Paul Krugman, arguing for the umpteenth time why Obama’s not a good idea, writes:
Now, nobody would mistake Mr. Obama for a Republican — although contrary to claims by both supporters and opponents, his voting record places him, with Senator Clinton, more or less in the center of the Democratic Party, rather than in its progressive wing.
But 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.
No! Say it isn’t so! Anything but that!
Sigh… This grows ever-so-slightly tiresome.
Why is it so hard for partisans to understand that much of the American electorate is tired of the scorched-earth blame-gaming?
Krugman’s point (and my concern) about Sen. Obama’s approach is that bipartisanship doesn’t just happen because one side desires it. Bipartisanship has to be a two-way street. Democratic leaders in Congress have tried to bring Republicans on board for a “bipartisan” approach on many issues over the past couple of years. They have been rejected at every hand. Sen. Obama has not yet faced the full fury of the Republican attack machine – it has been focused for many years on the Clintons – but if he is the Democratic nominee, you can be sure that he will face it. He will find, unfortunately, that this generation of Republicans is not interested in bipartisanship. Can he lead effectively in spite of this? I don’t know and I don’t think anyone does. He hasn’t been tested yet. Krugman is simply pointing this out. You may find it tiresome, but the truth is not always wrapped in a bright, shiny, sexy package. Some time it can be quite tiresome and unpleasant to hear.