What many have been saying for months ...

... Andrew Sullivan (who's usually among the first to get the important stuff) picks up on an important component of the Clinton problem and disagrees with Paul Krugman's latest and increasingly defensive position.  Sullivan writes:

The model etched in Clinton's head - and it is part and parcel of her entire worldview with respect to minorities - is: you vote for us, we'll take care of you. And "we" is always white and straight and connected. Obama represents an end to those categories, which is why Clinton gets her strongest support from those most resistant to any diminution in established (i.e. white) power. Pat Buchanan gets what she appeals to, even if Krugman doesn't.

I've been open to an Obama-Clinton ticket; but the more you see of the Clintons, the more you realize that getting rid of them - and the assumptions they represent - is part of what this entire campaign has come to be about.

The story doesn't end there.  Carl Hulse has an article in the New York Times which also tells a sad tale:  Clinton is going to have a hard time returning to the Senate where so many of her closest colleagues revealed their support for Obama.

While she has received millions of votes, stirred thousands of Americans at rallies, made hundreds of appearances and is just scores of delegates short of her goal, defeat would still return her to the Senate as No. 36 out of 49 Democrats.

But the seniority arithmetic is only the beginning. There is also the personal challenge of returning to a club where more Democratic members, some quite pointedly, favored Senator Barack Obama and spurned her. For Mrs. Clinton, who has spent years cultivating friendships and raising money for colleagues, that had to hurt. Though the Senate is a place where rival lawmakers daily work side-by-side, this family feud was more public and pronounced than usual.

Others are saying she could recover.  But her junior status will hold her back.  She may have to depend on kindness and latitude from the party leadership.

Mrs. Clinton’s relatively junior status limits her options in the Senate. She is pretty far down the ladder on her committees, denying her a chairmanship, the most potent source of influence and bargaining chips in the Senate give-and-take.

Allies have said the Senate leadership should carve out an important niche for her, but that is not easy since any position could come at the expense of a more senior member. Top Democratic officials say the party leadership is not considering any special spot, though lawmakers would not rule out some accommodation if she sought one.

Comments

[krugmanisconservative]

Obamabots are so far out there that even Krugman's no longer liberal enough for them...

[Will Divide]

There are few who write so clearly on dense economic topics for a wide audience as Krug. I just don't see that same lucidity extending into the political realm. He is a wonk, after all, who teaches at Princeton-- a specialized person in a special place.

I think the racial stuff more than anything else really dropped Hil's car off the Senate jack. What the season has shown is that she is not a team player, or instead that her team has a big C on the jersey. She has four years left on her current term and I wonder, once she leaves the nomination stage, if she will serve them all. I think a large part of the remarkably loyal NY delegation, led by Charlie Rangel, will be happy to see her leave.

[PW]

Thing about Krugman is, I believe, he backed Hillary and (somewhat childishly) is defending that choice against most of his colleagues (and the Times itself, all but officially). He just can't let it go. That ego/childishness element has been there in the past, even through some of his best columns. Can't want for him to get past Hillary and start writing good stuff again.