More on the Fall of Paul

Mark Kleiman with perhaps the most scathing condemnation of Krugman I've seen yet. Not on the substance of Krugman's column, but what he says about Krugman's motives [emphasis added]:

[...] But he still can't bring himself to say a single positive thing about the only person standing between John McCain and the White House. Instead he gives the nominee a bunch of bad and condescending advice. The Bush years have been good for Krugman; he could continue into a McCain Presidency without breaking stride. A Clinton Presidency might have brought him a senior appointment. But an Obama Administration would make Krugman a marginal figure.

Do you think his unconscious mind has figured this out? Or is there any other explanation for his continuing to do what he can to weaken the nominee of the party he claims to favor?

[...] As a long-time admirer of Krugman, I remain appalled by the breathtaking dishonesty of his attacks on Barack Obama, and the result is an anger that no doubt sometimes interferes with my judgment. I hadn't known that Krugman had disclaimed any interest in a Washington job; that part of my attack was clearly off the mark.

Still, under President Clinton Krugman would have the President's ear; under President McCain he'd have an excellent target; under Barack Obama he'd be carping from the sidelines. I'm still looking for another explanation for writing a column designed to weaken the man Krugman admits will be the nominee of your party. To be a friendly critic, you must first establish your friendliness.

Strong stuff. Kleiman follows up by sharing a convincing justification of Krugman's actions sent to him from a Professor of Statistics at Carnegie Mellon. It's worth reading, and far be it for me to get caught up in the rumble between Professors at Berkeley, Princeton and Carnegie Mellon—but, personally, it just makes Krugman sound more petty and like more of a dick.