More Krugman

Today’s column; a fevered excercise in missing the point to defend Clinton. I’m not going to go into the RFK stuff, because I have agreed that much of it is manufactured, painfully, but this piece I will take umbrage at:

But then, it was equally absurd to portray Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that it took L.B.J.’s political skills to turn Martin Luther King’s vision into legislation as an example of politicizing race. Yet the claim that Mrs. Clinton was playing the race card, which was promoted by some Obama supporters as well as in a memo by a member of Mr. Obama’s staff, achieved wide currency.

The problem with the reference if nothing else was, again, timing. I don’t think it’s going out one a limb to say that it’s not exactly smart politics to be seen as diminshing Martin Luther King Jr. a few weeks before MLK Day. But more than that, it doesn’t really make intellectual sense in any non-offensive way. Remember, the context of the overall point was that “it takes a President,” and even to some respect to dimish JFK as well in the midst of comparisons of Obama to Kennedy. But what exactly qualified Hillary to the LBJ, “President” mantle? Senator Clinton is no more a President than Senator Obama, nor is their any inherent Clinton-Johnson, and Obama-King, link other than the most obvious one…race.

Either way, at the very least Krugman should stop insulting the intelligence of his readers; accusing anyone and everyone of potentially stoking the ire of Clinton supporters into not voting for Obama, as he tries to do exactly that.