What changed his mind over the weekend?

You would think Paul Krugman could at least keep his story straight over the weekend. From last Friday:

Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore.

But by Sunday night:

The second is what would have happened if there had been a full, statewide manual recount - as there should have been. The probable answer is that Al Gore would have won, by a tiny margin.

First of all, what is the basis of his "should have"? Sorry Paul, the Supreme Court, Florida election law, and even the requests of Al Gore and his lawyers overrule your John Bates Clark medal and oversized ego. But most of all, how did he manage to change from a definite statement "a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore" to the much more indefinite "the probable answer is" in just two days? Did he perhaps realize that he wouldn't be able to get away with fudging the truth from his first column? Who knows, possibly by Friday he will downgrade it to "maybe"?

There are many more problems with this article, but I don't feel like addressing them. This man is giving me a headache, I'll leave it to other bloggers.