Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility
by Jerome Armstrong, Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 05:37:04 PM EST
Every 4 years in December, Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, seems to morph into some sort of a zombie that turns on progressives... or maybe he's always that way. During the last Presidential cycle at this time, Robert Gibbs was the face and spokesperson for the front group that attacked Howard Dean in Iowa with one of the most dispicable TV ads of our times. This cycle, he's out trashing the credibility of Paul Krugman on behalf of Barack Obama.
But it's not right to pinpoint Gibbs as the disaster behind this attack on Krugman's credibility. The fault is with Obama. It's obvious that Obama feels comfortable attempting to trash the credibility of progressives like Krugman. It's even more disturbing when coupled with the admiration that Obama holds for Republicans in his post-partisan quest. But this is just plain stupid.
What's the point? "Krugman Then, Krugman Now." Obama is saying that Krugman said one thing a few months ago and another now, but to what end? That's left unsaid, but the implication must be that Krugman's either a complete idiot who forgot what he said or that he's changed his words due to some sort of unethical or under-handed motive.
Actually, it's worse. Couple it with the quote of Obama's above the PR that says: "I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth -Barack Obama". It is plainly and simply an effort to call Paul Krugman a liar.
But it's also a telling quote of the way that Obama would govern as President-- by attacking those who are most outspoken in the being progressive.
If there's one person that I would point to in the establishment press that was there during the wilderness, the period of '01-'03, before Dean arrived on the scene, it was Paul Krugman. The guy should be awarded some sort of Presidential award by the next President for his truth telling while nearly all the rest of the establishment press could only be found on their knees in front of BushCo during the beginning of this decade.
Is Obama is just plain ignorant of the fight we've faced this decade in going after Krugman? Why is he going after the Clinton and Edwards plans to push forward the idea of universal coverage? Does he really have no clue that using the term 'crisis' to describe Social Security is Rovian?
It's mistakes like these that make me think that if Obama gets the nomination, it's going to be disgusting to watch as he turns against progressives in his bid for the middle, and as he says, that's the way he'd govern too.