A Krugmaniad too far

I'm sorry, Paul, but a week after your favorite candidate referred to "economists" "elitist views" of the gas tax (and, by inference, the effete elitism of Sen. Obama), and a day after she claimed to be the preferred candidates of "working, hard-working whites," accusing Axelrod and Brazile -- not Barack Obama, by the way -- of "insult[ing] the groups that supported Mrs. Clinton" is just a wee bit hard to swallow.

More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer — they will only further alienate her grass-roots supporters, many of whom feel that she received a raw deal.

Nor is it helpful to insult the groups that supported Mrs. Clinton, either by suggesting that racism was their only motivation or by minimizing their importance.

After the Pennsylvania primary, David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, airily dismissed concerns about working-class whites, saying that they have “gone to the Republican nominee for many elections.” On Tuesday night, Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist, declared that “we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.” That sort of thing has to stop.

One thing the Democrats definitely need to do is give delegates from Florida and Michigan — representatives of citizens who voted in good faith, and whose support the party may well need this November — seats at the convention.

Emphasis mine. What "tirades" is he referring to? George McGovern's? What in Axelrod's statement even implied racism? And while the voters of Florida and Michigan may have gone to the polls in good faith, Clinton's demand that they be counted -- after she'd agreed to the rules beforehand -- is not.

That's just disingenuous, Paul. And no way to "heal" the party.

Stick to economics, dude. Starting, perhaps, with giving us your views on whether McCain's and Clinton's "gas tax holiday" is a good idea or not. After all, Krugman's one of those "elitist" economists Clinton keeps disparaging, is he not?