It's possible to point up the flaws in Krugman's argument, of which there are several. What bothered me the most, though, was his unwillingness to hold Clinton responsible in any way or to any extent for either the racial divisiveness of the past couple of months OR the necessary healing on the road ahead.

In light of their willingness to capitalize on racial suspicions in the electorate, the Clintons have a vital role to play in bringing uncertain or wavering white voters comfortably under the big Dem umbrella. Considering Sen. Obama's consistent efforts to connect with working-class people of all races and ethnicities, why isn't the Clinton's role here THE focus of Krugman's piece?

Yes, I know the answer (can anyone say "shill"?) but this is the big point I'd like to see Krugman and, by extension, the Clintons held accountable on.

Posted at May 9, 2008 11:34 AM in response to What's the deal with Paul Krugman?

CLINTON = LIAR

Posted at April 11, 2008 12:21 AM in response to Bill Clinton: Media Acted Like Hillary Was "Just Making Up All This Stuff" On Bosnia

Wow, Obama swiftboated by people in his own party. Well, it ain't gonna work, not this time. Lanny Davis can go, as we Cuban Americans say, pa' el carajo!

Posted at April 9, 2008 9:28 AM in response to Clinton Ally Lanny Davis: Wright Issue "Is Not Going Away"

DonnaG nailed it. Obama played today's questioning expertly, and not as a show for the cameras today but in terms of laying the groundwork for shifting the debate and really getting us out of Iraq.

Posted at April 9, 2008 2:36 AM in response to Obama: We Have to Apply "Measured, But Increased Pressure" on the Iraqis

Um, that she's a pathological liar and we'd be foolish to have her as our next president. Duh.

Posted at April 5, 2008 11:19 PM in response to Was she duped or did she lie? Hillary Clinton and the story of the dead baby and dead mother

Granted, any comparison to McCarthy is an exaggeration. But tell me, Clinton apologists, what DID Bill mean by his comments? Was he dismissing the patriotism of his wife's Democratic rival or was he just mindlessly talking out his ass? Which is it?

Posted at March 22, 2008 5:15 PM in response to Obama-Supporting Retired General Compares Bill Clinton To Joe McCarthy

I have the same wish. In fact, I wrote to the campaign on the night that Obama gave interviews to MSNBC and Anderson Cooper on CNN. Both times he disappointed me by going out of his way to distance himself from Wright's comments. He had a teachable moment to work with there and he blew it and boxed himself in to this "I'm not associated in any way with the comments . . . " Well, that's downright silly and it's untrue. Obama and his family are members of a United Church of Christ congregation. One of the hallmarks of this denomination is the independence of its pastors and the diversity of views it celebrates. The candidate had an opportunity to embrace his church and denomination and put Wright's comments into more of a context AND to distance himself from the specific statements of an angry man. But he didn't, really. And, for the first time in this long campaign, Barack Obama disappointed me.

Posted at March 16, 2008 9:43 PM in response to Obama's Church: Pillorying Wright An Assault Upon African-American Culture

Those who accuse Clinton of exposing a weakness of Senator Obama, compared to Senator McCain, on national security have, whether they realize it or not, bought into the Republican talking points of the last 25 years.

I support Obama's candidacy precisely because he will bring fundamentally fresh judgement to foreign policy and to moments of crisis.

Senator Clinton has no experience making judgements in a national security crisis. Neither does Senator McCain, for that matter. In all three candidates we have to look to issues of judgement, of character, and policy choices.

Senator Clinton has chosen, accurately, I think, to portray herself as a relatively hawkish establishment player in foreign affairs, as serious as McCain.

Those who want to stay on the same old path, at least in this arena, should vote for either Clinton or McCain. I'm going to be voting for a change, for what I believe is in the best security interests of this country and the best interests of my party.

Posted at March 6, 2008 11:15 PM in response to Hillary: McCain Has Crossed "Commander In Chief Threshold"

2. The second misperception that now dogs the Obama campaign is the notion that his appeal is limited to the high-brow, latte-drinking progressive 'elite' and that ordinary folks feel more comfortable with Hillary. Polls and primaries are bearing out this divide and so the perception is sticking. The Obama team has to find a way to turn the tables on Clinton, stressing her WalMart board years, her $100,000 cattle futures, her husband's wheeling and dealing with domestic and foreign fat cats. They also have to find ways of showcasing Obama as an ordinary guy, a guy's guy. I wouldn't presume to say how they do that but do it they must.

Posted at March 6, 2008 8:44 PM in response to If I were Plouffe: A Post 3/4 Strategy Memo

1. It's high time that the national security heavyweights who support Obama come out, en masse, to squash the ridiculous notion that he is somehow less qualified to be commander in chief than Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Zinni, Rockefeller, Dodd, Kerry, McPeak, and others ought to be making the case, not once, but repeatedly, that they are supporting Obama precisely BECAUSE he has the experience and judgement necessary to lead this country in perilous times.

Posted at March 6, 2008 7:51 PM in response to If I were Plouffe: A Post 3/4 Strategy Memo