The New York Times

There are few people more worth reading than Paul Krugman in the New York Times. It is an unalloyed public good to have a Progressive economist writing on the nation's senior Op-Ed page.

Unfortunately, Krugman occasionally also writes about politics. Now, that's in itself nothing bad. However, his political instincts are less sure than his economic analysis. Consider this:

It is, in a way, almost appropriate that the final days of the struggle for the Democratic nomination have been marked by yet another fake Clinton scandal — the latest in a long line that goes all the way back to Whitewater.

You can essentially stop reading at that point to think about a larger issue. True enough, Whitewater was never a real scandal; there was no wrongdoing, other perhaps than by journalists against the interests of the American people. Journalists that signally include those working for Krugman's employer, The New York Times, which broke the story, such as it was.

If we posit that a public statement can become the substance of scandal - something that seems true if you consider that George Bush is still being raked over the coals for giving a speech under a banner titled 'Mission Accomplished', in short, for words that he didn't even say - then Senator Clinton's recent remarks about her enduring campaign, Senator Obama, Bobby Kennedy, and the role that assassinations play in American political life qualify.

Ah, yes, America. Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, stoic in the face of adversity, populated by rugged individualists who want nothing to do with big gubmint.

Or so goes the tale told by the American Enterprise Institute.

The reality, as The New York Times again reveals today, is that the nation wants universal health care, and doesn't mind raising taxes to pay for it. We are, in short, a nation of flag-burning commie hippies screaming for socialism.

More after the fold.

So here's a puzzle: if you're running for the Democratic nomination, why would you put a column from the nation's most insipid right-winger on your web site?

As Hillary did with this piece by David Brooks?

Far be it from me to get in the middle of a liberal purge, but would anybody mind if I pointed out that the calls for Hillary Clinton to apologize for her support of the Iraq war are almost entirely bogus?

Wait a minute. Does Team Hillary see her as the victim of a 'liberal purge'?

And here I was thinking it was a primary. Silly me. Or maybe, just maybe, something is deeply wrong with a candidacy that relies on the sworn enemies of Liberalism and Progressivism to carry its water, and thinks the propaganda of said enemies is just what the doctor ordered to advance itself.

(Cross-posted on The Daily Gotham, Hillary's "hometown" blog)

It should come as no surprise that a furious backlash against a Hillary coronation is building; after the disastrous reign of the Bush dynasty, there is a deep and abiding unease about simply handing the seat of power to yet another dynasty. The stakes are always high in a Presidential election; this time, the nation needs real leadership to undo the damage done, to make whole the injuries sustained in the most catastrophic "Presidency" in our history. This is not a time for formulaic, safe politics, not when the nation is facing a constitutional crisis brought on by an administration increasingly enveloped in madness and bent on war.

Interestingly, much the same process - rejection of the heir annointed by the party power establishment, baptized in a flood of warm dollars - is taking place on the republican side of the aisle as well; ask John McCain about his troubles. Surprisingly, the republicans are further along in their rejection of the status-quo candidate than we are; on our side, matters are complicated by the comeback attempt of a dynasty fortified by loyal retainers, eager to destroy our republican form of government, the better to advance the interests of their corporate paymasters.

Thankfully, we still have Paul Krugman. Read on.

The Times' Pat Healy has an interesting piece today on Hillary Clinton, Miss Inevitable.

One of the most important decisions that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made about her bid for the presidency came late last year when she ended a debate in her camp over whether she should repudiate her 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq.

Several advisers, friends and donors said in interviews that they had urged her to call her vote a mistake in order to appease antiwar Democrats, who play a critical role in the nominating process. Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize — even if she viewed the war as a mistake — arguing that an apology would be a gimmick.[...]

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Why is this horseshit? Read on.