Prometheus 6

Now he's totally decloaked, publicly a Clinton supporter.

In his book, “Unequal Democracy,” Mr. Bartels shows that “the shift of the Solid South from Democratic to Republican control in the wake of the civil rights movement” explains all — literally all — of the Republican success story.

Now I tend to believe the assertion Mr. Krugman assigns to Mr. Bartels. In context, though, it really sounds like he's implying Obama is undervaluing the impact of the civil rights movement.

Does it matter that Mr. Obama has embraced an incorrect theory about what motivates working-class voters? His campaign certainly hasn’t been based on Mr. Frank’s book, which calls for a renewed focus on economic issues as a way to win back the working class.

Indeed, the book concludes with a blistering attack on Democrats who cater to “affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues” while “dropping the class language that once distinguished them sharply from Republicans.” Doesn’t this sound a bit like the Obama campaign?

And did he just call Obama an elitist?

You know, sometimes Mr. Krugman dispenses information. He's one of the best at that. But sometimes he dispenses opinion, which is fine until you mask the opinion as data.

And one more thing: let’s hope that once Mr. Obama is no longer running against someone named Clinton, he’ll stop denigrating the very good economic record of the only Democratic administration most Americans remember.

The campaign has gone beyond the point where explanations and opinions will have any additional impact. However, since he is an economist, I would suggest Mr. Krugman start with "Pig" Penn's questioning whether Mr. Obama sold drug...a question uniquely applied to his among all candidates that have confessed adolescent (or young adult) drug use to any office in the country. That was the first overt use of racial preconception in the campaign, the first overtly negative talking point in the Democratic primaries, the first use of Republican talking points by a Democrat. Plot every statement made by both candidates on a timeline. You will see Mrs. Clinton went so negative, so long before anyone else considered it, it was obvious the Obama campaign had to do something before she drowned a baby and blamed it on him.

Maybe if you were allowed to call folks liars on the topic they lie about, one would not have to seek out disturbing weaknesses.

I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks.

That was Bill Himself, William Jefferson Clinton, 42^nd President of the United States of America, and he's so close to right I'm giving him the full title and all due respect.

All the progress is on the backs of them poor hard working white boys. 

Let me tell you why.

It's because they only benefit minimallly from racism, in the terms social and economic capital.  Most of their benefit is psychological. And the guys who actually benefit have the juice to keep their share locked down.

As much as poor white boys piss me off white their mouths, they (being poor) are no more the shapers or masters of the system than I am. Demographics are forcing political changes that remove their assumption of superiority over swarthy-type folks, but there are plenty of non-human entities that should be taking part in the necessary rebalancing as well. It shouldn't come out of any human being's hide.

Anyway, The Political Master Himself said the same thing Obama said, albeit in different words.
Does it matter that Mr. Krugman has embraced an incorrect theory about what motivates working-class voters? Or is it only your Princeton colleague Larry Bartels' error? Or...is Clinton wrong, too?

This is how you can tell which of Prof. Krugman's columns are information and which opinion. When it's information, he never gets caught in a net weaved of his own words.