New York Times columnist Paul Krugman takes to his platform to issue something of a warning this morning: "We're now in the midst of an epic financial crisis, which ought to be at the center of the election debate. But it isn't."

With his background in economics, it's a topic that's well within Krugman's wheelhouse, and he has examined each candidate's "commitment to financial reform," and, understandably, finds them all wanting. John McCain keeps a "disappointing" vow of silence on economic matters, punctuated only by statements from surrogates that are either naive or too centered on "financial deregulation." Barack Obama, as far as Krugman is concerned, places too much emphasis on the costly war in Iraq, saying "it's just wrong to blame the war for our current economic mess." And Hillary Clinton, while sufficiently clear of Obama's war blinkers, has, like McCain, "been disappointingly quiet about the key issue: the need to reform our out-of-control financial system."

What's out of control? Krugman endeavors to explain:

Now, the shadow banking system is facing the 21st-century equivalent of the wave of bank runs that swept America in the early 1930s. And the government is rushing in to help, with hundreds of billions from the Federal Reserve, and hundreds of billions more from government-sponsored institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks.

Given the risks to the economy if the financial system melts down, this rescue mission is justified. But you don't have to be an economic radical, or even a vocal reformer like Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, to see that what's happening now is the quid without the quo.

Last week Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, declared that Mr. Frank is right about the need for expanded regulation. Mr. Rubin put it clearly: If Wall Street companies can count on being rescued like banks, then they need to be regulated like banks.

Will the candidates take the time to address this issue? Signs point to no, Krugman says. Sorry, voters!

Did it have to be this way? Of course, while the hot mess that is Bear Stearns has pushed these concerns front and center, I'd think the Krugman understands that these endemic economic problems have persisted for quite some time, as have the relative silence/naivete of the candidates.

Is it fair, then, for Krugman to complain now that this issue "ought to be at the center of the election debate" but isn't? Back in January, voters had more choices among the candidates and more time to hold their feet to the fire. Now we're left with three candidates that can't or won't address this issue effectively. Seems to me that we could have used a column on this matter from an expert in the field two months ago. But some columnists I know decided that demogoguing on health care policy hair-splits (after doing a complete about-face, anyway) and subjecting the Obama voter to a little armchair psychoanalysis was more important. As usual, timing would appear to be everything.