Paul Krugman

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.

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.