The arrogant doctor is in.

The most unique and compelling, argument against Howard Dean's presidential candidacy was published by Marjorie Williams?an unabashed Democrat?in the Washington Post on Dec. 31. Williams, a regular Post op-ed contributor until a debilitating illness understandably rearranged her schedule and priorities, wrote that Dean was unacceptable to her (aside from fearing an "epic McGovernesque defeat") because he's a doctor.

I don't agree that Dean would take a licking on the magnitude of George McGovern or Fritz Mondale?the percentage of voters who despise George W. Bush is larger, incredibly, than even that which despised Richard Nixon?but anyone who's visited medical offices or hospitals for more than a mere physical or a few stitches, will empathize with Williams' rationale.

She writes, with defiant logic: "Where else but in medicine do you find men and women who never admit a mistake? Who talk more than they listen, and feel entitled to withhold crucial information? Whose lack of tact in matters of life and death might disqualify them for any other field?? Consider the high-handed way Dean has tried to shield great portions of his gubernatorial records. Similarly, doctors seem bent on ensuring that you not read the runic scribblings they have made in your chart.

"During one hospital stay, as I sat in a wheelchair outside Radiology waiting to be pushed back to my room, I began idly flipping through my chart. A young female doctor-in-training I had never seen before stopped in front of me and said, 'You know, you really shouldn't be reading your chart.' I thanked her for her advice and continued reading. She repeated her admonition. I explained that I was 43 and couldn't possibly read anything worse there than I had already been told by five real doctors. Upon which she actually wrested it from my grasp."

It's a tradition for Americans, when polled, to lump lawyers, politicians and journalists at the bottom of the heap when rating professions. That's hard to argue with?and probably pollsters themselves aren't too popular?but it's inexplicable, at least to me, that the ayatollahs of medicine are held in the same high regard as rabbis, ministers, scientists, astronauts and soldiers.

There are exceptions, obviously, but most doctors are real assholes. Thirty years ago, while an undergraduate at Johns Hopkins, I was talking with a brother of mine who'd also attended the pre-med-dominated university. I told him there was no way, after observing the idiotic behavior of future MDs in my freshman dormitory, would I ever seek treatment from one of them. Doug correctly batted down that notion, saying, "Don't be silly; when the occasion arises you'll be glad to fatten their wallets."

As it happened, in 1982 Doug was hospitalized at a well-regarded Los Angeles institution, the victim of Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and my three other brothers and I received, at first, the full-bore you-are-not-worthy static from an egocentric doctor. It was only my sister-in-law's research on the relatively rare disease, relayed by phone, that gave us the ammunition to pepper this putz with questions he had to answer, however grudgingly. Still, one day while visiting Doug, who was partially paralyzed, he struggled to write a clandestine note, which read, "The people here are all butchers!"

It's not as if doctors are routinely raised as arrogant pricks. One of my oldest friends, as compassionate and generous a fellow you'd ever meet, was transformed, if only professionally, as he climbed the status and affluence rung that a hard-working surgeon attains. We were chatting one afternoon and he complained about all the hypochondriacs, whiners and malcontents foisted upon him in a New York emergency room day after numbing day.

"Hey, it's not like a broken arm is the worst thing in the world," he said with a straight face, utterly forgetting that most people are scared silly, with good reason, of hospitals and being treated as just another anonymous slab of beef. It's just another day at the office for the lords of medicine, a means of making a living, but for the rest of the population such a visit rarely brings good news, unless it's the birth of a child.

Williams' op-ed conclusion is one that DNC leaders should, but won't, take to heart. She writes: "Why is it, I ask my husband on the way home, that I'm the one who's sick, but they're the ones who are allowed to have the big, operatic personalities? I have the same concern about Dean. Why should Democrats choose to stand around all spring and summer holding their breath against the moment when Dean says something arrogant or impolitic? And so I bring to my assessment of this year's Democratic candidates one requirement that never crossed my mind before. First, do no harm."

Not that this common sense would sway honorary doctor Paul Krugman's warped political mindset. The New York Times' "economic" columnist, presently the pet of Hollywood and Manhattan populist millionaires for his simplistic savaging of Republican millionaires, has increasingly become bored with his original beat and is now a full-time political pundit. (Maybe he's compensating for Maureen Dowd, who's been "on vacation," it seems, since Labor Day.) Krugman's not so subtly signed on with Dr. Dean?although the Democratic frontrunner is probably too conservative for his taste?and is appalled that the other candidates are in attack mode.

On Jan. 2, a few weeks before "real people" actually vote, Krugman accuses Dean's competitors of running vanity campaigns not very different than Ralph Nader's 2000 run. The oracle of Princeton writes: "Now the Democratic Party has its own internal spoilers: candidates lagging far behind in the race for the nomination who seem more interested in tearing down Howard Dean than in defeating George Bush? [A] Democrat shouldn't say anything that could be construed as a statement that Mr. Bush is preferable to his rival."

Krugman agrees with Dean's view that Saddam's capture hasn't made the U.S. safer?"a statement that seems more justified with each passing day" [at least in Krugman's blinkered universe]?and scolds John Kerry and Joe Lieberman for having the gall to say Dean had committed yet another Perot-like gaffe.

He continues: "Most Democrats feel, with justification, that we're facing a national crisis?that the right, ruthlessly exploiting 9/11, is making a grab for total political dominance. The party's rank and file want a candidate who is running, as the Dean slogan puts it, to take our country back. This is no time for a candidate who is running just because he thinks he deserves to be president."

I hadn't noticed that our country's been hijacked, but does Krugman honestly?no, scratch that, honesty is not a word in the Times columnist's vocabulary?really believe that any man running for the White House, no matter what year, doesn't believe he "deserves to be president"? Politicians, after all, are nearly as vain as doctors and New York Times hotshots, a truism that Krugman chooses to ignore.

Krugman's Dec. 26 column was a lecture to political reporters and his fellow pundits. He warns colleagues that Bush has?you can guess what's coming?"turned this country sharply to the right, and this election will determine whether the right's takeover is complete" and so everyone with even a sliver of his enormous intellect ought not wallow in the trivial.

Such as: "Don't fall for political histrionics. I couldn't believe how much ink was spilled after the Gore-Dean event over Joe Lieberman's hurt feelings. Folks, we're talking about war, peace and the future of U.S. democracy?not about who takes whom to the prom." In fact, though Lieberman probably was pissed that Gore, who, contrary to Beltway opinion, is dead as a gutter rat politically, didn't give him a heads-up about his endorsement of Dean, the Connecticut senator was no doubt tickled, since he was finally the recipient of media attention and was able to energize his small base of supporters.

Here's another rich (sorry, Paul, I mean outrageous) tip from Krugman: "Beware of personal anecdotes? The approved story line about Mr. Bush is that he's a bluff, honest, plain-spoken guy, and anecdotes that fit that story get reported. But if the conventional wisdom were instead that he's a phony, a silver-spoon baby who pretends to be a cowboy, journalists would have plenty of material to work with."

Once again, it's apparent that Krugman reads few newspaper articles aside from his own. In just the past two months, as Dean strengthened his position as the Democratic front-runner, there have been dozens of stories across the country comparing his privileged Park Ave./Hamptons upbringing with Bush's own pedigree of affluence and proximity to power. Americans can debate whether or not Bush is "honest," but he's clearly "plain-spoken," a characteristic that's regularly lampooned by Krugman's brethren in the media.

Maybe Krugman's still ticked-off that Bush called former Times colleague Adam Clymer an "asshole" during the 2000 campaign, but in that case you'd have to assume the professor has more than a small circle of friends.

Krugman could look beyond Dean's competitors to see that Democrats are nervous about Dean. A Jan. 5 Baltimore Sun op-ed by Daniel Munoz, a graduate student at Harvard, is typical. He writes: "[A]s a Democrat who is hungry for change in presidential leadership, I worry about Dr. Dean accepting the Democratic nomination in Boston. I worry that many voters, preoccupied with the perceived ability of our commander in chief to manage American security interests in an unpredictable international environment, will side with the tested leadership of George W. Bush. This voter included."

Yet another Judas for Krugman to gnash his teeth over.

On a more humorous note?and a shot of castor oil for dessert is preferable to further examination of Krugman's paranoia?the Los Angeles Times, last Sunday, ran a short item about a holiday party in Iowa. It seems that host Charlie Bruner, a former state senator, invited both Kerry and Dean to the gathering along with Peter Yarrow (who supports Kerry), who sang the civil rights song "Have You Been to Jail for Justice."

The folk singer, still revered in some quarters for his Peter, Paul & Mary hit "Puff the Magic Dragon," gave a brief speech in which he appealed for unity. Sounding like Bill Clinton, circa 1992, Yarrow said: "Everybody here is involved in the process of being civically engaged, caring about the future of our country and realizing that we have a horror in Washington. We should all honor each other."

I agree that Washington can be a "horror," what with Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Leahy and Robert Byrd all doing their part to sully Congress' reputation, but I never did get this business about "honoring" each other. For what? Adding a nebulous, new age sentiment to the current political vocabulary?

What the hell: enjoy!

[MUG1988@aol.com](mailto:MUG1988@aol.com)