Yes anyone reading Mr. Krugman can see his objectivity is very suspect of late.  If you dont, here's a summary:  Hillary policies good, Obama's bad and scary.  Forget the Nobel winning economists who love the Obama fiscal plans.  Well, Obama may have looked over HRC's shoulder to make some if it...

But in looking back I see the bias has been there for months, I just didnt see it.  It is actually challenging standards of professionalism. 

He has as accountable to facts and previous statements as Terry "MI won't get Seated" McAuliffe.

Sad for a respected liberal author and economist.  Even worse, his columns now become hyprocrisies of his previous op ed's:

Feb 4:  Electability is a stupid argument
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/electability/

Mar 3:  If HRC doesnt win big she is out (note:  Her Texas size lead in Feb wasn't so Texas 3/4)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/opinion/03krugman.html?ex=1362286800&en=a04dd444bb894a71&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Worse still, he has misrepresented facts in the same 3/3 op ed:
"Like the faith that he can win an overwhelming electoral victory, the faith that he can overcome bitter conservative opposition to progressive legislation rests on very little evidence — one productive year in the Illinois State Senate, after the Democrats swept the state, and not much else"

Um, Obama was elected in 1995 to the Illinois State Senate.  But Im sure that was a innocent typo.  He mentioned in the same article that he has more elected official experience (you know, for evidence of the crap shoot that Obama wont burn down the White House and actually do something) on than HRC, right?  Wrong.

And cKrugman herry picked definitions of an "acceptable" candidate (mostly from the 3/3 "op ed"):
 - Now that polls are definitively showing Obama in the lead, he says they don't matter, and never mentions how Hillary does v. McCain nationally, but cherry picks her v. McSame in FL.
- With BO ahead, he raises the bar to an "overwhelming electoral victory."  Thats the only reason we wanted Obama, because the victory was larger? Really, I thought the Dems had disadvantages, but we must beat the point spread?  Ah, the beauty of the straw man argument.  And used twice, in sequence, is powerful, but shameful-  Some people say.... others say the opposite... but they agree on one thing, voting for Obama is a wing and a prayer..
- He says once the press turns on Obama, no one will know whether he will better match up against McCain in the national polls.  Today we know, he's doing as good compared to HRC as when the question was posed, Wright, Ayers and Bitter be damned.  Krugman's April op eds on this fact:  Crickets
- He paints Obama as moderate.  Does this jive with him being elitist, his charge in recent columns?  I dont think so.  (What other reason could Paul have to change his mind in 45 days?  Hmmm)
- He claims Obama has created dissent by not representing progressive activists.  Now thats funny.

Yes hindsight is 20/20.  And Krugman is a smart and valued voice.  But Im not buying anything he is selling, and he is selling, until this primary is over.  And I ask him and the NYT to consider why its deplorable of Kristol and Rove to use Op Ed space to masquerade their propaganda as news and opinion, free and outside FEC laws, but Krugman can do it for HRC.  Everyone gets dirty, and to what end?  HRC's?  For our sakes?  Could you be honest with us for a second and explain why Obama scares you so much that you fuel the damaging- and losing- argument for her chances?  That you take an honorable name like yours, Mr. Krugman, and roll it around with the RePigs in integrity defying journalism?