...What else could Hillary have possibly meant, other than to suggest that LBJ's contribution to civil rights was the important one? And why would she have said it if not to practice a little shrewd attacking on the "outsider" or "Movement" candidate, who just happens to be African-American? How can Krugman suggest that she didn't really mean what she said?

On health care, he's right. There are lots of "affordable" things we should do -- college savings accounts, extra retirements, a spare battery for our car, the YMCA membership...but most of us don't do them at the level we should, and don't unless we're required (like Social Security). I hope Barack changes his mind on that one.

For me, this is a really tough choice. I fear it'll be 30 years before another progressive woman or African-American has this good a chance at becoming President, and to prefer one over the other, between these two excellent but very different candidates, is to consign the other's movement to the back bench of history for another generation. Maybe that's why the stakes are so high and why the "venom" is building.

They're appalled at the enthusiasm for Obama coming from such a diverse cross section of people. They see enthusiasm and excitement as cultish compared to their own smug entitlement. And now that things aren't going their way, its not pretty.

Its up to each of these candidates to lose graciously and honorably when the time comes. They are responsible for bringing their supporters in line. I have no doubt Obama would do this. I have serious doubts about the Clintons.

One other thing:

Last time I checked, Krugman has been hammering him for a month from the most influential newspaper page in the world. In addition, the Clintons, who aren't known to roll over and give up, haven't exactly been touting his bona-fides since the Iowa campaign began.

They (Krugman and other HRC supporters) just can't stand the fact that after each attack, Obama actually gains supporters.

Between this and the somewhat disingenuous sendup of Obama's healthcare plan earlier this month, he might as well be on the Clinton payroll. Krugman is a reliable liberal, but he comes off as petulant and unprofessional here, and my guess is he's unable to contain his personal bias.

Did I mention that there is no way that "Obama wears well," and "once you know him, you'll vote for him." This is spin from the Obama team, that in other words, HRC is so hated, vote for our guy. You'll get used to him. First of all, that is not an argument.

Second of all, he does not resonate with a vast majority of the democratic base. He's viewed as a latte liberal. A limo-liberal. And he sounds like a lawyer. There is genuine dislike of him out here.

Pat Buchanan is quoted as saying on MSNBC that Hillary has the votes that the GOP wants in the Fall, and that Obama CANNOT GET.

That is accurate. So bump off HRC and see who gets those votes.

Krugman's column today is very much like all the other columns and editorials that we have been fed lately, and which all _exclusively_ and _emphatically_ put the blame for the polarization of the Democratic Party (in itself understood as something bad) on Barrack Obama and his supporters. The message here is very clear - he should go away, his supporters should accept the inevitable, and the "inevitable" candidate should assume her nomination. We have heard something similar, and quite recently, from the steps of the capitol in Tallahassee, FL. It was 2000, when Jim Baker told the country that it should let democracy work by not challenging the results of the election in Florida. Do we really have to live through this again?

Mr. Krugman:

You wrote: "Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable."

Please address the following, which have been, unequivocally, the most racially-charged statements during the primary campaign thus far.

1) Sergio Bendixon, a Clinton pollster, saying "the Hispanic voter -- and I want to say this very carefully -- has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."

(http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rodriguez28jan28,0,1688217.column)

2) Bill Clinton's post-South Carolina remarks: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bubba-obama-is.html

No matter how many times you repeat it, it is still a lie.

The Obama campaign has much in common with the McCarthy campaign in 1968.

Idealism is one thing,vilifying and demonizing the opponent is quite another.

The media types and the McCarthy supporters cast Bobby Kennedy as the second coming of the devil just as the Clintons are now being vilified.

No wonder the Dems can't win consistently. The anti- war activists, being holier than thou, believe that there is only one issue in this race....How dumb...

Michelle Obama refused to commit to supporting Hillary if she should win the nomination. What happened to the Kumbaya Obama message? I don't think I want her in the White House.

There is no one--let me repeat that, slowly: there . . . is . . . no . . . one--who is more hostile than the Clintons' gang of supporters, who say wretched and often fanciful things about Obama upon the slightest provocation, and who quickly turn into racists by proxy ("well, Obama's only winning because of black votes--white people just won't vote for him") upon any suggestion that Obama is more electable.

Enough of the dynastic solidarity! I liked Bill, too, and voted for him, twice. I don't think his experience is somehow imputed to Hillary, and I don't think she can beat McCain. He could, I agree. So what? She isn't him. Isn't that what Hillary has been telling us for the last year?

Cult of personality? Does that mean Obama is inspiring? Is the New York Times so jaded that it can't tell the difference? This country needs inspiring: we have just been through eight years of defending our President's personal life and associated lying, and seven years of government by corrupt, manipulative idiots.

Having a President we admire and are inspired by would be a good thing, Krugman. Open up your cynical eyes!