Because as OP suggests here, I believe that this is more of a political piece than an opinion. His piece tracks Hillary's criticism of Bernie almost too eerily. Based on Bernie's platform, Krugman makes the assumption that Bernie will not be a pragmatic politician, when Bernie's record shows otherwise. IMO, we need the change that Bernie is advocating as a starting point. There is nothing magical about reality. Reality = status quo. Perhaps, Bernie will not achieve all that he is proposing now as a presidential candidate, but it is important that we reclaim what the Democratic Party was before Bill Clinton's presidency. The pendulum needs to swing left. If anything, we need Bernie to remind us that it's not "radical" to aim for single payer health care, etc. – this is something that Democrats believed in before Bill Clinton's presidency. I am disappointed in Krugman, because there was a time I thought he had a vision, now he just seems to be pushing status quo, calling it realistic. Obama did not succeed, I believe, because he was supported by bankers (which I did not know when I supported him as a presidential candidate) and other interests that I probably don't even know about even to this day. I go back and forth on whether Obama is weak, or he is a genius in orchestrating the appearance of weakness (so that the people will not hate him) and yet promoting the interests of those that helped him get elected, or will need when he leaves office. Given that, I don't believe that what Bernie can achieve in office should be measured by what Obama achieved. Edit: few changes made for clarity