I just wrote a letter to the editor at the New York Times.
The letter is in response to this Op-Ed piece by Paul Krugman (who usually writes super-intelligently about the economy). The piece is a hatchet job on Barack Obama, and sort of proves that the Democratic establish just really doesn’t get him, and definitely doesn’t get why many progressive folks and a ton of independents have a hard time liking Hillary (hint: I don’t think it’s because she’s a woman – so many folks would love a woman president).

——-
To The Editor:
The usually deep-thinking Paul Krugman’s op-ed piece on the contest between Obama and Clinton has several deeply flawed assertions.
First, there is not much evidence to assert that this campaign has been more divisive than others. As someone who has closely followed the campaign, I can say I’ve never witnessed a more unified and energized democratic party. The policy distinctions between the two candidates are minor, and they clearly respect one and other. Again, maybe that doesn’t make as newsworthy of a story as the ongoing portrayal of a dog fight, but it is closer to the truth.
Secondly, the assertion that Mr. Obama’s campaign borders on a “cult of personality” is deeply unfair. Senator Obama has gained such tremendous advantage by using the two-letter word “We” more prominently and more effectively than any candidate since Kennedy. If he represents a cult, then it seems to be a cult with many millions of leaders, and zero mindless followers.
On the other hand, Senator Clinton is the one speaking far more often in self-referential terms, using the word “I” over and over and over again. It would be an interesting exercise to count how many times in speeches each candidate has said “I” and “We” respectively. Has the Times ever set out to count this crucial statistic?
Sincerely,
Ethan Nichtern
Brooklyn, NY