I'm not going to take on the entirety of Paul Krugman's latest passive-aggressive hit on Barack Obama (perhaps Aaron has something waiting in the wings), but, with Ohio polls delayed until at least 9pm, I couldn't resist noting one little chunk of his current windmill tilt.

Mr. Obama, instead of emphasizing the harm done by the other party’s rule, likes to blame both sides for our sorry political state.  And in his speeches he promises not a rejection of Republicanism but an era of postpartisan unity.  That — along with his adoption of conservative talking points on the crucial issue of health care — is why Mr. Obama’s rise has caused such division among progressive activists, the very people one might have expected to be unified and energized by the prospect of finally ending the long era of Republican political dominance.

I'm sorry, but could Krugman at least remind us what portion of the progressive coalition is so distressed at the prospect of voting for an anti-Iraq war, anti-Iran war, pro-labor, pro-woman, anti-corporate, genuinely progressive Democrat.  Did I mention he was the first viable African-American candidate in history?

Oh wait.  I got it.  That portion would be Paul Krugman.  More...

Some progressives are appalled by the direction their party seems to have taken: they wanted another F.D.R., yet feel that they’re getting an oratorically upgraded version of Michael Bloomberg instead.

Oh, please: this crap is no different from FOX News' intro method of "Some people say...".  I don't even understand the FDR comparison.  Is Krugman claiming Obama hasn't brought in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of new voters to the Democratic Party (like FDR)?  Is he claiming that Obama is not a brilliant coalition-builder (like FDR)?  Is Krugman claiming somehow, from some parallel universe, that Hillary is the more FDR-esque of these two candidates?

This is getting fucking absurd, Paul.  It must be lonely over there.  You are welcome back any time, but you must first remove your head from your ass.