Wow! Color me impressed. I'm something of a fan of Krugman in terms of his economic analysis, but his bias toward Clinton right now has left me scratching my head. I don't think I could have even come close to what you've done here. Great post.

This paragraph is so on the money it's not funny:

"Krugman's other blind spot is more fundamental. Like many economic populists, he is inattentive to the importance of small-d democratic activism in the effort to implement progressive policy. The 30 years of neoliberal economic policy that Krugman now wants us to reject were enabled by the demobilization of the American citizen. Since the 1970s Americans' access to power has been steadily limited. Their voice and their role have been belittled and ignored by the entire media and political establishment."

Hillary's 3 am ad, as silly as it was for its national security scare-mongering, was at least as troubling for its implication that we should get back into bed and let Hillary drive.

When Clinton advertises her "competence," she is also sending a message of a top-down politics. Obama, on the other had, has deliberately built a popular movement that can push for change and hold his feet to the fire if he's not doing what he promised. Krugman does not see the political implications of movement building. Or, if he does, he does not get it. He understands it in purely reactionary and demagogic terms: "We're the ones we have been waiting for"? To Krugman, this can only be either a meaningless platitude or an expression of conservative boot-strap philosophy. What anyone who has ever worked as an organizer can tell you is that it is all about empowerment.

"Krugman does not see the political implications of movement building. Or, if he does, he does not get it. He understands it in purely reactionary and demagogic terms: "We're the ones we have been waiting for"? To Krugman, this can only be either a meaningless platitude or an expression of conservative boot-strap philosophy. What anyone who has ever worked as an organizer can tell you is that it is all about empowerment."

I differ from you on this just slightly. I don't think it's that he doesn't see it or that he doesn't get it. Examine what he chooses to omit, gloss over, or distort: That's the tell. He sees it and gets it. He just doesn't like it. That's the problem a lot of people have with Obama. They're lazy. If the rules change, the game changes, and people who were previously satisfied with the outcome are out of step. Any shift of large magnitude will inevitably result in a shift in the dynamic of power. That has undeniable appeal for "We, The People" but it is undeniably appalling to "They, The Gatekeepers."

I'm struck by the timing of the death of William F. Buckley, Jr. and all of the retrospectives commemorating his impact on our society and our politics. To me, when you boil it down, it was all about creating a movement for people who, after WWII, didn't want to see the immense change that was about to take place, who didn't want to have to endure the change, but who also didn't want to endure being left behind. The only solution, then, was to pull up the parking break before the car was shifted into drive. There is no better time to reject that fear-based notion of how things should be, as we move forward, than right now.

"The 2008 campaign, it seems, will be waged on the basis of personality, not political philosophy..."

Translation: My candidates aren't winning because nobody else is brilliant like me.

The Clinton campaign is sinking so many reputations it's like watching the defeat of the Spanish Armada.

Good job Chris.

Hillary is not progressive at all. She's GOP lite.

It's laughable, truly laughable, that the pot Krugman is calling the kettle black.

I agree that before this campaign and after it I will follow Mr Krugmans economic analysis but since this election count me as one of many who have felt that he and others provide such a pro-Hillary perspective rather than arguing policy against peers who have come out in support of Mr Obama's plan. Would it not be more elavating for the Dem base and Independents to see a forum where two academcis examine the two policies while at the same time pointing out the failure of the Republican party to even attempt to engage in a substantial conversation about this pressing issue? It is not Obama that is getting the free pass rather it is the Republican party which as I see it is offering very little in terms of foreign policy change, Health-care change, and immigration change but on the other hand continues to pander to wuite radical changes in Tax code and corporate regulatory policies.

Hey seacoast, maybe I am losing it but have you read Senor Krugman's other post during this election cycle? I think it would be apparent that he obviuosly favors one candidate over the other, not that there is anything wrong with that. But simply if he is making the case that Mr Obama is not contrasting his vision of unity with the failed policies of the Republican led congress and Mr Bush's Presidency in general then why is he not comparing the two democratic plans vs. the republicanplan. Does he think that progressives will win or that democrats will win by pointing out the rather minute differences in Hillary and Baracks healthcare plan rather than pointing out the major shift in policy for which McCain, the probable Republican front runner, represents?

I support Obama slightly over Clinton, but I am disappointed that both our present choices are typically wimpy Democrats. Aspirations to univesal health care take no courage in the Democratic primaries. No one has shown that, on any significant policy position, either Obama or Clinton has staked out a position that could be called left-of-center within the Democratic party. Obama opposed the war in 2002 - that was a progressive position. But since then, he's shown no courage of the Feingold variety. I'm buoyed by his sparking the interest of the electorate, but it's a contentless energy that is likely to dissipate soon. Let's just hope it lasts until early November.

"He has ZERO credibility to me now after his behavior during this campaign."

Hahahahhahaha. How many times have I read this sort of thing. In other words, Krugman didn't get on his knees and join your holy-worship circle-jerk, and he isn't waiting for Rapture, either, so therefore you're going to pout and hate him now until he changes his mind.

Krugman has been one of the few in the mindless Obama media who has kept his head and some detachment. Unlike you nutcases.

"Hillary is not progressive at all. She's GOP lite."

Well, there's a news flash! What's staggering is that Obama is just as 'GOP lite' as Hillary, but you can't make yourself see it for all the kool-aid you've been swigging. Now THAT'S laughable.

Typical Mob. Whenever I see a mob, I run the other way. How often they morph into The Directorate and the Paris Commune is scary.

Like most things not directly related to economics, Krugman's understanding of US history in that piece is also flawed. He writes that Dems "wanted another F.D.R., yet feel that they’re getting an oratorically upgraded version of Michael Bloomberg instead."

What he fails to note is that FDR in the 1932 election wasn't even FDR. He ran as a fiscal conservative and remained as ambiguous as possible throughout the campaign about what he'd actually do as president.

Plus, as another dkos entry notes, Krugman seems to misunderstand -- or just not know -- the fact that FDR was fundamentally a pragmatist, not a progressive. To beat the Depression, he would -- and did -- try anything, coopting ideas from across the spectrum of political economy.

It's hilarious to ponder all the scoldings Krugman has given Obama over supposedly using GOP talking points against his own party in the health care debate, and then see Krugman's hero Hillary saying John McCain would make a better president than her Democratic opponent.

It's getting to the point that I'm ashamed that I stood by these people when Bill squandered it all for a blow job. We're all just fat chicks in blue dresses to the Clintons and their Princeton fluff club.

Maybe Hillary's right. Maybe I should vote for McCain.