Paul Krugman

His recent column really bugged me, let's break it down:

Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him — and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton’s initial financial and organizational advantage — he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.

I am so tired of this rhetoric portraying those support Barack Obama not as "supporters", but as "followers." The only way the Clinton camp can explain the enthusiasm that Obama has generated is by either implying, or explicitly saying, that we have all been duped by a charming and charismatic snake-oil salesman who is devoid of experience or solid policies. Bullshit. Just because the other candidate can't generate any enthusiasm doesn't mean there rest of us have joined a cult. There is nothing "magical" about him. Unless you count a candidate of intelligence, integrity, and optimism as "magical."

I am also quite sure that nobody suggested that Obama would "sweep easily" to anything or have a "huge victory." It's a long battle and every swing state is essential. This is WHY WE ARE SUPPORTING BARACK OBAMA.

Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.

A) I am not sure this is true. B) It's difficult to get your message out to the white working class when their attention is diverted to such important issues as Reverand Wright and comments about "bitterness"

As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain.

I know, this is a big concern for the general election. Should he get the nomination, Obama is going to have a tough time winning big states like California and New York.

According to many Obama supporters, it’s all Hillary’s fault. If she hadn’t launched all those vile, negative attacks on their hero — if she had just gone away — his aura would be intact, and his mission of unifying America still on track.
But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? Yes, it ran an ad that included Osama bin Laden in a montage of crisis images that also included the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina. To listen to some pundits, you’d think that ad was practically the same as the famous G.O.P. ad accusing Max Cleland of being weak on national security

Even if you buy into the sweeping generalization that Obama supporters lie any blame as "all Hillary's fault" I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that when Clinton says that she and John McCain "would be ready on day one" that that is hurting the democratic party.

And yes, there is a reason why many of us want Hillary to go away. It has to do with delegates toward the nomination and determining the nominee. I believe it's called "math."

As far as Krugman's comments on negative ads, I don't buy the "well yes Clinton has been negative but she isn't as negative as the Republicans have been" argument. You see, Mr. Krugman, this is precisely why Barack Obama has such an appeal. He represents a conscious decision to turn away from politics as usual. It's called "change." I think you called it "magic."

From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?)

Waiting for an opportunity to get people who think like you out of the way of American politics.

Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.

She has also been able to stay in the race because of her extreme hubris and her inability to understand what happened along the way to her preordination as the monarch of the country.

Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign’s Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn’t the campaign’s central theme.

Bullshit.

Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton’s health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.

More bullshit.

No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton.

Yep, like this guy.

Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks — and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.
They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.

And Democrats can also portray themselves as being against the disastrous foray into Iraq and against the suppression of civil liberties at home with the Patriot Act. Oh...wait a minute.

But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn’t mesh well with claims to be bringing a “new politics” and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties.

Mr. Krugman, if this is all that you have taken to be as the message of Barack Obama, you just haven't been paying attention.