In a past column, Paul Krugman worried that Sen. Obama's "middle way" was naive because there simply are some people who you cannot really compromise with, they are simply wrong. Given PK's views and personality, it makes sense (as one person noted ) for him to lean toward Edwards. Another progressive favorite (and former Air America regular) made his views on Obama known if anything more bluntly:
Should Obama hope to continue to enjoy his free ride, he should consult his old mentor Joe Lieberman, the senator from Connecticut who used to be a Democrat. Conservative commentators and right-wing media outlets always loved Lieberman for his willingness to echo their talking points on subjects such as school vouchers and Social Security privatization. When he agreed to join the Democratic ticket as Al Gore's running mate in 2000, the Weekly Standard and the National Review, among others, suddenly discovered how despicable Lieberman actually was. Having abandoned the Democrats altogether, he is now fully rehabilitated.
But Obama and his supporters must cherish no illusions about what will happen to him if he vanquishes Clinton. He will need the same kind of armor that she has worn proudly for years. What the right likes best about him is that he doesn't seem to own any.
The "no illusions" part is true enough but the "doesn't seem to own any" part is a cheap shot. The column focuses on the sneakiness and Clinton loathing of conservatives (JC wrote a book on their attempts to destroy Clinton in the '90s), but simply has nothing to back up that last point. Surely not enough to end a column on it. Meanwhile, another person I usually agree with (and also is sometimes on Air America), Glenn Greenwald, is on his over the top Ron Paul kick again. He wants to convince that he is only trying to focus on RP's stance on executive power and Iraq as well as his overall principled views, but why not focus on Dennis Kucinich then? He has all that plus believes in both the Fourteenth Amendment, the modern state and has much less baggage.
I think Ezra Klein has the better of the argument, but don't worry, the Pauliacs are on the case -- see the comments in both cases. This includes "pro-choice" sorts, see an early reply to today's GG's passionate (to be nice) latest who leans toward someone who wants states to ban abortions, even if a federal amendment is necessary to do so.* See also, the reply to EK's rejoinder today from a "liberal" who supports Ron Paul -- who caucuses with Republicans and is not even an "I" like Bernie Sanders -- even though he opposes much (including Social Security, which people like Atrios is upset at Obama for saying is in "crisis," and thus giving ammo to the other side) of what s/he stands for.
Unbalanced accounts like Glenn Greenwald, including the wounded replies to critics who apparently just do not understand what he is saying, helps such a myopic view. The answer to poor coverage, especially when so many see RP as a light in the wilderness (myopically or not), is not that. See even his "updates" to today's entry in which he references the "perceived flaws of Ron Paul" ... but, hey, do not read into that to suggest that it is quite arguable he doesn't have quite a lot of them! Noooo! That is not what GG is trying to say at all.
You just are missing the point. GG himself cites Paul's dubious views on certain issues to underline the fact he is not a knee-jerk Paul supporter. But, that comment underlines the problems with his posts, that have something to say, but does in a way worthy -- his ire notwithstanding -- of criticism.
---
* RP, like another base favorite, Howard Dean, is a physician. The differences of the two on the issue suggests that alone does not decide a matter, but it has seriously affected Paul's opposition. OTOH, talk about "two pound" fetuses does not really justify banning abortion long before that point. Or, selectively supporting bans on one particular procedure, even when a women's health is involved.
And so on. Ron Paul's disrespect for privacy rights, see his support for DOMA, goes beyond abortion. This suggests -- see one GG comment today -- it is a bit off to talk about the "fetish" of supporting Roe as if the ruling is just about abortion, not privacy, equality (see Casey in particular), etc.