> Can we assume that you disapprove of the negativity?
Not sure I understand your question. But, to make my thoughts clearer:
Krugman was wrong in supporting Hillary Clinton. He did so after it became clear to him that John Edwards wasn't going to make it. He had a point in criticizing Obama's health care proposal and other statements. But he didn't need to support Clinton to do all that. As I argued before, the pluses of Obama's candidacy overwhelmed the minuses -- in comparison to Hillary Clinton.
That said, Krugman's criticism of Obama is infighting. Krugman is clearly for the Democratic candidate and, now, that means Obama. At this point, Krugman is for Obama, yet he is making his views heard, views that are critical of Obama. That's all good, because for the most part Krugman's criticism is intended to pull Obama towards the left. In a sense, Krugman represents those people who followed Hillary and have not completely come around to supporting Obama wholeheartedly. That ought to call Obama's attention, since he need their help to win in November. (By the way, I disagree somewhat with Krugman's comparison of Obama to Clinton, because I think things are different now. The left is more self-assured this time around.)
Now, perhaps *more* effective than Krugman's criticism is Arianna Huffington's memo. She helped Obama defeat Clinton. She's been very effective with her web site, TV appearances, and other proselytizing. In that sense, Obama owes her big time. Huffington is giving Obama the benefit of the doubt and providing him with specific ways for him to save face and stick to the left. I think it's a very effective argument that Obama will have to ponder some. Similarly, or perhaps even more effective that Huffington's memo is the growing rebellion among Obama's very supporters on the my.barackobama.com blogs. (By the way, that should give pause to Doug and others who caricature the people supporting Obama as just being enchanted by his charisma, lacking critical thinking.)
Do I think Nader's attacks on Obama have a point? You bet. But, as we all know, in human matters, the source and form of a criticism may matter even more than the content of the criticism. I just don't think Nader is nearly as effective. (And let me not talk about Nader's remark on Stephanopoulos' show, namely that Obama was "talking white." Again, the source and form of the criticism matters. Siblings can say things one wouldn't tolerate coming from others.)
Even the heart and soul of political leaders is an arena of the class struggle.