Krugman knows Hillary will give him a top post in her administration and he is more than willing to shill for it. It's great for Hillary that she snagged him. It's bad for Krugman that he's become such a shill.

The last administration Krugman worked in was Reagan's. Nothing that he has ever said, to my knowledge, indicates that he would ever want to go back to government. Between his writing, his teaching at Princeton, and his role as a NY Times pundit, I believe that he feels that he already has enough impact on public policy.

As far as his so-called confusion, I don't see where money is ever off the table. Obama is using money in his campaign as does every successful politician

Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him — and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton’s initial financial and organizational advantage — he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.

Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.

Whether he is successful or not will depend on how he runs his campaign - on the same playing field as every candidate.

Roosevelt became president by chance. And he only became a Progressive after he was shunned by the Republican party in 1912. And if you remember correctly, Roosevelt was big on American imperialism (Cuba, Phillipines), so I'm not sure that one would want to put him and Obama in the same breath. I think he is one of George W. Bush's favorite presidents.

In any case, all Krugman is saying is that the duty of the senior Democrats, who have the wisdom of experience, to make sure that in this very close contest (nobody seems to make the case that this is one of the highly contested primary races in a very long time - when was the last time there was an actual race this late in the game), the best choice is made in order for the party to win in November. All Krugman is doing is pointing out that possible the point of Obama's campaign "Change" may not bring enough electoral votes to the Democrats.

I know that way before there was any campaign at all, living through the disasters of the current administration, all I wanted in the next president was competence combined with wisdom. That would be change enough.

This is one of Krugman's most pathetic columns ever. I stopped reading him long ago, once it became clear he'd lost all objectivity. But this one I read, and it's classic.

He sets up a ridiculous strawman about how Obama was "supposed to be" a transcendent figure. And then he manages to tear it down. Wow. How impressive. NOT!

Any two-bit political hack could have written this article. There's barely an ounce of "economic" insight in it. Who does this guy think he is?

-- ARG

Krugman is, like Mr. Taplin, is entitled to express his opinion and should not be vilified for doing so.

Mr. Taplin presents a reasoned, civil response to Krugman's column, which was also reasoned and civil.

Some folks need to learn to separate the politics from the personality, and accept that just because someone doesn't share you opinion doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, or bad.

"Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class."

Jeez, a black guy is losing the white working class to a white candidate who has reinvented herself as a shot-and-a-beer populist. I can't imagine why he's not winning those voters, who so reliably vote on their perceived economic interests.

I was a big fan of Krugman's, and probably will be again soon. But he is so deep in the tank for Hillary that I think the lack of oxygen is making him stupid.

The election of 2008 is not about either restoration or reform, it is about continuing the same failed policies of the recent past. The rhetoric may differ but don't you believe it. It's 2006 all over again on a grander scale. There is too much money being made by politicians and their corporate friends to change anything, except to make it worse (like forced medical insurance). This election hoopla is merely an opiate for the masses.

Or do you believe that the Dem candidates are compassionate liberals?

Thank you, Jonathan Taplin. This latest effort on Krugman's part is a real doozy, ain't it? I wonder how many folks actually bothered to read the entire piece before weighing in here. Go ahead, I dare any of you, it's execrable on so many levels that I'm really curious to see the piece itself (rather than Paul's reputation) be defended by anyone.

Such causality issues.

The way I see it is that if not for Bill Clinton we would have had Republicans in both the executive and legislative branches throughout most of the 1990's. Can you imagine how the Supreme Court would look today?

And my memory is that despite the huge efforts made to prevent him from his job, he was able to compartmentalize and run a pretty decent governing organization, while at the same time dealing with defense attorneys, etc.

I can assure you that if the next president is a Democrat, he/she will be facing the same, dare I call it, right wing conspiracy.

So phelicity, you wouldn't blame Bush for the poor economy either then? The usual ups and downs of the economy will continue as long as we have an economy based on "principles of capitalism?" So we should elect a socialist then?

Paul Krugman's convoluted polemic against Senator Barack Obama essentially boils down to the eliptical concluding statement he made at the end of “Clinging to a Stereotype” (New York Times, April 18, 2008):

... let’s hope that once Mr. Obama is no longer running against someone named Clinton, he’ll stop denigrating the very good economic record of the only Democratic administration most Americans remember.

In the second place, it does not constitute a "denigration" -- by Senator Obama or anyone else -- to note that many of us Americans (many with college degrees) now approaching our first Social Security check (in downwardly adjusted, inflated dollars) lost good career jobs with health care and benefits after Bill Clinton took office in 1992. Many of us have remained virtually unemployable due to our "middle age" ever since. For Senator Obama to call attention to this and other unpleasant economic facts of the last sixteen years does not amount to the blanket denunciation of "someone named Clinton" that Paul Krugman alleges.

Third, Krugman speciously implies the unproven existence of a quasi-incumbent "someone named Clinton" (just which person named "Clinton" he cannot bring himself to say). In fact, no such "inheritor" of the presidency exists and spousal co-habitation with a mere-plurality president does not carry with it the presumption of osmotic "experience" transfer to the unelected spouse. Senator Obama, on the other hand, has defined his candidacy in terms of running for President of the United States on a platform of change and not "against" any particular other candidate. Again as a matter of factual observation, two persons named "Clinton," namely Bill and You-Know-Her, have done little since the Iowa caucuses but run against Senator Obama. And Paul Krugman has uncritially followed suit.

I liked Paul Krugman's book The Great Unraveling and occasionally enjoy reading his economic analyses in the New York Times. Yet like many other of his sometime-admirers I find his jihad against Senator Obama -- not to mention his transparent touting of Senator You-Know-Her -- curious if not disappointing. But more than this, and finally, I find it an egregious insult for Paul Krugman to imply that Senator Obama will somehow recant his views on any number of matters once he no longer has two "someones named Clinton" desperately biting at his ankles. The American electorate quite simply wants a change from what we've had to something better that we demand. Something important about the difference between past and future -- and about Senator Barack Obama -- escapes Paul Krugman. He really misses the whole point of this election with his nostalgic obsession for two bedraggled political hangers-on whose many and notable failures a great many of us can still remember without wishing the next Democratic Party President of the United States anything but the best of luck.

I like Paul Krugman often agree with him on most issues. However, I disagree with his assessment of the Clinton presidency, which was neither liberal nor progressive; in fact, Clinton's domestic policies were to the right of Republican Nixon. Did Clinton establish prosperity? Certainly he should be given credit for helping to do this but let's not forget that Bush I passed tax increases that aided 1990s prosperity. More importantly however, Clinton must be given full credit for continuing the worst policies of the Reagan years; rather than trying to overturn Reagan's anti-progressive policies, Clinton did much to countenance and legitimize them them. Clinton's DLC "third way" political agenda was and remains little more than GOP lite and I feel it should be categorically rejected by all progressives and liberals. I do agree with Krugman that Clinton's preference for health care mandates is more realistic then Obama's reliance on volunteerism; people won't volunteer to pay for health care if they don't perceive a need. The only truly universal health care system is one that includes everyone and that prohibits opt outs or any form of private coverage.

So is the election of 2008 about restoration or reform?

That's the fallacy of false Dilemma

Krugman never said or implied that Hillary is running on restoration. And reform? what does that mean?

Hillary is running on the platform that she has posted and talked about since the beginning of the campaign.
You can take pieces of that platform and criticize them--perhaps saying that it is a policy proposal that harkens back to something her husband did as President that failed, but you cannot say that she is running on “Restoration” tout court. That's a cheap pejorative that you guys use to demonize the lady.

Personally speaking, I don't use "cheap" pejoratives when it comes to Senator You-Know-Her. I employ "inexpensive" ones. Since I try to make up my own, they cost me very little. If I wanted to use cheap pejoratives, though, I'd just use You-Know-Her's first name like millions of other "best friends" of hers who who haven't met her either.

You-Know-Her could have won my vote easily enough. She had nothing more to do than vote with 23 other U.S. Senators and 133 U.S. Congressmen against a known imbecile and his sneering Rasputin who fell asleep at the switch on 9/11/2001 and then lied a blue streak stoking mob hysteria towards a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with attacking America -- ever.

Not a lot to ask, but too much for You-Know-Her. She made a very bad decision and now she must pay for it. She needs to go down hard as an object lesson to future "all tough and stuff" poseurs who consider war a parlor game or personal ticket to political self-aggrandizement. The same goes for John McBomb. I want no more Warfare Welfare queens or monkey-on-a-stick militarists in the White House for at least the rest of my life. America needs a civilian president, not another maniacal moron martinet(te).