I used to love New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, but he has had seriously too much of the Clinton Kool-Aid.
Consider this from today's paper: "So what should Mr. Obama and his supporters do? Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain."
Leaving aside that you can't find a single instance of the Obama campaign "demonizing" Senator Clinton, she's doing a pretty damn good job of ruining her own reputation (or, confirming it, depending on your point of view).
The Clintons are traveling around the country, continually peddling the 100% bogus claim that she leads in the popular vote, which, even if it were true, wouldn't matter. But it does matter because it's not true, and yet they persist in pushing the dangerous fairy tale that Obama is taking away the nomination from the rightful candidate, even though he's the one with the most delegates, the most states, and -- if you count his votes the same way Hillary counts her own -- the popular vote.
At least he concedes that "Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee," but as an economist he's supposed to be able to recognize fuzzy math. Instead, he pushes some of his own: "The only reason I can see for Obama supporters to oppose seating Florida is that it might let Mrs. Clinton claim that she received a majority of the popular vote." Well, actually, no. Obama's lead is so substantial that the Florida votes won't overturn his popular vote lead. In order to surpass him on that meaningless standard, you have to include her Michigan votes, but not give any of the Michigan "uncommitted" votes -- some of which at least were presumably for him -- to Obama. You'd think Krugman could have crunched those numbers, or at least referred to RealClearPolitics.com. But the real reason to oppose seating Florida is that Florida violated the rules and deserves to be sanctioned for screwing up the primary calendar. Mrs. Clinton has of late trotted out several examples of primary seasons that lasted into June, but none of them started on January 3.
"Mainly it’s up to Mr. Obama to deliver the unity he has always promised — starting with his own party," huffs Krugman. Uh-huh. Well, that job would be a heckuvalot easier if Senator Clinton's surrogates would cease chanting the mantra that an affirmative action candidate is stealing the nomination from the real winner. How is he supposed to heal the wounds if Clinton is going around throwing salt on them?
"What about offering Mrs. Clinton the vice presidency? If I were Mr. Obama, I’d do it." Oh, give me a break. What on earth has she done to deserve that? The vice presidency shouldn't be held out as a bribe to get someone to stop lying and hop back on the reality wagon. As Hilzoy smartly observed last week, "Note what's missing here: any sense that Clinton herself is a responsible moral agent. People are writing about her as though she were a bomb that needed to be expertly defused, as opposed to a person who can govern her own life, and is responsible for her own choices." She's made Obama out to be Bush 2000, delegitimizing his historic candidacy by suggesting he won on a manufactured technicality. And then she floated the assassination possibility.
Of all the many silly, credulous things Krugman writes today, this one takes the cake: conceding that once the nomination is settled Hillary will have to campaign hard for Obama, he adds, "She has said she’ll do that, and there’s no reason to believe that she doesn’t mean it."
She also said she supported stripping Florida and Michigan of their delegates.