I'm pretty bitter. I'm bitter about 4000 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis. I'm bitter about the price of gas, the price of food, and the foreclosures in my neighborhood. I'm bitter at Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and George W. Bush. I'm bitter at a lot of things, but nothing makes me quite as bitter as turncoat liberals who tolerate right wing smears.
Paul Krugman, New York Times op-ed columnist and the self-declared conscience of liberalism, has spent the better part of five months lambasting Senator Barack Obama for being too conservative. His favorite topic is Obama’s health care plan, which he believes is inferior to Clinton’s, but a close second is his criticism of Obama for using "right wing talking points".
Sometimes he's on target (I still feel queasy about Obama's Hary and Louise mailer) and most of the time he's off base (like when Krugman railed against Obama for making a historic reference to Ronald Reagan). Krugman has repeatedly called Obama out for the usage of right wing rhetoric and tactics.
It’s one thing for an editorial writer in Krugman’s position to exhibit bias towards one candidate over another, but he has turned his column into a crusade against Obama’s "wrongs". When he perceives a misstep by Obama he bangs out a new article to skewer him, but he remains silent when Republicans run wild with classic smears or, worse, when Clinton joins in those attacks.
So, with little hope, I implore Paul Krugman to at long last prove to us that he is a real liberal looking out for liberals and not just a petty Hillary Clinton shill. Damn it all, Krugman, write an article defending Obama on this two-way assault from Clinton and the Republicans. Obama has spent the past three days under fire for voicing the premise of Thomas Frank’s book "What’s the Matter With Kansas?" at a fundraiser.
It’s a book every 21st century liberal should have on their shelf by now, but if you are unfamiliar I will allow Wikipedia to explain the content:
In the book, Frank examines what he calls "The Great Backlash", which he describes as a reactionary movement against the cultural changes of the 1960s and 1970s. According to his analysis, the political discourse of recent decades has dramatically shifted from the class animus of traditional leftism to one in which "explosive" cultural issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, are used to redirect anger towards "liberal elites".
Obama correctly explained the use of divisive social issues to convince impoverished voters to vote against their economic interests and McCain and Clinton have teamed up to criticize him exactly as Frank’s premise predicts. They are both gleefully calling Obama a "liberal elite". The smears are a condemnable and predictable move from Republicans and a disgusting and predictable move from the Clinton campaign.
I am sure the op-eds for Monday will be filled with articles pillorying Obama for his comments and a handful defending him, but it’s Krugman I look to tomorrow. If Paul Krugman has the courage of his professed convictions it is his responsibility to speak out against this, to justifiably and at long last leap to Obama’s defense as a liberal being assailed by the notorious dirty tricks of the right wing.
If you agree with me, then help by emailing Krugman and asking him to prove himself as a liberal. If you agree with me then rec this diary. Help send the message.