Honestly? I don't get it. I'm single. Good for them. Some of them have great sex lives, some of them have horrible sex lives and some of them are probably somewhere in the middle.

Do you know how many dating couples in their 20s I know who are sick of sex with each other? Plenty. There are a few who aren't and have a great sex life. But many are unhappy with it. Who cares?

Anyone who's with someone long enough will have peaks and valleys in their sex life. Just like they will their actual life. Spice it up a little, find what you enjoy.

But the absolute insane amount of investment far too many single people have in insisting that married people are miserable and have horrible sex lives is frankly just plain sad. Either they're envious or just poor excuses for people. Either way they should find some happiness of their own and just get past it.

First of all you completely misrepresented what Krugman, who is a known shill for both Clintons and all things Baby Boomer, said.

Krugman's piece in the NY Times today was actually a subtle DIG at Obama for trying to push post-racial politics and not continuing the Baby Boomer approach to race which is generally accepted by all of their generation and rejected by the next. Hence the support, and even questionable tactics, of many public African-American Clinton supporters like Bob Johnson owner of BET(insinuating Obama did drugs) and Charlie Rangel. This is generational not racial.

But back to Krugman. What you apparently missed:

"By the way, it was during the heyday of the baby boom generation that crude racism became unacceptable. Mr. Obama, who has been dismissive of the boomers’ “psychodrama,” might want to give the generation that brought about this change, fought for civil rights and protested the Vietnam War a bit more credit."

Krugman, who is notorious for being passive-aggressive is not arguing FOR the approach Obama has taken or even endorsing it, rather he is merely endorsing the approach Bill Clinton and others took. He willfully ignores the massive incarceration of a large number of black males and the complete destruction of the African-American family that ensued which far overshadowed any so-called positive achievements established in that community during the 1990s. It is clear from a close read of Krugman's piece that he favors the Baby Boomer approach over Barack's post-racial approach to the issue. Suffice it to say many of us disagree.

He also manages to get in a subtle dig, which is a dog whistle for all Clinton supporters, that Obama's spending habits would mirror those of George W. Bush. Krugman also tries to mitigate the actual damage of Bush's spending on all areas (not merely defense as he claims) in another roundabout way of criticizing Obama whose supporters have called Krugman on his constant anti-Obama bias. They even pointed out to him that he hated Obama worse than Bush once. Krugman didn't bother to deny it.

"Last week John McCain’s economic spokesman claimed that Barack Obama is President Bush’s true fiscal heir, because he’s “dedicated to the recent Bush tradition of spending money on everything.” Now, the truth is that the Bush administration’s big-spending impulses have been largely limited to defense contractors."

This is a favorite refrain of outraged Clinton supporters who believe Obama does not have the experience and will be a Democratic image of Dubya. Every once in a while they come out and say it, but usually they're smart enough to keep it to trash blogs like NoQuarterUSA because they know it's not true and mainstream Democrats will call them on this crap.

As for the Obama not being "black enough" thing this is something limited almost entirely to the non-black community. Will not bore you with details, but let me say I've never heard a single black person say that. I've heard people of numerous other races (well actually just white and Indian) tell me that. I just laughed and shook my head.

From the New Republic:

"I don't know the full answer, but here's a significant part of it: Krugman and Obama have different approaches to political disagreement. Krugman likes partisanship, and Obama does not. In a revealing column in January 2007, Krugman cited Obama's lament that "politics has become so bitter and partisan," and rejected the Senator's suggestion that we have to become less partisan in order to solve our problems.

Krugman insisted that politicians who seek "a new New Deal" should welcome the hatred of the right. Obama doesn't hate those who disagree with him, and he does not welcome people's hatred. Krugman seems to hate that.

In a December 2007 column in Slate, Krugman amplified his views about partisanship and polarization. He wrote that "any attempt to change America's direction, to implement a real progressive agenda, will necessarily be highly polarizing." He suggested that "what we need is partisanship." He lamented the idea that Democrats should "play nice." More specifically, he attributed Obama's "highly favorable coverage" in the press to a (misguided) longing "for an end to the polarization and partisanship of the Bush years."

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/open_university/archive/2008/02/11/why-is-paul-krugman-so-hostile-to-barack-obama.aspx

Different approaches. Won't bore anyone with the exchange that ensued between Obama supporters and Krugman. But any notion that Krugman has come to admit that Barack Obama's approach has anything even regarding merit is sadly misguided. Krugman is for the Clinton/Bush, hyper-partisan, I-hate-you, Baby Boomer method of doing things. He sees no drawbacks to it and he is not even willing to consider anything else could possibly work. Nor is he willing to compromise or tweak this approach. So forget. Krugman, when it comes to seeing anything positive about Obama, is simply incapable of doing so.

Barack's already said he'll hold any Bush Administration officials reponsible for crimes, including war crimes, when he's elected.

Keep it up Dennis!

Or are we still going at each other tooth-and-nail. If so wake me up when it's over.