Paul Krugman op-ed "Who's Nader Now" proven wrong?

[Eric J in MN]

EDITORIAL DESK | January 2, 2004, Friday
Who's Nader Now?
By PAUL KRUGMAN (NYT) 761 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 17 , Column 1

ABSTRACT - Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Democratic Party has its own internal spoilers: candidates lagging far behind in race for nomination who seem more interested in tearing down front-runner Howard Dean than in defeating George Bush; says some of them have launched vitriolic attacks that might as well have been scripted by Karl Rove; says polls do not support their claim that Dean would not be electable candidate; says Democratic candidates should not say anything that could be construed as statement that Bush is preferable to his rival; says anyone who really cares about ousting Bush should not pre-emptively surrender cause by claiming that his rival has no chance (M)

----------------
Krugman seemed to be implying that Howard Dean will be the nominee, so the other candidates shouldn't say he wouldn't win the general, or make other harsh criticism. That for another candidate to harshly criticize Dean was to be a spoiler.

Now the race is wide open, the implication that John Kerry is a spoiler seems to have been proven wrong.

[Moderator]

1. Locking

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

...

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator