His whole bizarre column is premised on the fact that the ONLY difference between Obama and Hillary is about health care. That there has been no difference worth considering in terms of Hillary's pandering, waffling on important issues, sleazy campaign tactics, race-baiting, etc. etc. As if the ONLY reason one might resist Hillary is because we have all been dazed by the blinding light of our savior Obama. Ridiculous. He's gone off the deep end.

Nixonland even becomes Hillaryland so naturally.

"And the Obama camp is supposedly guilty of these things? What is Krugman talking about?"

C'mon Isaac, don't you remember Senator Obama's eye-raising remarks after Hillary won New Hampshire? "Estes Kefauver won New Hampshire twice. He ran a good campaign. Senator Clinton ran a good campaign too." Shameless!

In all seriousness, when has Obama injected MISOGYNY into this campaign? When he held Hillary's chair for her in Los Angeles? I would think that if he even hinted at anti-woman rhetoric on the campaign trail, Michelle would kick his ass all the way back to Lakeshore Drive. And as for supporters, you don't have to fake even-handedness to see that the NY NOW email and the "Goodbye To All That (#2)" essay infused sexism into this race at least as much as any non-Obama-supporting-shock-jock yelling "Iron my shirt!"

Stick to economics, Paul.

Krugman's column today reminded me of all those conservative pundits who talk about Bush Derangement Syndrome.  Neither Krugman or the conservatives seem to realize that sometimes people get upset at other people for LEGITIMATE REASONS.

Maybe she promised him a job as White House Press Secretary.

Its really no surprise that Krugman sees venom coming from supporters of Obama.  His columns and blog have been have been so consistently pro-Hillary/anti-Obama that he must get a steady stream of hate mail.  One column on the differences in their healthcare plans is fair and a valuable contribution to the public discourse, but 4 or 5 columns in a row on the same issue and it starts to look like you have an agenda (at first latent and now blatant).  Now he has given up trying to talk about an issu and has just gone after the movement itself. His mood seems to mirror that of the Clinton campaign.  I would categorize today's column as desperate.  

"Why, then, is there so much venom out there? I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom...

I keep thinking Obama slighted Krugman before or something.  Or maybe because he doesn't sign up to all Krugmanian economics (I don't know enough about the field to judge if they are good or not; but my point is still there).  I kind of think, uncharitably perhaps, that Krugman realizes that if Obama does what his supporters think he can do, and alleviates some of the insane partisan rancor, that Krugman will have to abandon his post of attack dog and go back to economics.  

And it's not like we lack data to test Krugman's conclusions here. In all the exit polling I've seen, Clinton's supporters are equally or more hostile to an Obama nomination than are Obama's supporters to a Hillary nomination. The numbers I've seen have ranged from even to plus-10-percent on the side of anti-Obama hostility among Hillary backers (in South Carolina).

So, actually, Hillaryland is more to blame for the internecine venom Krugman decries. Which should make intuitive sense to Krugman's readers, since Krugman proves the point by writing two irrationally venomous anti-Obama columns most weeks.

ej, great analogy. Just visited a right-wing website and a commentator was calling Obama "Urkel" (smart, skinny black guy I guess). Apparently that will be their snide attack this year, unless they get footage of him windsurfing.

If Krugman is talking about Obama's "camp" then he's offbase.  If he's talking about Obama's supporters, he's on target -- the venom on this blog's comments alone directed at Hillary Clinton exceeds anything expressed towards George W. Bush (you'd think she's the one who has tortured people).  

He's losing it for the same reasons that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are losing it. It's really tough to be asked to give up your righteousness. It's been your friend all of these years. Getting up every morning and looking in the mirror and congratulating yourself for wisdom and insight and a felicity with God. That such a thing is not being ratified by the larger public is enough to make a guy go jihad. You might even be persuaded to tell a few lies on behalf of the greater good.

I am so happy how influential Paul Krugman is as we are about to begin the second term of President Kerry.

As with so much else from Krugman, this was entirely predictable: the man thrives on partisan conflict, has difficulty writing anything on politics that doesn't accord with an "us" and "them" partisan meme. So it was natural that sooner or later he'd apply that same rather, um, Nixonian tendency to internal analysis of the Democratic Party.

What a shame he didn't stick to writing about economics. A good mind is a terrible thing to waste.

He has something wrong with him, that's for sure, but what? My hunch is that he has this big fat ego - that's pretty safe; he's a pundit - and he made such a huge stinking stink about health care mandates, and nothing else [in the Democratic primary anyway], and this sowed the seeds of what we see today. Previously, I used to think that, ok, he's for Edwards, and this is his way of coralling the anti-lobbyist, anti-war faction over to E and away from O. But I guess that wasn't it. Or if it was, it has morphed into something else.

What I think happened:

1. He wedded himself very strongly to hating Obama [yes, the irony, etc.] over the mandate issue.

2. Edwards quit and he was faced with a fork in the road - a) endorse Obama as the best alternative, since he's less like Bush than Hillary, and say that the healthcare diff is outweighed by a whole ton of stuff, like voting for the Iraq war without reading the NIE, etc., or b) maintain the level of outrage against Obama that you've already whipped up and put out there. Krugman's fan base is not Clintony, though, so this requires some contorting in the face of the narrowed race. Because he doesn't want to look as though this mandate thing trumps all, and he's Mr. Single Issue crackpot, so now he has to actually increase his vitriol, and on non-mandate grounds.

In going for plan b, at the fork in the road, he chose to sell his truth-seeker soul to the devil of his ego. Because what he's spouting now is such patent garbage that he must actually believe it,  if that makes any sense. I don't think he can be Karl Rove and just not care about the truth at all - because a big part of his ego, or his identity, is that he does care about truth, speaks it to power and all. But he'd already put Obama in the irredeemable villain pile, over there with Bush, and he cannot let go of that bone. So at some point he wrapped up the inconvenient truth baby, slipped it in the dumpster, and ran off and got drunk enough to convince himself that it was, in fact, a sack of cat litter. Or something.

It's sad, actually, to see a onetime contender for the Nobel willingly transform himself into a partisan blogger-maroon.

The Krug Czar concludes with this gem:

"I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election."

Yeah, it's high time Obama made clear that he respects his opponent and would support her in the general election. I mean, besides when he already says exactly that in every speech and debate. Four times in fact at his rally in Alexandria, VA yesterday, including once when someone specifically asked why she should vote for him.

Does the NYT not actually have editors anymore? I mean, good opinion writing really does depend on having an editor who can read a piece, find obvious piffle like Krugman's conclusion today, and say, "You realize this is bullshit, right? Both candidates already say this. All. The. Time. If this is really what your whole piece builds up to, then scrap it. Give me 800 on interest rates today and maybe you'll have thought of something worth saying on the campaign by Wednesday."

Well, one doesn't have to look too far. There is Frank Rich with his hysterical anti-Clinton diatribe in Sunday's New York Times. I won't even mention Maureen Dowd, or did I do just that?.  Hmmm how come those two columnists didn't mention a  "What is wrong..." essay from  "The plank"? Hey, not to worry. I'm enjoying with requisite amusement that such long time friends as "The New Republic" and The Nation" magazines are having a kumbaya moment in their Clinton bashfest. Two cheers to Krugman, for dissenting from the dissenters.

I caucused this weekend (sound dirty, doesn't it?) in Seattle, and my experience was the exact opposite of what Krug describes. I didn't hear a single negative word against Hillary from the (many, many) Obama supporters. "She has some electability baggage that isn't even completely her fault" was just about it. The Hillary supporters, on the other hand, made up for their lack of numbers by racheting up the snide remarks about the "empty suit" "preacher" "rock star" "lightweight" she was vying against.

There are a lot of people who, for whatever reason - I don't get it, but uh, whatever, I guess - have a lot invested in Hillary personally. And they're getting that pain-in-the-pit-of-their-stomach feeling that they're watching it all come unraveled.

"I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We've already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don't want to go there again."

So Krugman's argument is: Obama's supporters are Nixonian, and the Senator himself is reminicent of G.W. Bush. And he's accusing Obama's supporters of being vemonous ...

Hey Woody!  It was last week for me and it only sounds dirty if you say it really fast while you hold your tongue with your thumb and forefinger.

Like you, I barely heard an anti-Hillary peep at the overflow crowd (2/3 of which supported Obama) at the high school where the caucuses were held.  It was a pleasant exchange of ideas (of course, we are Minnesotans).  I think the only time anyone's blood pressure got over 120/80 was when the lack of foresight by the State DFL (We are Democratic-Farmer-Labor out here.  Look it up for more information, but think Floyd B. Olson).

I was surprised when after the caucus a bunch of us old sell-out hacks were sitting around and talking about who we supported.  I was shocked that we had all pulled the lever for Obama and our reasoning was pretty much the same.  We all have invested a lot of time on the frontlines as Democrats and we were all happy to see a candidate who would step out and "try to win" as opposed to supporting someone we perceive as "not trying to lose."

Believe me, I have nothing against Hillary Clinton, personally or professionally.  I will support here down to the core of my being if she is indeed the nominee and I will work to make certain that all the newcomers out to support Obama understand the importance of putting a Democrat in the White House.

That being said, I don't know if I can handle another Democratic administration where wonkishness and triangulation are the two daily specials.  Hillary needs to get away from the lines on the graph and realize that every point on the graph equates to a human being.  There is no optimum allocation when people are left out, regardless of what the market apologists might say.  Stop fiddling with the dials when a new radio is needed.

Here's a question: If Obama and his supporters were playing things as brutally as Krugman claims, wouldn't the Senator from New York's campaign be buried under a pile of not-so-closeted skeletons by now? What in the hell has he been smoking?

Most of the Obama supporters I personally know absolutely love Hillary but favor Obama on the basis of specific policy differences or because of an assessment that his style of politics is more likely to achieve positive results than hers.

Some examples of specific policy preferences I've heard: health care (the problem is the cost of insurance, not the lack of a government command to buy it); the mortgage crisis (Obama's plan to make mortgage interest deductible to non-itemizers is much more attractive in my neighborhood than Clinton's plan to freeze interest rates and destroy the mortgage market); and the war in Iraq (Obama promises quick withdrawal of all combat forces, whereas Clinton promises only to "start" a withdrawal by next summer). Throw in her record of pro-Bush, anti-liberal votes, and the political failures of 1993-94 that defined her public reputation, and Obama is winning on substance.

Anti-Hillary Democrats who came to Obama by default, like me, are the rare minority in my own experience. When I'm walking the dog and chatting up my neighbors each evening -- er, I mean, "canvassing for Obama" -- I never say a bad word about Hillary, and I've rarely heard one. But at my local Democratic district committee meetings, I get all kinds of anti-Obama snideness from the middle-aged women Hillary supporters who make up the bulk of each monthly meeting.

WoodyBombay - my Seattle experience was exaclty the same as yours - were you at Melrose Terrace Apts? And in case the rest of you didn't know - Seattle is the snarky hipster epicenter, so I really expected a lot of anti HRC cattiness, but yeah - nothing.

Mahler48 - no big partisan of either HRC or BHO here, but really, the Frank Rich piece was IMHO fair and fact-based. He focused on Bill's strange and rather disturbing behavior, and in any case this drama critic's angle is always about how a particular "show" will play with the "audience" that Rich knows best, the NY media. He made some very shrewd observations that we've not seen elsewhere, among them the fact that Bill's prominence-- again, this is main source of disquiet over HRC's campaign, not policy disputes-- will inevitably trigger great scrutiny into the sources of his library's and his foundation's cash, and that these could seriously harm the HRC campaign.

Rather prescient, you might say, in light of Hillary's donations to her own campaign, the massive slush flowing from uranium traders doing deals in the Wild East, the impending multi-million $$$ payouts to Bill from the Man Who Would Be King of west coast media, Ron Burkle....

Again, that's reporting and meme-shifting in a serious, fact-based way, on a serious topic. Exactly what an OpEd writer should be doing. As to Dowd, she's Dowd. Same ol' same ol'. But she's not exactly been easy on Obama.

Rhubarbs, what surprised me at my caucus is the number of Hillary-aged women who were for Obama, and many of these women were long-time activists who I had assumed (I know.  I know.  When you assume, you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me.") would be in the Hillary camp.  Middle-aged white guy that I am, I realize that I'm not that good at traversing the treacherous passes in the mountains of identity politics.

Seriously, I totally misjudged the situation.

"Paul Krugman's shockingly incoherent column today,"

Dear tnr bloggers and Obama supporters.  Can you recomend a list of critical articles about Obama by any authors that iare  not  shockingly incoherent?

Given Godlike nature of Obama, should  any criticism of Obama be  considered a shockingly incoherent heresy?

I appreciate my friends here saying that at the Obama meetings there has been no Hillary bashings, and folks will work to help Hillary if she is the nominee. I accept and believe it. Someone should speak to Obama's wife Michelle who demurred from saying that she would support Hillary if she was the nominee, and who according to Reliable Sources on CNN seemed to get a free pass from the media on that one.

BTW teplukhin2you, thanks for your comment above. But I found that Frank Rich's writing about Latinos, African Americans and bigotry in the Clinton camp was scurrilous anti Clinton hate mongering. Others may disagree, so be it. I mention Frank Rich, because I happen to be a long time fan of his writings. I'm just disappointed that he has joined some right wing loonies in their Hillary hate, and is throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the Clintons.

Folks, I know what the polls have been saying, but I sincerely believe that if Obama is the nominee, they will be playing Hail To The Chief, to President McCain. You don't really believe Peggy Noonan' s ruse in the Wall Street Journal, do you?

Mahler,

I saw Ms. Obama's comments. I thought she was wrong. But I don't know if I blame her after the sordid crap the Clintons threw at her husband. Obama's spouse certainly has acted in a far classier manner than Hillary's spouse. (And as someone who still argues pro-Bill until I'm blue in the face with some of my nuttier "Who killed Vince Foster?" relatives, that saddens me to say. But it's true.) And no one is buying what Peggy Noonan, Bill Kristol etc. are saying. I'm listening to Scarlett Johannson, and Scarlett Johansson only.

psantillana,

I'm in the Greenwood/Phinney area. We caucused at the Methodist church on Greenwood Ave. It was kind of funny reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in a church sanctuary and watching about one-third of the folks there refuse to say the "under God" part. I love this town.

Here's more on Hillary hatred from Stanley Fish in the New York Times:

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/

Lately I've been buying the New York Times Sunday edition on, coincidentally, Sunday when I go to Starbucks and sip an espresso and wonder how I'm going to get through the next week of moments meandering toward me like a herd of ice cream-smeared toddlers lost at a county fair.

I buy the Sunday Times because for some reason it's better than its competitors at soaking up the urine that my adorable tortie Miranda, in her haste/sloth, squirts over the sides of her litter box. I've tried the San Francisco Chronicle but it's, I don't know, shinier or something. The pee doesn't sink in, at least not as well as when I use the Times.

Plus, a Sunday NYT contains enough pages to get me through the week, so I don't have to think about it until my next espresso preceding the next herd of pre-diabetic moments.

As for the paper's opinion writers, oh, well, once in a while when I bother to read him or her he or she manages a clever phrase. But nothing edifying is going on, at least into this knot-gnarled noggin. Perhaps these opinionators are too much like stern Jesus' farmer, loosing his seed fruitlessly upon the road, or perhaps they are not enough like prize-winning swine, wallowing in mud and excrement at that very same county fair from where all my moments seem to osmose, piggies who unlike the opinionators possess that endearing redeeming quality of being on the road to bacon.

IMHO Peggy Noonan doesn't give a damn about what anyone thinks-- she's basically taken to calling Limbaugh a jackass ("absurd" is her term of choice), has point-blank accused Bush of destroying the GOP. I don't think she's pulling a "ruse."

According to accounts I've seen, she was like so many other northeastern catholic and jewish conservatives of her generation she was a supporter of the civil rights movement in her youth. Her shtick is all about "character", which in her definition has to do with a kind of pro-American, Daddy Warbucks/FDR/Reagan-style optimism that combines religious faith and old-school manliness.

Put these together and I think you have a genuine attraction to Obama, both the candidate and the message.

from Fish's column and a direct quote: "Comments like these would seem to lend support to the view (voiced by many respondents) that sexism is what ultimately motivates the Clinton bashers."

To which I say heartily screw you Fish. you smug arrogant asshole. I hate Guiliani, so I guess I am anti-Italian (never mind my Italian relatives) and I think Romney is a phony, so I am motivated by anti-Mormonism. And I can't stick Bush, so I must be gay. And I can't stand his VP Dick, so I must be anti-gay. What a tool this guy is.

This is a Democracy, anyone can vote for anyone for whatever reason they want. You don't have to like other peoples choices but in a Democracy we have to respect them. Ascribing base reasons for everyones vote but your own is likely to make you look like an idiot, which this Fish is. I would say the same thing if he attributed all anti-Obama feeling to racism alone. But, oddly, I haven't seen anyone do that. I am not saying every Hillary supporter is an idiot (my parents are voting for her) just that Fish is.

I agree with tep about Noonan, and extend it generally to what I've seen from Republicans who support Obama. I believe they are sincere, not trying to sucker us into nominating him. The character thing really is important to a lot of Rs. Maybe even more than to Ds - I'm not sure. THat is why Romney lost, and Huckafreak is still in it.

The character thing is also very important to me, and only gets more important the longer I live and watch what people do and say.  

Oh, "even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland"?

The Democrats have been over the top nasty ever since the Boomer Lefties busted up the Party at the '68 convention.  

This self-image of the Dems as poor innocent flower children vs the nasty gestapo Republicans who will "stop at nothing" amuses the hell out of me.

And by the way, this is the very first time I've seen the Clintons cast as befuddled innocents being shredded by the diabolical Obama machine.

It is diabolical, indeed, how the Obama people do their beating without leaving a mark.  Styrofoam truncheons, no doubt.

"Styrofoam truncheons, no doubt."

Great line, Chan.

Mr. Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal" is a must read for anyone wanting to understand the divisive politics of the movement conservatives.  In it, he also states that universal heathcare is the issue that progressives should fight for in establishing a new order.  This seems to be the root of his crticism of Senator Obama.  Even though the icon of liberalism, Senator Kennedy has said that Obama's plan is unniversal healthcare, Mr. Krugman seems to be determined to make this a big issue.  What is more important in my mind is that we get a progressive elected as president.  We have to do that before we can enact unniversal healthcare.  Senator Obama continues to look like he is more likely to defeat the Republicans.  Mr. Krugman needs to take note of that.