Clinton supporter Paul Krugman had to get one more column in bashing Obama.

He starts out by conceding that the race is over. At least he can count. He then says to ignore early polls that say Sen. John McCain has a fighting chance to win, as polls this early in the process don't mean anything. But then he goes on to say Obama is in big trouble because the polls show he has "a deep but narrow base consisting of African-Americans and highly educated whites" and that he can't win over white voters, that he is losing them 60-40.

As for the cause of this racial division, he says "But at this point it doesn’t matter whose fault it was." Then he goes on to criticize Obama supporters for their "tirades" against Hillary. He also throws in the Clinton talking point about seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan.

Gee, there is so much wrong here its here it's hard to know where to start. If Krugman thinks seating Michigan and Florida are important, then maybe he should have said something about the Clinton campaign's rejection of the newest Michigan plan to seat all their delegates. Or, when talking about "tirades" fostering racial divisions, perhaps Krugman could have mentioned Hillary's statement that her "broad" base consists of "hard-working Americans, white Americans," or Bill Clinton's remarks in South Carolina.

I could also point out that if the tables were reversed and it was Clinton who had the lead in delegates, we could say that she would be in trouble since she is losing the black vote 90-10, a group she was winning 60-40 in the past. And Democrats can't win without black votes in November.

But the biggest trap Krugman falls into is trying to draw inferences from primary results and applying them to the general election.

Look at the GOP. A couple of months ago, hardcore conservatives like Rush Limbaugh were adamantly anti-McCain. Now they are actively campaigning for him. Why? Because there is no where else for them to go.

Blue-collar Democrats who voted for Hillary aren't likely to cross over for McCain. They don't want 100 years of war in Iraq and more of the same Bush policies. And women aren't about to elect a presidnet who puts another anti-abortion judge on the Supreme Court. They might disagree with Obama, but they'll still pull the lever for him in November.

Hopefully we have seen the last of Krugman's illogically Clinton boosting.

Continuing on the Paul Krugman-slams-Obama discussion, one thing I think is missing here is perspective as it concerns what seems to be the root of Krugman's gripe with the Obama campaign.

Krugman has an issue with Obama's health care plan, which he claims will not work because it doesn't mandate coverage. That may be true.

But here is where Krugman the academic misses the boat. That plan was unveiled last year when Obama was way down in the polls. This is an unusual campaign in that there was very little difference between the candidates. Each one tried to find ways to separate themselves from the pack, and mostly how to move ahead of Hillary Clinton.

When I listen to Obama explain how his plan is different because it doesn't "mandate" coverage, that people aren't "forced" into the system, what I really hear is a focus group-tested message. His campaign wanted to make their plan different than Clinton's, so they tested the wording and found the part of the Clinton plan they didn't like was the mandate.

But I don't see Obama's "no mandate" provisions ever making it into law. He's already hinted at this. In the end, both he and Hillary want the same outcome for health care, a system that covers everyone. The variations you see now are just campaign rhetoric, and need to be taken with a grain of salt.

But for Krugman, he's taking all of this literally. You can't blame him, he's a wonk, and a damn fine one at that. But he's now off on a crusade to slay the Obama beast for reasons he just doesn't grasp. What started out as an over-rational opposition to Obama's health care plan has evolved into an emotional war against someone he perceives as the enemy, who's really not.

Paul Krugman has officially gone off the deep end. Today he writes another hit piece on Barack Obama, but somewhere forgets to include any facts. But he does try to compare Obama to Richard Nixon.

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody.

Krugman certainly isn't evenhanded. You would expect after this passage he would at least try to cite some example of this venom coming from Obama. Yet, this column is as fact-free as a John Solomon gothcha piece.

Not only that, Krugman seems oblivious to the venom coming from Team Clinton, the lies about how Obama's opposition to the war was a "fairy tale," the dismissing of his primary wins as a rerun of Jesse Jackson, and the completely disingenuous misquoting of Obama's comments on Ronald Reagan. In fact, Krugman has been a main injector of that particular piece of venom.

Look, Paul, I get it. You have a problem with Obama's health care plan. But now you have sunk to Rovian levels of smear and slander. Look in a mirror and you will see that, indeed, hate springs eternal.