are always lurking beneath the surface for Americans, and the older you are the more likely it is that you've been impacted and affected by such prejudices.  And his attempts to portray Obama supporters as purveyors of hate, is very similar to those who've tried to mischaracterize Obama supporters as cultists, or as elitists bent on preserving the status quo.  These appeals are directly connected to the Clinton campaigns tactics, appeals that are predicated upon propagating fear, misunderstanding and division, which are themselves the primary weapons in the arsenal of prejudice and discrimination.

And I think it's ironic that Krugman would hold up FDR as an example of anything.  Perhaps he's forgotten that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was responsible for the deaths of more Jews than any American president in history.  It's common knowledge that FDR sat by and did nothing after he found out in 1941, and perhaps even earlier, that Jews were being exterminated, and by 1942 the State Department had irrefutable evidence of genocide.  FDR could have bombed the railways or the death camps themselves, yet he chose to do nothing, nothing but let the genocide go on virtually unhampered by the Allies until 1945. And the Clintons have a history of ignoring genocide themselves, Rwanda.  I submit that Krugman has the wrong hero in mind.  

It's obvious to me that Krugman is looking for payback, the old biblical ideal of an eye for an eye, and his targets are the conservatives in this country.  But I reject that philosophy, not only because that's exactly what the conservatives are looking for, the kind of approach that will revitalize their movement,  but also because we all know where that kind of philosophy leads, and it's a dead end.  Perhaps Paul could learn something from the New Testament, as well as the writings of Gandhi.  The lessons you'll find there are that you can't play the game your enemy wants you to play by their rules, for if you do, one day you will wake up and find that you won't be able to tell the difference between yourself and those who oppose, and then they have won. In fact we already see evidence of this with the Clintons.

jacksondyer

I think your assertion that Obama is somehow more conservative than Clinton is absurd. That sounds like the rhetoric that the Clinton campaign is pushing, rhetoric and misinformation that has no real bearing on the reality of who Obama is and where he comes from.  Obama's liberalism is the new kind, the type of progressivism that has learned to adapt to a political environment and larger society that has shifted to a more moderate right-leaning America.  He may work towards consensus with Republicans and conservatives, but given the issues he has pursued as a legislator, his values remain quite obviously firmly progressive.

Clinton on the other hand has been described as being more fiscally conservative then her husband, by the people in her own campaign. Bill Clinton might have been a social liberal on the surface of his politics, but underneath, when it came to policy, he was anything but. Hillary Clinton is certainly no liberal, by any modern definition or as it is classically defined.  The argument could be made that she has shifted her position out of political necessity as well, but I don't see it that way, and her record is indicative of someone who only pushes a progressive agenda when she is absolutely sure it won't damage her politically.  Her brand of liberalism only reveals itself when there is no political cost involved.  I believe that she has lost face with liberalism and progressive values, if she ever had any in them. The problem is that she has allowed the conservatives to define the term liberal and progressive for her, and therefore she is always trapped in a box that forces her to be a right-leaning moderate.  She remains ensnared in the politics of the last century.

Obama on the other hand seeks to redefine progressive ideals, similar to the way Reagan redefined conservative ideals.  I believe that is the right approach, an approach which has the best chance of shifting the political discourse as well as the national agenda in this country onto a more progressive track.

amidut

The argument about health care is a distraction, none of the political plans proposed by the candidates are going to be implemented, initially there is going to be much greater compromise needed to get everyone covered with insurance that will actually cover the entire cost of their health care needs. Clinton's plan is loved by the insurance companies because they salivate like a pack of rabid hounds when they hear that the government is going to start forcing Americans to put money in their pockets, while they remain autonomous private entities that are answerable to virtually no one.  In other words they get paid for health insurance and then they turn around and deny coverage left and right, and tell people that they have to go to crappy doctor's.  In other words the same old crap we have going on now, the same reason that the vast majority of the good doctors in this country refuse to take Medicare these days.

There's going to be a mandate all right, and it's going to be laid on the backs of the insurance companies where it rightly belongs, and any of them that don't want to participate can try and compete with the government subsidized insurers, and we'll see how long they last.  Barack Obama is the best chance we have for getting the parasites out of the business, parasites who are making profits on the order of the 500 million a year off the sickness and suffering of the American people.  Health care in America needs to be a right, an inalienable right.  But while Clinton talks that rhetoric, Obama is the only candidate who I believe has a chance of actually making that right a reality. I think it's time for a constitutional amendment that guarantees this right to every US citizen.

arsonplus

I think you see with a keen eye of my friend.

I like Krugman and Barney Frank. Both find Obama naive. I've worked in companies where some naive young guy comes in and almost everyone, one way or another, hopes they fail. Most do. Because almost no one helps then succeed.

I read an interview with Frank where he supported Hillary and said, essentially, you can't trust Republicans and you can't work with them, God knows he's tried, he's tried really hard, but they're impossible. He sounded like Tom DeLay.

I've also seen some naive young guy come into an organization and make amazing changes for the better. It's rare, but I've seen it.

They had some quality about them that made others want them to succeed. That's Obama - so far.

Now Hillary, unfortunately, serves as counterpoint. Or in Jungian terms, as the the dragon. There's a book by Robert Moore, "Facing the Dragon", that helps to frame this contest (or the contest with McCain) as a certain naivete confronting something we all want to see vanquished.

I do not think Krugman displayed any hostility till Monday morning, Before, he was politely pointing out specific points in Obama's program that he did not quite like. Why this forceful attack on Monday? Maybe he got annoyed at being called someone in the tank, or of suggestions that he go and ask to be appointed Clinton's press secretary. Or of seeing, on the same page that he writes for, bogus accusations of racism and plain incitement of racial animus. By the way, why is it that the stranger a Times columnist is, the more he/she is for Obama?

Dr. Krugman's contributions to economics (currency crises and trade theory) cannot and should not be minimized by his intense and sometimes hysterical style of political commentary.  I feel that the notion that progressive changes to the social safety net in America must be accompanied by bitter partisanship is unfounded.  

Dr. Krugman is, like any serious economist, a supporter of increased globalization of trade and fewer barriers to the movement of goods/labor.  There are also many economists, including my professors at NYU (who would never be accused of being leftist economists) who understand that greater care must be offered to those workers displaced by globalization.  All that is required to achieve Dr. Krugman's vision of a more equitable social safety net is to explain that we as a society understand the efficiency motivations for globalizations, but would like to redirect a portion of the gains (cost savings and increased profits) towards those who are negatively impacted (lost jobs).  Does that seem like it requires hyperpartisanship.

That being said, Obama could be a little more free-trade for my taste.

Actually, as a long-time reader of Krugman, and admirer of his economics contributions, I've always thought that the harshness of  his public writing [which long antedates this incident, and whose targets have ranged widely across the political and policy spectrum] stems simply from his being an economist.  Basically, the culture of economics seems to encourage a certain cocksureness, a faith that a mastery of the theory and the math renders you superior to those who, in your eyes, have failed to master either.  This is true regardless of whether the target of your contempt is or is not an economist.  Krugman's attacks on Obama are thus not unlike his assaults on Robert Reich and Lester Thurow some years back.  I might add that it's a temperament not dissimilar to those found in other public-intellectual economists, say Brad Delong or Lawrence Summers.  If Krugman seems to be going off the deep end in this case [and I think he's right on the policy issue], I think it's because he's irritated by what appears to be a mass assault on him by lilliputians.

He or she who gets the most done in the progressive agenda is the more progressive of the two. How being a hawk is progressive, I really don't know--or not standing up for civil liberties or against torture. These are all beefs I have against Senator Clinton, who for me is ANYTHING but progressive. But, let's face it- if you are not effective for social change and policy changes, than all your policy positions are pretty useless in the long run. I have always enjoyed Mr. Krugamn's columns, but I do feel that his last one went beyong policy and strategy differences into the realm of the personal - and that he probably hurt Hillary more than he helped her. On universal health, plese let me laugh a bit-- NO candidate is defending a truly universal health coverage program. For health care  to be truly universal, it must be considered a RIGHT. And rights are are paid for out fo the general federal budget- from tax money. You do NOT "buy into" a right- you receive by the virtue of your residing in the nation. Yes, this means GOVERNMENT being the purchaser of health care. If you also add on public provision of health care, then you get a National Health Service . definitely the best way to get good health and for less money as the rest of the world has proven. So what is the beef about differences between Hillary and Obama on pseudo universal health care that Hillary says whe wouldn't even enforce? Makes no sense to me to make such a big stink out of the differences, since they are not substantial.  In any event, I hope Krugman calms down and goes back to writing such wonderful op-eds,

"Perhaps it's as simple as Krugman being a New York Jew and Obama being a "Schvartze."  :-) "

I'm sorry, I am not a PC fascist or anything of the kind, but I find this assertion and what follows completely unacceptable, idiotic, and offensive.  First of all, it is not ok to throw around racist terminology just because it is in Yiddish, smily emodicon notwithstanding.  I also think it is absurd to write off Krugman's strategic criticisms as racially prejudicial based on his being a Jewish New Yorker, particularly without citing a single reason for that assertion beyond his identity itself.  By implication, you suggest that any Jewish New Yorker who criticizes Obama for any reason is doing so based on racist sympathies.  This is ridiculous and bigotted, particularly as you go on to suggest he take moral lessons from the New Testament.

On an entirely different note, this criticism from Krugman seems to pale in comparrison to the vitriol expressed against Senator Clinton on the Op-Ed pages by Maureen Dowd.

AaronBBrown said:

"Perhaps it's as simple as Krugman being a New York Jew and Obama being a "Schvartze."  :-)"  

Perhaps it's as simple as AaronBBrown being a jerk.

BTW, Krugman's wife is a Black.

How Obama can unite the country when the  mildest criticism of  him causes such hateful reaction from  Obama supporters.

Obama supporters remind me of the following joke:

"In the West Bank a group calling itself the Lions of Monotheism fire bombed four churches, telling the Associated Press the attacks were carried out to protest the Pope's remarks linking Islam and violence. The irony of the statement, and this is often the case we find, was lost on them." --Jon Stewart

Supporters of Obama are jproving Krugman's article by their reaction to that article.

asnevitt, your comments regarding the videotaping of confessions are impressive, and I commend Senator Obama's willingness to protect the constitutional rights of disenfranchised individuals (Note: I serve as an expert on death penalty cases, and appreciate the relevance of that work.).  Senator Obama's accomplishments notwithstanding, the concerns cited by Prof. Krugman relate to issues in which the financial stakes are much higher, the parties that he proposes to confront have virtually unlimited resources, and those same have A LOT to lose.  If the good senator is elected and can actually effectuate a settlement, then more power to him; however, given that these powerful parties tend to wage an all out battle to protect their financial interests (e.g., refusing to allow seniors to obtain medications from Canada under the false premise that the medications might be tainted), Prof. Krugman's concerns are both reasonable and legitimate.  Please note that I am not advocating for a particular candidate.  My primary reason for preparing a comments was that I was astonished at the superficial nature of Prof. Sunstein's column and that Prof. Sunstein ignored, had not read, and/or refused to cite important points that were raised by Prof. Krugman in his previously published columns.

I am very offended by the "perhaps it's as simple as Krugman being a New York Jew" as well. Aaron, h What's your problem? I truly feel sorry for you, and the people that surround you. I am an Obama supporter, I am NOT feeling religous-type experiences when I listen to the canidate I voted for. I have been and do look for content - as do most other people I know who voted for Obama. And hey, unjustifiable wars are not the kind of content I like - but maybe that's just me. In any event, there is a very interesting comment on Senatorial records of Obama and Hillary posted as a comment by eva on TNR blog on Obama and Iraq that I highly recommend.- especially for those of you looking for tremendous CONTENT differences.

I don't know about Paul Krugman, but roidubouloi's assessment in post #1 certainly seems to explain the hostility of the establishment Democratic party insiders I know to Obama. They are well-versed in policy, they are obsessed with it, they have strong opinions about it. They resent bitterly the fact that political talents are not the same as wonk talents, that political talents decide elections -- and that political talents are actually of great value in a president.

American politics since '68 has been dominated by the gut hatred of warriors on the Left and Right sides of the divided within the Boomer generation. Politically committed memebers of that generation have grown addicted to the fun of hating and demonizing their opponents. To the Boomers on both ends of the spectrum, the enemy is simply evil. This has created the absurdly gridlocked political system we've had in America for decades. Young people, in particular--I'm 64--have seen through the idiocy of a polarized democracy. Raised on the efficiencies and pragmatism of the internet revolution, the post-Boomer young have flocked to Obama in droves because it's so obvious to them that not only the "mindset that made the Iraq war possible" (i.e., the mindset of Right Boomers like Bush) has to be changed, but also the Boomer mindset of demonizing the enemy which lies behind both the Iraq War AND the equally absolutist "Michael Moore" jihad against the war. Krugman's columns are simply "Michael Moore" politics conducted by a much more intelligent jihadist thatn Moore, but they're the same old Boomer absolutism nonetheless. So, naturally, he hates Obama, for the same reason Andrew Young and Julian Bond oppose him: because he has made it explicitly clear that he intends to end the Boomer jihad itself, in order to begin to build the bipartisan majorities which alone can actually deal with the hugely contentious issues facing this country which absolutely must, somehow, get solved, if the nation isn't going to fall even faster behind China and India than it is already clearly destined to do.

"but also the Boomer mindset of demonizing the enemy which lies behind both the Iraq War AND the equally absolutist "Michael Moore" jihad against the war"

So what;s Obama supportes mindset?

They .demonize Krugman and anybody else who disagree with them:

"Krugman's columns are simply "Michael Moore" politics conducted by a much more intelligent jihadist thatn Moore, but they're the same old Boomer absolutism nonetheless"

Mainstream country club type Republicans would prefer an Obama candidacy because they fear losing the White House to either Obama or Clinton and suspect that Clinton, with her experience, will be able to accomplish more to undo the financial gains they made during the Bush presidency.

I perceive that Obama will attempt to even out after tax income.  I believe it may be better to expand health insurance coverage even it necessary to co-opt the insurance industry.  While univeral health care is certainily preferable, I doubt that Hillary will be able to overcome the opposition of the insurance industry money.  At least, Obama got the industry to assent to expansion in IL by being concillatory.  By the way, a comment to Matt, Olin-Hechsher pointed out that captial would benefit, labor would suffer with expansion of trade  wiithin all the tradiing partners (this is somewhat of a simplification) without someway to share effectively the resulting gains  made from trade by capital  with labor.

jacobt1

I've been supportive of Obama's White House ambitions since 2005, and I'm definitely not interested in demonizing anyone as well intentioned as Krugman. I firmly believe however that the world has changed in fundamental ways beneath the feet of Krugman and his ilk,  that too many like him have failed to absorb or comprehend those changes and that their ignorance has become at its best a severe societal impediment and at its worse an outright  threat.

Krugman seems like a good guy, but his time has simply come and gone. I think the hostility he feels might have something to with the frustration level of folks like myself who've become incensed by the refusal of Krugman, Clinton et al to step off the stage gracefully.  

I support Obama over Clinton and I'm quite certain that Obama's even-tempered, relentlessly upbeat and above the fray demeanor is astute politically.

I'm also not absolutely sure that Krugman is right that attempting to inject a more civil, concilliatory tone into the political process is doomed to fail -- but given the events of the last seven years, only a fool would be certain that he's wrong.

And I certainly sympathize with and share his frustration at the repeated, futile, pusillanimous attempts of the Democrats to meet the Repugnicans half-way since 9/11 -- only to have "half-way" recede farther and farther out of reach to the right -- while continually being vilified, lied about and egregiously caricatured in the bargain and while the so-called "liberal" press presented every instance of a quantifiable, measurable falsehood versus a readily demonstrable truth as a legitimate difference of opinion, so cowed were they by the strategic attacks on their objectivity from the hitmen of the right who must giggle themselves to sleep at night over how easy it was to manipulate the mighty New York Times.

Maybe Krugman's just simply pissed-off at the notion of the front-runner for the nomination of the punching bag party vowing to stop hurting the school bully's fists. Understandable.

Seems to me Dr Krugman is explicit in his reasons, right or wrong, for prefering Hillary to Barak.  

PS the image of Krugman as a Jihadist is Obamamania self-parody

arsonplus,

"frustration level of folks like myself who've become incensed by the refusal of Krugman, Clinton et al to step off the stage gracefully."

You guys and your leader, saint Obama are just full of yourselves .

Don’t you understand how ridiculous  you  are  with your sense of entitlement of power?

"firmly believe however that the world has changed in fundamental .."

FYI,  even Obama, the youngest brother of JFK and Jesus Christ in the same time, can’t change the laws of nature.

I read the liked to op eds by Krugman. If there is visceral hostility there, it went over my head. Krugman calls Obama on the notion of ending partisanship and Sunstein puts stock in Obama's ideas on good faith negotiating. Krugman thinks, that while battles have to be chosen, the idea of good faith neogotiation with special interests in the way of progressive legislation is naive. If his idea is not necessarily correct, it has an argument worth having, and to him Hillary would be better than Obama in fighting those battles. So again where is the viscera in what he says? I think that premise--Krugman's visceral hostility to Obama-- was too uncritically assumed by many of the above posters.

Krugman sure sounds hostile to me.  Mostly because he seems unable to distinguish between policy and political rhetoric.  He faults Obama for effective political rhetoric -- what the Democratic party desperately needs -- because he thinks that translated directly into policy -- as if that could possibly occur -- it would be bad policy.  He like Hillary because she talks like a wonk -- which is political death against any capable opponent -- but her wonky lectures would be better policy if put directly into effect.

I have incredible respect for Krugman the policy analyst and critic, but his ideas about politics are juvenile at best,  Does he want to win or lose?  Does he know the difference between policy and politics?  Does he understand that co-opting your policy opponents beats head to head warfare by a mile?  The voters decide what they will respond to, not the pundits.  You want to sell yourself to the voters, you had better speak their language better than the other guy.  Not complicated, but it has eluded a Democratic party that was taken over by earnest wonks -- like Hillary -- sometime after 1968.  McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Kerry, HRC.  The smartest kid in the class is not likely to be the best politician, but try telling that to a party whose professional class consists of all these people who are wonks themselves.

It doesn't matter whether you are the smartest kid with the best policies if you cannot get elected.

" but it has eluded a Democratic party that was taken over by earnest wonks -- like Hillary -- sometime after 1968.  McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Kerry, HRC.  "

What about Clinton and Gore?

Krugman has become a simple propagandist, period.  

For example, today (Feb 15) he tells us that even though the Fed is lowering interest rates, interest costs to individuals and companies are actually going up.  He overlooks the fact that, in the last six weeks, interest rates on a conventional 30 year mortgage have gone down 30 basis points and are actually lower than they have been for most of the last 30 years.  Since the whole crisis is about mortgages, which impact house prices, you would think that that fact is relevant -- but since it doesn't fit into his narrative he leaves it out.  In fact, the distinguished economist from Princeton categorically warned readers a few years ago that it was time to refinance into fixed rate long term mortgages, since conventional (not sub prime) short term mortgage rates were going to be going up.  His prediction was 100% wrong.

In a word, whatever his merits as an academic (which I accept as top notch), as a public intellectual he is shallow and opinionated in a bad way,

Pete Beck. That was all pretty well considered.

I think we all have a tendency toward a personal hero myth. Krugman's chosen dragon is being uncooperative in following script. Obama is proposing alternative story line and it is screwing up Krugmans personal dream. He's going to do the best he can to turn it his way even if it is ultimately self defeating. The whole cut off your nose to spite your face thing.

I get the feeling that he has too much faith in the solidity of economics. Even with all of its mathematical and data seductions it is after all said and done contingent upon perception of values.

jacobt1:

Absolutely, I should have included Gore in the list of earnest wonks, with limited political talent, who have taken over the Democratic party, leaving no place for people who are good politicians and communicators.  Bill Clinton is, however, a special case.  He is a superb communicator and politician whose enormous personal flaws prevented him from accomplishing but a small fraction of what he might have accomplished.  You may recall that at the beginning of his presidency, he was hardly welcomed by the wonky Democratic establishment.

But even in Bill's case, such things as his sound economic policy were not directly crafted by him although he is doubtless smart enough to have understood what Robert Rubin was telling him and why.

It plain astonishes me that, given the long list of Democratic policy wonks who have failed to take or keep the White House, anyone, such as Krugman, who holds progressive values would want to try the same thing again with HRC when, miracle of miracles, there is a clearly liberal alternative who is a superb political communicator ready, willing, and able and on hand.  What an incredible opportunity Obama represents!  Yet the Krugmans and Wieseltiers are grousing that Obama's superb political rhetoric isn't wonky enough for them.  They actually want Obama to be more like the long list of losers so that he can be a loser too.

In terms of political smarts, these guys, Krugman and Wieseltier, might as well be dead and imbalmed.

Wieseltier? Liberal?!

roidu, check this out.

www.realclearpolitics.com/.../obama_casts_his_spell.html

Krugman may well be on his way to fulfilling " The Pledge" .  Now you see it. Now you don't. Now you see it. Now you don't. etc. etc. etc. What a depressing flicker.

jacobt1

Our sense of entitlement? You're kidding right? The Clinton's are the ones who've been running around talking about leapfroging and waiting ones turn. If that doesn't denote a sense of entitlement to you I'm not sure what would.  More importantly, the issue not "who can change the world" as you seem to suggest but rather who's best suited to help adapt government to the ways the world has already changed. Hardly the laws of reality.

Which is as I wrote above, what's problematic about Krugman, Clinton and their generation (albeit in general terms). Their conception of the world we live in, no longer matches the world we live in, On just about every critical issue you could name Clinton's been on the side of the past and Obama's been on the side of the now and the future. Clinton's backed an army sized to fight a hypothetical war with China in 15 - 20 years. Obama a counterinsurgency army equipped for nation building projects (you know what we're actually doing). Twice last year, when pending legislation backed by industrial economy types drew a wave of protests from the likes of  Google, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, et al it was Obama not Clinton who torpedoed it. Why? My guess is that Clinton and her peers simply grew up in a wold where guys like Lee Iacocca were taken seriously and guys like Sergey Brin were patted upon the head.

I've seen little evidence in our current political discourse that Politicians of Clinton's or even Edwards sort understand just how much things have changed. (I'm also not thrilled that the phrase: "public service" seems to be missing from her vocabulary. Its simply untenable to go on in a way, politically, that literally ignores the emerging 50% of our national economy in favor of the half that's in decline, that ignores frankly all of our pressing national security concerns. If you do. God bless ya. I think you're gonna drown in the future so to speak. But I do wish you luck with that.

That said, do you really expect folks like me to take your attempt to drag us under with you kindly?  

O' and if your side could make an argument occasionally  without resorting to distortion and name calling, it probably be less likely to elicit the kind of vitriol laden response Krugman laments.  

Even if these posts were vitriolic, something I don't see, Krugman, who has been heaping vitriol on Obama (and I say that as a huge fan of Krugman), would hardly be in a position to complain.

Thanks Basman.  Nice to know that even the righties, who hope and expect Obama to fail at governing, expect him to succeed "just through Inauguration Day."

arsonplus,

Yes. your  sense of entitlement.

You feel that you have a right to have  "the frustration level of folks like myself who've become incensed by the refusal of Krugman, Clinton et al to step off the stage gracefully." You are not entitled to that.

That said, do you really expect folks like me to take your attempt to drag us under with you kindly?

So let's fight and don't whine if   Krugman refuses step off the stage gracefully.

" the likes of  Google, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, et al it was Obama not Clinton who torpedoed it. Why?" What Google and Microsoft have in common? Desire for profit,  free lunch? What was position of Cisco, Juniper and other network companies ?

I understand that many Clinton supporters lack a higher education, but you can't honestly tell me you read the New Republic and didn't understand that the use of "et al" was me including companies like Cisco w/o having to stretch my sentence beyond all comprehension. Though, juniper  as I recall was not involved however.  

O' and I'd rather fight it out. I think its important that once this is all over the losers know its time to just go play golf or something. (or what's that other one they play in FL ... shuffleboard). I was even hoping that McCain would get the republican nomination so that like Papa Bush and Bob Dole's admirable generation they'd know for sure that their time at the wheel was done. But its important, so I'd rather argue about the facts not read Krugman's incoherent "Obama supporters are mean to me" whining or   your foolishly dismissive insults (I mean, are you a McCain voter or do you suppose that magic & fairy dust will grant Clinton victory in fall if half of the democratic stays home?) Like I said before, good luck with that.    

arsonplus,

I'm not sure what issue you were talkiing about, but I doubt that cisco and Google have common intetrest in net neutrality.

" are you a McCain voter "

I'm anybody but Obama voter.  

Of course, Krugman will pique the sensibilities of Obama fans here, who regard any criticism of their boy is a personal affront.  Being what they are, they base their perception of Obama on feeling, which they attempt to dignify with facile intellectuallization.

Counselor Troi is gifted with "clairsentience," according to the experts at Wikipedia, "extra-sensory perception wherein a person acquires psychic knowledge primarily by means of feeling".

Counselor Troi to Captain Picard:  "I sense hostility."

Krugman doesn't "pique my sensibilities."  I just think he doesn't know what he is talking about in this case.  And his hostility to Obama doesn't require "clairsentience" to recognize.  It is obvious.  Nothing whatsoever is wrong with criticizing the critic.  Krugman has no immunity.

What is piqued is my schadenfreude.  I think Hillary is a lousy pol, not really a pol in her own right at all, merely a legatee of her husband.  That makes her evident sense that she has "earned" the nomination risible.  I am enjoying watching Hillary's sense of entitlement and her absurd claim that she has a wealth of "experience" go down in flames.  I am equally enjoying the frustration of the Hillary supporters that the Democratic party voters, with Obama as a measuring stick, have realized that she has no hat, no cattle, no management skills, no tactical or strategic skills, is not brilliant, has accomplished almost nothing in her political career, and votes like a Republican when it counts.

Of course, this piques the sensibilities of the Hillary fans, who regard the failure of their idol as a personal affront.  

PS  Mostly I am enjoying watching Democratic voters teach the Clintons and their fans that we don't live in Argentina.  

roidu:

1. examples of Krugman's hostility from what he actually has written, please;

2. Is Hillary a better "pol" than Kucinich, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Gravel.? She is among the 2 last standing in an attempt to become the leader of the free world. By what criteria--other than actual political success--is to be judged a lousy poll: because she might lose in her fight now with Obama?;

3. She is hardly a legatee of her husband. The Clinton name got her in through the door, in a sense, but then, it has been up to her. There is a zero sum misconceived way of judging her fight now with Obama as if the winner is a winner and the loser is a loser. But to come as far as she has so far--and I don't count her out yet, though it's looking grim--and wind up losing by a bit, does not constitute her a lousy pol. It consititutes her an excellent pol who has come as far as she has outlasted many others, even if she  ultimately does not succeed.

4. Ever since the Jefferson Jackson speech, when Obama kicked it up and got his campaign mojo, she has been in a fight, can have taken nothing for granted, has come back, won some, lost some, and is now kind of on the ropes. Hardly coasting on presumption I'd say; making a hell of a fight out of it, I'd say. Your schadenfreude--a terrible human trait, delight in others' suffering--speaks more of you than of her or or of her supporters, it seems to me;

5. I am a supporter of her, have a mixed and complex appreciation of her; she is not my idol; I am not affronted by the prospect of her losing and give Obama his props for doing how well he is doing. I will be disappointed if she loses, and if she wins, the spittle of self-satsifaction will not come drooling down my mouth;

6. As for Obama, I have not seen the legislative case made for him yet, anywhere. Where is his great voting record that supports his political transcendence. To me, he is a gifted politician, whose actual political ordinariness--calcluating, incremental, cautious--makes him actually just another mug in the mugs's game of politics, save that he is an elecrtrifying speaker. There never was a Camelot and there will never be a Camelot  And if you tell me that in 2002 he made a speech against the war, when he was a state senator, then I'l tell you that is something, but not much in the circumstances. Look at Crowley's piece on this. It does not lacerate Obama, does not adulate Obama; it just shows with fairness and balance that his actual voting politics on Iraq once he got to the senate was not as bad as the Clintons' make out, and is not that all that he claims it to be either. It shows, as I maintain, granting that he is on my side of the philosophical fence generally, that in his actual doing of politics, he's, as I say, just another mug, slipping and sliding and compromising.

Generally, I'd say--with no confidence that you will listen--tone down the glee and the vituperative personalizing, it does you no credit.

okay basman,  I just get irritated at the pomposity of Clinton supporters who feel no compunction at tagging Obama supporters as a bunch of swooning lunatics.  This is a one-way street.  The people who don't like Hillary take aim at Hillary.  They don't, as far as I can tell, take aim at the people who choose to support Hillary.  Take note if you will of the jm rice post just ahead of mine.  I have had Hillary supporters in my face, physically, wagging fingers at my nose and telling me -- at high volume -- that I "have to support Hillary so that my two daughters will have the opportunities in life they deserve and that nothing else matters."  Ask yourself, have you seen any nasty articles about Hillary's supporters?  It is difficult not to feel some satisfaction seeing this crowd get its come-upance.  I don't think much of Hillary; I don't disparage the people who support her.  I don't declare that Hillary's supporters, en masse, are this, that, or anything but good Democrats who want to win the White House this year.

My low opinion of Hillary as a politician was formed over a considerable period of time well before the current campaign.  It includes my direct experience with her organization as a local party chair in NYS.  When Pataki was governor, she and Chuck Schumer were de facto the heads of the NYS Democratic party.  Whenever we asked Schumer for help, he gave is a hand, including coming to speak to our political events and fundraisers more than once.  Whenever we asked Hillary for help, we got nothing, although she has often turned up in my community to raise money.  My conclusion is that Hillary is all about Hillary and never saw herself has having any responsibility to support the party -- we are supposed to support her.  That's not how I understand democratic (small d) politics.

Beyond that, I find her voting record on the major issues simply appalling.  On the big issues, she votes with the Republicans.  I also am baffled by the constant repetition that she has been a good senator.  Good at what?  I'm a New York Democratic leader; I don't know of any positive thing that she has achieved in the senate during her tenure.  The only thing she seems to me to have done is reassure the Republicans that she will never use her stature to go after them.  And they have returned the favor by praising her.

As to your assertion that Hillary is not a political legatee but a legit pol in her own right, let's see.  Her first nomination was handed to her by Charlie Rangel when she was still First Lady.  She had never even won a nomination.  Lucky for her, Giuliiani tanked and she got to run against Rick Lazio, who reads as if he is barely out of high school.  The guy campaigned for the senate like he was going to a frat party.  (I was actually at a political event talking to a Republican I know who managed Lazio's campaign in Western New York. At the very moment I'm commenting at Lazio looking like he is attending a frat party, Lazio walks in, right past us, dressed like a frat boy.  I almost swallowed my tongue.)  With Rick Lazio and a 2:1 Democratic enrollment advantage, Hillary hardly had to fight.

In my opinion, she suffers from the same syndrome as Kerry who was elected in Massachusetts where any Democrat nominated for the senate would have to drop dead before election day to lose.  He never had to fight a real political campaign and didn't know how.  When he got to the bigs, he lost an election he should have won.  I see Hillary, despite Bill, as more of the same. Her mismanagement of her own campaign, reduced to whining about how delegates from Michigan and Florida should be awarded her after the fact, is no evidence of the shrewd politician we need.  Her one great political foray -- the health care debacle -- was just that, a debacle.  There is constant repetition about how brilliant she is, what a great senator she is, how much relevant experience she has, her great accomplishments -- and I see not a shred of evidence of any of it.  It seems to me to be, to use her term, a fairy tale.  Give Obama this:  When his supporters say that he is an extraordinary political talent, at least that is true.

Finally, since when did the ability to give a great speech, actually to move the public, become a negative for a politician? Answer:  Since the wonks took over the Democratic party after 1968 and began to push at the pols who actually understood something about connecting with people.  The Democratic party used to be a formidable political organization until the Hillary Clinton's of the world took it over.  Politics is about people, not technocracy.  She can spout statistics until she is blue.  The only thing that qualifies her to be is a legislative aide.

roidubouloi:  "...that we don't live in Argentina." I second that. In Argentina the wives of the Peronists run for office and them govern from behind the curtains. A lot of tears and playing on fears. We can't forget Hillary is a twosome.

Bill's back in fact, down in Texas where that Porter Wagoner shtick of his may work. And Hillary was in Cincinnati yesterday, eating cheese coneys at Skyline Chili. They campaign like Mr. and Mrs. Willie Stark, contemporary versions of southern-fried politicians, eating their way into the hearts of the poor.

Yuck.

roidubouloi, I like your post, likely because I always seem to agree with you, but why the impossibly difficult sign-on (sign-on?).

roidu:

1. You are better situated than me, a starving divorce lawyer in Toronto, to speak to Hillary in the Senate. I cannot begin to trade facts with you. I just generally understand that she is a cooperative, hard working, well respected, Senator. Try this for example. www.govtrack.us/.../person.xpd

2. I understand the shrill enthusiasm that gets vented in political campaigns. But you are obviously a smart guy, good writer and astute poster, so that the foolishness of others need not affect you.

3. I  am interested in your examples of where she has voted Republican on the big issues. I understand of course that with many other Democratic senators, she voted for the Iraq war resolution. But I’d be interested in a few examples where she voted “Republican” on big issues and Obama to his credit did not.

4. She was lucky Giuliani withdrew. And she creamed the unprepossessing Lazio, to be sure. But then didn’t she prove herself so formidable that there wasn’t nary a question of beating her the next time round.

5. I concede  that her position on the Florida and Michigan delegates is lamentable. But she has been superb in the debates which makes her more than just an inauthentic statistic spouting shmoo. I don’t need you to persuade me of Obama’s great political talent. Only someone with a tenuous grasp on reality would deny that. But, to  turn that argument back on you, I go back to what I first said, Obama’s great political talent is finally measured by his concrete success. By that criterion, her political talent—in her own way by her own means—is formidable. As I said, she is one of two left standing in the toughest electoral process in the democratic world, and for a while there, in the earlier going, no one could lay a glove on her. That speaks to a lot, I’d argue. The fact that she is odds on to lose now does not take away from how well she has done. Someone, a generationally singular someone, is just doing better.

Finally keep your sign on. It’s you baby.

Krugman has been right about almost everything in the past:  he predicted the housing bubble collapse and our present economic woes.  Maybe he's right that Obama is naive too.

basman and fougasseu:

roidubouloi is a little joke with myself.  It is a pun on the name of a very tiny street in Paris, rue du Bouloi, on which I lived until a few months ago.  If you know some French, you might find it odd that the street is not called rue de Bouloi.  The reason is that the Bouloi were one of the tribes that inhabited the banks of the Seine, contemporaneously with the Parisi.  Hence it is not Bouloi Street, but Street of the Bouloi.  But the Bouloi disappeared.  The only thing to commemorate them is a street about 1 1/2 NYC blocks long.  Hence, the other meaning of roidubouloi might be "king of nothing and no one" or perhaps pretender to a non-existent throne.

basman:  rhubarbs compiled and posted a list of Hillary's awful votes on important issues and I copied it.  However, I am not at my own computer and don't have access to it.  When I do, I will re-post it, unless she does so first.  I have not checked her list for accuracy, but it certainly seemed to accord with my recollections.

Whether or not Hillary would make a good president -- I obviously think not -- may depend on what you think the job of president is. In my opinion, it is only incidentally a policy-making position.  After all, whose economic policy was Bill Clinton implementing? His or Robert Rubin's?  Bill is a very smart guy who certainly could understand what Rubin was proposing, as well as the counter-arguments one hopes he sought out, but he really didn't need to be his own economic adviser.  Neither did Roosevelt or Kennedy, with his famous tax cut that has since spawned so much nonsense.  In my view, the job of president is to be politician-in-chief.  Merely being able to "survive" attacks from the opposition is not good enough.   You have to know how to coopt them whenever possible, beat them when necessary, and give them enough so that they are not out to destroy you --  a huge mistake that Bush's people made, simply sticking it to the Dems at every opportunity and thereby working them into a fury.  The Republicans are much clearer about all this than the Democrats. Sure, they have think tanks and wonks churning out policy ideas for them (mostly awful ideas, but that is not the point here).  But they don't run those people or public office.  They understand something the Democrats once knew and seem to have forgotten which is that the job of any politician is to discern and shape the public will, to understand how far is too far, to know how to condition the political environment so you can achieve your agenda, broadly conceived.  Mandates?  That may or may not be an important political symbol, but who other than Paul Krugman believes that what is said about them in the course of this campaign is gong to have anything whatsoever to do with any healthcare system that eventually emerges?  

Policy does not determine elections.  It is merely one of the hooks that good politicians use to signal to the voters whom and what they care about.  Policy is what you do when you have power.  It is not what you do to get elected.  The wonks in the Democratic party should no more be running for office than should the Republican wonks.  Wrong skill set.  The necessary skill set has to to with the ability to relate to people and their situations and figure out how to weave that into a public consensus.  As far as I can see, NOTHING Hillary has ever done in her entire life has suggested the slightest talent for the critical task (in sharp contrast to Bill who had lots of talent at this and wasted it because he constantly entangled his marital life with his public life in a completely intractable way).  Far from connecting with people, Hillary has an astonishing ability to irritate people, even people who want to support her.  That includes me.  I liked Clinton; I was thrilled that we had someone who could get rid of Al Damato; I figured that she and I would agree on policy 90% of the time.  Since becoming my senator, she has managed to alienate me totally.  Particularly by sucking up to the worst of the Republicans.  In the Senate, she sort of developed a corner on being the Democratic co-sponsor of legislation sponsored by the worst of the Republicans.  Maybe that's her idea of bi-partisanship.

Here is a nice list of the wonky Democrats who have been political failures at the presidential level:  McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and HRC.  HRC you say?  Yes, when Bill turned the controls over to her on the healthcare issue, it was an unmitigated disaster for the Democratic party.  No national healthcare plan and a backlash that cost control of the Congress.  How much worse could you do? (Note:  Arguably one could include Mondale on that list too, but the picture is a lot less clear.  The mere fact of his loss against a then popular incumbent is certainly not dispositive.)  The only Democrat since Truman to get re-elected was Bill Clinton, who certainly was interested in policy, but never put that foot forward first in his relationship to the electorate.  One can joke about "I feel your pain" endlessly, but they believed that he did.

I'm not saying that politics is not a craft that can be learned.  Up to a point, it can be if you pay attention and want to learn and have the opportunity to practice your chops (which Hillary really has not since she started her electoral career both near the top and with a bye).  But to be successful at the highest levels, you have to start out with some gifts.  I don't see that Hillary has any.  Obama, on the other hand, is loaded.  Unlike Hillary, he fashioned his own political career from the ground up, first as a community organizer, then as a state legislator, then as a US Senator, and now is someone who, despite his youth, has backed the Clinton machine up against the wall in no short order.  He's not a fluke, except in the sense that few of us had ever had the opportunity to see how talented he is.  As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and professor at the University of Chicago Law School (neither of which is as good as the Michigan, but still quite respectable), he is more than smart enough to be president.  He has some interesting legislative achievements that required successfully managing opposition -- something Hillary has never done except by "surviving."  He is unquestionably politically progressive, something one cannot say with any confidence about Hillary.  Most of all, Obama knows how to talk to people and connect his own experience to theirs and to the exigencies of the moment.  And he has a good marriage to a woman every bit as smart and more accomplished than Hillary when she arrived in the White House.

How much better a shot at a great president do you think we are going to get at this critical juncture in American and world history when we are poised between some kind of recovery and fatal decline in the manner of Rome?  Obama is Bill Clinton II, but without the trainwreck of a marriage that ruined Clinton's presidency.  Hilllary is just one more policy wonk who would never have achieved the high elective office she holds but for her association with Bill Clinton.  Period.  And she is the other half of the same trainwreck to boot.

Bottom line:  I don't want a president whose greatest achievement is "surviving" Republican attacks.  That isn't nearly enough.  How about a president, like Roosevelt, who can thrive despite Republican attacks?

Basman,  I took a look at your govtrack link.  In her senate career, Hillary has sponsored two pieces of legislation that were enacted (and I cannot figure out what they were).  Obama has sponsored one, the important ethics bill.  Schumer, 8.

So, why exactly are we supposed to believe that Hillary is this highly successful senator?  What has she accomplished of which we ought to take note?  What has she ever accomplished other than "surviving" Republican attacks and parlaying her status and celebrity as First Lady into a Senate seat?

Basman:  

Rhubarbs  said:

On cypess's point, a short list of major votes on which Hillary and McCain did not disagree:

1. Bush tax cuts

2. Patriot Act

3. Iraq war

4. Bankruptcy "reform"

5. Flag-burning Amendment

6. Bush Iran resolution

On all these points, Hillary will _claim_ that she disagrees with McCain. But in doing so, she will be contrasting her stated positions now with her actual votes just a few years ago, and she'll make herself look like a scheming flip-flopper with no effort required on McCain's part. She'll make John Kerry look like the model of steadfast consistency.

Which is to say, a vote for Hillary in the primaries is now a vote for McCain for president.

Roidu, thanks for your assiduous responses and your list from Rhubarbs. I'll try to check it out some and I will give some thought to you latter posts.

The problem with Krugman is that he's a hack.

Look - I hate Bush, I think he sucks, blah blah blah. But Krugman's been predicting economic disaster for about 7 years now .Still haven't seen it.

de rien, basman

In my opinion Clinton thrived despite unprecedented - almost traitorious- hostility from the other party. Maybe it was a payback for what Democrats did to Nixon. Clinton gave the working class a bit of a respite from their steady decline since the sixties and ended our ridiculous welfare state.

Kennedy was a worse womanizer and a more dangerous one. He also was an awful president who won because of his father's money and political shenanigans in Chicago. He botched the Bay of Pigs and got us entangled in Vietnam. His greatest claim to fame was his assassination. I don't understand why Obama supporters persist in comparing him to Kennedy.  

Bill Clinton was, in my opinion, a good president.  He could have been a great president had his marital life not intruded on public affairs.  By this I mean not so much Monica Lewinsky, although that too, but the corrupt deal he made with Hillary that, if she would stick by him and be the good little helpmate despite Gennifer Flowers -- so that he could make it into office -- he would give her a prominent policy role.  That turned out to be a disaster both because Hillary wasn't nearly up to the job and because the public was repelled by this evasion of the nepotism law.  By the 90s, we were no longer living in a world where a president could comfortably appoint his brother to high office, but Bill was trapped by that point into following through on his promise to Hillary.  As well, whatever Kennedy managed to get away with in the womanizing department, by the 90s we were in a different media world in which a great deal more discretion was required.  Bill certainly should have known this.

The comparisons between Kennedy and Obama are to their rhetorical skills.  Similar comparisons were made between Bill Clinton and Kennedy -- and are now being made between Obama and Reagan too.  Such skills are an invaluable tool for winning presidential elections, which is the first thing you have to do to be either a good president or a bad president.  That is not to say that any dummy who speaks well should be president -- I certainly did not and would never have cast a vote for Ronald Reagan.  But if you have a very smart, progressive candidate with terrific political skills, that might not be a bad thing.

I might see it otherwise if I believed even a morsel of the narrative about Hillary as being experienced, qualified, tested, accomplishment, blah, blah.  But I don't believe any of it.  I see only bad experience, most prominently the healthcare debacle, no accomplishment worth mentioning (other than parlaying her status as First Lady into a Senate seat in which she has managed to get exactly two pieces of legislation that she authored enacted -- what are they?), and a political tin ear.

To whom shall we compare Hillary?  Carter seems to me to be about the closest.  That's what we need.  Another President Carter.

I am more comfortable with Hillary as president with Bill to advise and mentor her than I am with Obama as president with Zbig to advise and mentor him. I may vote for Hillary over McCain but I would never vote for Obama. I think I represent many Democratic leaning people in my generation (60+).

Yes, r-ennis, I believe you do.  But I wouldn't count on Bill being in any position to mentor and advise Hillary if she actually got into the Oval Office.  

Never say never.

Can someone on this thread clarify for me what was wrong with Bill Clinton's comments after the South Carolina election? What I heard, paraphrased, was that he mentioned that Jesse Jackson also had won South Carolina, twice. It seems obvious, and uncontroversial, that African-Americans would like to vote for a black man. Italian-Americans similarly probably favored Giuliani. Probably even many Italian-American Democrats.

Perhaps such politics don't occur to people in certain regions, tho that seems improbable. But Obama's sweeps in Southern states had a lot to do with his taking 90% of the black vote, so the phenomenon shouldn't seem so unthought-of now.

Re Annabella2, "Sabbatai Zviv in the 17th century and all that..."

Well, more Pinochet, Franco, Huey Long and all that in the 20th century. The charismatic "Man on Horseback" comes from Carlyle, I think. Also on the left, of course, with Lenin, Mao, Kim, Ho Chi Minh, et al. Interesting that some a few years ago worried about Colin Powell taking that role. He was too sharp, tho.

In the American tradition it often appears in the South, people like Tom Watson. Problem goes back to Julius Caesar.

An excessively charismatic leader is worrisome in any democracy. Our most recent example was Ronald Reagan.

So very smooth candidates draw concern. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Re AaronBBrown and FDR

It's a hot debate, but FDR's defenders say that by fighting WWII and defeating Germany, FDR rescued many Jews.

FBC:  You want clarification about the Clinton commentary on Hillary's loss in South Carolina?  Well, then.  Let's suppose that after Hillary gave her wrap about how she is "Experienced, vetted, tested, and survived the Republican attack machine," someone from the Obama campaign had said, "Well, the same could be said of Monica Lewinsky."

Would that strike you as inappropriate?

So comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson is the same as comparing Hillary to Monica Lewinsky?

So comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson is the same as comparing Hillary to Monica Lewinsky?

I actually think that the Hilllary/Monica analogy is pretty much the same as the Obama/Jackson analogy.  Aren't the essentially the same people"  Obama and Jackson are both black men who won a South Caroline primary.  Hillary and Monica are both women who had sex with Bill Clinton.  Isn't that enough to render them functionally indistinguishable?  But that is not precisely my point.  

My point is that the statement is made purely for the purpose of identifying the candidate with someone else who is discreditable and for whom the candidate bears no responsibility.  The statement is not made for its ostensible purpose of questioning the importance of the South Carolina primary, on the one hand, or the reality of Hillary's experience, vetting, testing, and survival skills on the other hand -- and most everyone knows it.

Sorry about the apparent double-tap on the "send" button.

Is Jesse Jackson "discreditable"/ I think despite the regular razzing he receives, many respect him nevertheless. He moved the ball considerably toward the goal line.

Wouldn't regarding Jackson as "discreditable" risk getting Obama perceived as a kind of Oreo cookie?

Doesn't seem to me Bill Clinton, of all people, would make this "statement purely for the purpose of identifying the candidate with someone else who is discreditable." Bill has always evinced admiration for black leaders. Looks genuine. Appointed the first black cabinet officer, Ron Brown. Seems very close to Vernon Jordan. When the Monica Lewinsky scandal became public, Bill turned to black Baptists, including Jordan, for spiritual mentoring and forgiveness, as I recall.

Bill located his office in NYC in Harlem.

Seems to me when Bill was comparing Obama to Jackson, there was no disparagement intended. Interesting that Obama's supporters read it that way. And that the media mostly obeyed. They seem obtuse to the actual friendship and respect that has existed for years among people like Bill, Vernon, and Jesse.

Let's face it.  Jesse Jackson is not exactly a well-liked figure outside of his own community.  You could argue that Bill intended no disparagement, but Bill was at that very moment in the process of disparaging the outcome in South Carolina.  Hence, your reading seems the least likely.  It is precisely because of the Clintons's previous strong relationship with Afrcan-Americans that their apparent willingness to use race to undermine Obama was greeted with such distaste and such a strong backlash.  But, beyond that, the world is changing.  Take George Allen as Exhibit 1.  While it hardly marks the end of racism in American society, the fact that this sort of language is becoming totally unacceptable is a good sign.  It does represent progress.

Maybe Hillary has gotten a bad deal.  I don't think so.  Politics ain't beanbag, and the primaries have served their function of demonstrating who is likely to be the strongest Democratic candidate in November.  That "Hillary's time" arrived at the same moment as the appearance of a rare political talent is just her bad luck.

"Let's face it.  Jesse Jackson is not exactly a well-liked figure outside of his own community."

I think he's got a lot of respect for his human-rights efforts and his association with MLK.

He was sent by Bill Clinton to Kenya in 1997 as his official envoy to work for free elections.

AP poll in 2006 rated Jackson the most important black leader. He took 21% of the vote in the Democratic primaries in 1984. Won 11 primaries in 1988.

He was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 1988 for a while.

There's certainly a far-right blogosphere that automatically disparages him. Interesting that the Obama campaign would take that right-wing perspective as normative, and that the media would go along.

"Bill was at that very moment in the process of disparaging the outcome in South Carolina.  Hence, your reading seems the least likely." The Sunday-morning talk shows are traditionally the place where the loser spins why it wasn't really a loss. Doubtful it occurred to him that mentioning Obama and Jackson in the same breath would be disparaging Obama.

The accusation of racism is negative politics. It's elegant, of course, since it accuses the other guy of going negative. Even more elegant in this case, since it didn't come from Obama himself.

In any case, it was the Obama campaign disparaging a prominent black leader. Culturally, as the offspring of a Kenyan and a white Kansan, Obama isn't culturally African-American; he doesn't have that generational history personally. Maybe that's why his campaign automatically saw the comparison with Jackson as disparaging. But it doesn't seem Bill meant a comparison with Jackson as negative except in the usual campaign sense.

"as negative in the usual campaign sense."  Seems that that is the only negative that matters at this point.

I go back to my earlier point.  Anyone who started mentioning Monica Lewinsky would not be doing so merely to make some neutral historical point.  It would "negative in the usual campaign sense."

But, who cares really?  Bill was spinning.  He got spun by better spinners because he has lost his political ear after 8 years of being a fat cat.  That's politics.  Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Yup. Just involved labeling someone as racist who clearly isn't. And tossing out the leading black politician of two years ago like yesterday's garbage. But tactically superb spinning. Much slicker.

FBC, you don't want to believe that Bill was trying to play the race card to discredit Obama; I do.  You think he was just making nice observations about black politicians he holds in high regard; I don't.  You think he wasn't trying to spin Hillary's loss in South Carolina; I do.  So it goes.

Racism takes many forms.  It is not always or even mostly an overt expression of racial hatred.  In my opinion, Bill dabbled at a hateful game and got caught at it and he, and she, deserved the opprobrium that followed.

Charisma vs. Wonkiness

The American public elected George W. Busch twice!

It seems to me that as a group we are forgetting that there are two processes at hand getting elected and governing. Until proven otherwise the American public has not shown the ability to distinguish between a popularity contest and electing individuals who will do the best job of governing. I take the comments of Dr. Krugman as placing more emphasis upon the pitfalls of electing another personality rather than an unwarranted attack on the current darling of the left. In my opinion, all of these pop psychology attacks on Dr. Krugman's motives are way out of line. The American people are not known for wanting to hear, nor acknowledge reality especially when it comes to economics. We are a nation of flagrant spenders who are deep in debt with a negative savings rate to show for it. No one would teach a kid to run a lemonade stand the way most people handle their personal finances and certainly few would encourage their kids to manage money like the US government manages our economy. Talk is cheap from whatever candidate one supports. What I'm looking for is someone who will face the issues and get a very tough job done. If Obama can sweet talk oil barons, entrenched interests in the healthcare industry, and the other heavy weights he would face as President more power to him. One thing is for certain he will face opposition like he has never seen before and characters who are motivated by self-interest and greed who will do virtually anything to protect their special interest. Nice isn't going to getting far in that area. We will just have to see if his rhetorical and possibly magical skills of persuasion can do the job. If nominated and elected Obama may accomplish his goals but I think he will have to evolve into a vastly different individual than the politician he is portraying himself to be in this primary race.

r-brown:

Clearly, you can distinguish between politicking and governing.  Krugman chooses not to.  His accusation is essentially that Obama cannot directly implement his campaign rhetoric and hope to govern effectively.  The charge reflects, at the least, a gross misunderstanding of the requirements of politics.  If Obama were setting out a wonky agenda that were directly implementable as policy, he would be losing not winning.  Krugman can complain all he wants, as can you, about the American public.  But a politician who aspires to govern has first to get elected, and you get elected by employing the rhetoric that gets you elected by the American public.  You do not get to choose the electorate you want.  You must address the electorate you have.   Laying out plans for governance satisfactory to Prof. Krugman or any other policy-minded individual is a prescription for electoral failure.  See, for example, Carter, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and now HRC.  That is the reality of American political life.  It has nothing to do with psychoanalysis of Krugman.  It is very much to Obama's credit that he understands the realities of political life so clearly.  That you cannot conclude to your satisfaction that he would govern effectively is regrettable, but necessary.  On the other hand, apart from a lot of policy detail, I cannot imagine how anyone could conclude that Hillary would govern effectively.

"FBC, you don't want to believe that Bill was trying to play the race card to discredit Obama; I do.  You think he was just making nice observations about black politicians he holds in high regard; I don't.  You think he wasn't trying to spin Hillary's loss in South Carolina; I do.  So it goes."

Nope, you're misrepresenting what I said. (How Obama-like?)

The evidence is that Bill doesn't play the race card, nor that he has anything but esteem for black politicians generally and Jackson in particular.

The evidence is that Obama supporters, tho, assert that to compare the leading black politician to the second-leading black politician is racist. Incorrect, if sincere, but doubtful that it's sincere.

Of course I "don't think he was just making nice observations about black politicians..." nor do I "think he wasn't trying to spin Hillary's loss in South Carolina..."

As seems obvious, and as I said earlier, Bill was trying to spin Hillary's loss in SC by pointing out that black politicians in national contests do particularly well in states where there is a large black population. And thus, Bill was obviously saying, the loss in SC should not be seen as a predictor in itself of future primaries.

What Obama's spinners did was try to bump Bill out of the campaign for a while by smearing him.

Nicholas Kristof has complained of the Third-World quality of having successive Bush and Clinton administrations.

But this isn't particularly rare in Western _parliamentary_ democracies. The Pitts, Gladstone, Disraeli, and numerous others in British history. Similar in France, Israel, India.

FDR won four consecutive terms during WWII, violating the informal rule about being limited to just two terms. A constitutional amendment followed.

But I and many others would happily have voted for Bill a third time in 2000, were it not for the amendment to the constitution. And many of us feel that voting in Hillary is a way of voting in Bill.

So the false and slanderous aspersion of Bill isn't trivial, with regard to the campaign or the presidency.

FBC, you want to believe that the Clintons have run a nice, clean, campaign, go right ahead.  I have no interest in convincing you otherwise.