Paul Krugman used to be one of my very favorite columnists, and I've been pained to read his increasingly unpersuasive defenses of Hillary Clinton.

Today's column--dismissing what he characterized as manufactured and unwarranted "hysteria" over Clinton's assassination reference and previous gaffes--sparked a laser-like putdown from Andrew Sullivan.

After pointing out the context within which the RFK reference must be read, Sullivan goes on to parse earlier Clinton remarks.

"And the second issue: Clinton's earlier invocation of Lyndon Johnson in order to minimize Obama's potential as an MLK figure. Again, Krugman doesn't get it. What was offensive about this is not that Johnson wasn't essential. It was the condescension it implied. First, why is Clinton the senior figure here - the Senator against the activist? Both she and Obama are Senators, both junior ones in their respective states. Obama is not running as an activist; he's running to be Johnson. By putting Obama in the MLK box and herself in the Johnson box, Clinton is doing what so many whites do with black rivals: assume a reflexive ownership of power and responsibility. Why shouldn't Obama be both a King and a Johnson? Or Clinton be both for that matter? The model etched in Clinton's head - and it is part and parcel of her entire worldview with respect to minorities - is: you vote for us, we'll take care of you. And "we" is always white and straight and connected. Obama represents an end to those categories, which is why Clinton gets her strongest support from those most resistant to any diminution in established (i.e. white) power. Pat Buchanan gets what she appeals to, even if Krugman doesn't. I've been open to an Obama-Clinton ticket; but the more you see of the Clintons, the more you realize that getting rid of them - and the assumptions they represent - is part of what this entire campaign has come to be about."

Sheila Suess Kennedy's blog | login or register to post comments