A presidential candidate making spurious claims during his campaign combined with a pusillanimous (and ignorant) press? This is what drove Krugman over the edge?
We are to believe that he was the Big Kahuna of reasonableness prior to 2000?
This after eight years of Bill Clinton, the physical embodiment of pure and puerile prevarication.
This coming from the same man who endorsed John Edwards for president.
The question becomes, which is greater, Krugman's insolence, his naivete, his disingenuousness, his dishonesty or the depths he will plunge to find any sort of ad hominem?