What's going on? I suspect that Krugman is hoping to be appointed to Treasury Secretary or something in the Glorious Clinton Restoration. I don't know of any other way to explain his shameless shilling for Team Clinton.
I've blogged about this before, but I think it's worth reporting at this point.(Paul, I hope you stumble upon this.) This is from Krugman's NYT column on December 8, 2006. In this piece, he offers praise to those who had the foresight and judgment to oppose the Iraq War from the very beginning and asks why we should believe that anyone who supported this war has any "foreign policy expertise":
Unlike The Weekly Standard, which singled out those it thought had been proved wrong, I’d like to offer some praise to those who got it right. Here’s a partial honor roll . . . .NYT (emphasis added.)
Al Gore, September 2002: “I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.”
Barack Obama, now a United States senator, September 2002: “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.” . . . .
Senator Russ Feingold, October 2002: “I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. ... When the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the administration’s motives.”
Howard Dean, then a candidate for president and now the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, February 2003: “I firmly believe that the president is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time. ... Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.”
We should honor these people for their wisdom and courage. We should also ask why anyone who didn’t raise questions about the war — or, at any rate, anyone who acted as a cheerleader for this march of folly — should be taken seriously when he or she talks about matters of national security.
My point exactly. So, Paul, if "[w]e should ask why anyone who didn't raise questions about the war" "or . . . acted as a cheerleader for this march of folly . . should be taken seriously . . . [on] matters of national security" why would we even think about supporting Generalissimo Hillary Clinton, proud cheerleader for the Iraq war in 2002, supporter of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment nudging us toward a new war with Iran, and champion of cluster bombs? I don't quite understand. I'd like to see Krugman try to explain what changed and why he thinks it's now okay to regularly trash Obama, who was on Krugman's "honor roll" not long ago. Shouldn't we be honoring Obama and other prescient opponents of this disaster for their "wisdom and courage"?