More Obama-blindness from Krugman, this time on health care

Paul Krugman's article on health care in today's NY Times is very good, a primer on why the Democrats should have no trouble getting universal health care passed and why they may not. But then he adds this, perhaps as a final warm word towards John Edwards, but possibly another dig at Obama:

One more thing: if we do get real health care reform, a lot of people will owe a debt of gratitude to none other than John Edwards. When Mr. Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, I credited him with making universal health care a “possible dream for the next administration."

Here's what pisses me off about this final paragraph, and it does so because of the way Krugman attacked Obama relentlessly during the primaries for using what he called "right wing" tactics and "right wing" policy proposals: Krugman seems to think that Obama would be ok with not achieving universal health care. That's the only thing that makes sense to me as I read this article in light of all else he's written. While he is convinced health care would have been John Edwards' #2 (after poverty) issue, and he seems convinced Hillary would have been committed to it, he seems to think Obama is either ambivalent on the idea or incapable of making it happen.

Obama lost his mother to ovarian cancer when she was 52. She had partial health care. Does anyone really think his commitment to universal health care is the least bit ambivalent? (And for that matter, Lance Armstrong, that his commitment to cancer research isn't total?) Krugman is so lost in his opposition to Barack Obama that he'd rather give credit to the Democratic Party's platform plank on health care to John Edwards than admit the actual nominee might think it's something worth pursuing.

I'm really tired of his nonsense.