In today’s New York Times, Paul Krugman takes a critical look at why Obama has yet to win over white working class voters. It is this very problem that keeps Obama from winning those big important states. But why can't Obama get those votes?

Krugman sweeps the notion under the rug that Hillary Clinton’s negative campaigning is the reason Barack Obama keeps falling short.

According to many Obama supporters, it’s all Hillary’s fault. If she hadn’t launched all those vile, negative attacks on their hero — if she had just gone away — his aura would be intact, and his mission of unifying America still on track. But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really?

Krugman contends that Clinton’s campaign has been mere child’s play compared to what will happen if Obama makes it to the general election. Krugman asks, if Clinton has “knocked Obama off his pedestal” with such soft blows, then what hope did Obama have in the general anyway?

The answer to Krugman’s original question then, is found in Obama’s message of change—and not in Clinton’s politics. Krugman:

Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for.

But can it be that simple? Is Obama’s message of hope, change and unity the thing that just isn’t clicking with these voters? Krugman explains that despite Obama’s efforts to show he can talk policy, it is the campaign’s core message, which is ultimately what Obama’s candidacy is all about, that is not resonating with these voters.

How can Obama justify his ‘new politics’, which necessarily entails turning the page on the economic success of the Bill Clinton administration, in light of today’s dismal economic climate?

Democrats, Krugman says, should be portraying themselves as a party of prosperity—a stark contrast to the Bush administration. Krugman explains:

But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn’t mesh well with claims to be bringing a “new politics” and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties. And unless Democrats can get past this self-inflicted state of confusion, there’s a very good chance that they’ll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this fall.

In the end, Krugman’s point is well taken. Some have framed Obama’s inability to win white working class voters in terms of race.  Perhaps all the talk of racism, bitterness and resentment when referring to white working class voters is not only ill-conceived, but also damaging to the Democratic Party.

How Obama will win over this set of voters remains to be seen, but his inability to do so, is a powerful argument that Clinton will continue to use as this race goes on.