The New York Times has rule, as I understand it, that prevent its op-ed columnists from endorsing any political candidate. In his column today, Krugman skates as close to an out and out endorsement as those rules will allow.
If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance -- nobody knows how big -- that we'll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won't happen.
Pretty strong language, right?. Except that it's hedged as existing in the realm of pure speculation -- "nobody knows" he is careful to say. This is a rhetorical device he uses elsewhere in slamming Obama in the service of Clinton:
Another theory is that Obama, once nominated, would receive the usual treatment: conservative pundits who've had nice things to say about him will start contrasting his callowness with the wonderful manliness of McCain, the swiftboaters will spread rumors about his past, etc.. Up to now it seems obvious to me that press coverage has been far more friendly to Obama than to Clinton; once he becomes the enemy, how well will his numbers stand up?
I don't know which of these theories is right. But neither does anyone else.
In other words, he's just blowing it out his erudite ass. And it's in the same logical ballpark as statements like, "I don't know if Saddam has WMD. But neither does anyone else. So maybe we shouldn't take any chances."
And speaking of Iraq, I might also point out that Krugman, or someone equally smart and clever (assuming that such a person exists), could write a parallel column that would conclude . . .
If Mr. Obama gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance -- nobody knows how big -- that we'll get out of Iraq in the next administration. If Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination, it just won't happen.
. . . and sound just as plausible. So it's simply a matter of which is your hot button issue. For Krugman, it's healthcare, as he is not shy to admit.
I believe that universal health care has to be THE central item in a progressive agenda
Fair enough, but I am just cynical enough to believe that Krugman may be backing Clinton for more reasons than he cares to let on and using healthcare as a convenient peg on which to ahng his advocacy. The fact that he goes out of his way to let us know that he was dissed by the Clinton administration, only makes me more suspicious.
Does that mean that should we be foolish enough to nominate Obama, Krugman will throw up his hands in despair and vote for McCain? I don't think so. He'll almost certainly cut Obama the slack he has cut him in the past. . .
The Obama plan is still vastly preferable to plans that rely on tax credits and the magic of the marketplace.
. . . and use the bully pulpit of his column to influence what he seems to admit is policy that could well evolve.
Now, some might argue that none of this matters, because the legislation presidents actually manage to get enacted often bears little resemblance to their campaign proposals. And there is, indeed, no guarantee that Mrs. Clinton would, if elected, be able to pass anything like her current health care plan.
If Obama prevails, I would expect Krugman to use his considerable gifts of rational persuasion to advocate for the election of President Obama.
As someone who feels Barack Obama is a far preferable candidate to take to the polls in November and given Krugman's outsize influence on progressives like me, I fear the effect of the columns and blog posts he has written in the recent past on undecided liberals heading to the polls on Tuesday.
I hope we can have the perspective to see them for what I believe them to be -- an endorsement of a Clinton candidacy and, to that extent, no more meaningful than endorsements by, say, David Dinkins, or some Hollywood star. When the last primary ballot is cast and the dust settles at the Democratic Convention, all these endorsements will be forgotten and we will unite behind the Dem candidate.
In the meantime, I am voting for Barack Obama. |
MLN is powered by