It's The You-Know-What, Stupids!

I'm generally a fan of liberal economist Paul Krugman (read his last book, link to his blog from mine), and I always read his columns in the NY Times. Still, he is doing about as good a job lately hiding his support for Sen. Clinton as I am mine for Sen. Obama.

His newest column-- 'The Anxiety Election'-- is mostly about making the argument that Democrats should focus on the economy this year (only sillyheads still care about the war!), but the underlying message is only Clinton is capable of cleaning up the GOP's fiscal messes, with her experience and health insurance mandates at her side.

I felt compelled to send him an email in response. Here is what I wrote-

Dear Mr. Krugman (re: 3/6/08 column),

You make the point in today's column that the Ohio primary results say that the economy is the most important issue to voters this year (no arguments there), and that no one trusts Sen. Obama on the economy, and this is why Sen. Clinton triumphed (as she was expected to). You seem to be using the result of ONE primary to validate the opinion we all know you've had for months. Is this fair?

After all, what then did all those dozens of primaries Obama has been winning say? What narrative can we have gleamed from his February winning streak? That Kansas, Virginia, or Maine don't care about the economy? What narrative will we gleam from Obama's likely win in Wyoming next week?

Do you believe the average voter has thoroughly read their websites to engage in a detailed comparison and internal debate about their respective policies and proposals? Do you believe that-- other than a mandate quibble which depends more on what kind of Congress we have in 2009-- Sen. Obama has not shown the leadership and intellectual qualities necessary to lead on this issue should he become the nominee?

Please don't be selective with these narratives. I'd be curious to hear your followup on this. Thank you.

If, by some miracle, I get a response, I will post it. Thoughts?