I think Paul Krugman's got a point when he says that he gets a lot more flack for repeatedly criticizing Barack Obama than his colleagues do for continually lashing Hillary Clinton. Rich and Dowd go after Hillary largely on personality grounds -- she's cold, and calculating, and entitled, and overreaching. Krugman, by contrast, keeps slamming Obama on health care. The sense I get from some of those critiquing him is that they're tired of hearing about this disagreement and think Paul should get over it already. And that's a fair point. But while there are a lot of folks who accurately diagnose the illegitimacy of Dowd and Rich's critiques of Clinton, very few seem to notice or care that these attacks on her personal comportment are repetitive. Continual Hillary-bashing is somehow far less jarring than continual Obama-bashing. Maybe that's a strength of his.
