I took that title above from an article posted today on The Huffington Post by Taylor Marsh, pointing out how Barack Obama has been attacking Hillary Clinton from the right for several weeks now, even using Republican talking points in his rhetoric.
I had the timerity to make some of the same points on these pages a few weeks ago and was immediately swamped by Obama supporters calling me every name in the book, including the worst possible insult they could think of...(Gasp!!) a Clinton supporter...
Now the Obama campaign has posted on its web site a critique of liberal icon Paul Krugman that is as error ridden and deliberately deceptive as anything that can be found Fox News or the right wing blogosphere...
I'll let Ms. March outline it for you:
For months this has been going on. In fact, I was the first to point it out. Maybe the void of comment is why Barack Obama felt he could get away with attacking Paul Krugman, one of the leading thinkers in the progressive community. It's akin to going after Molly Ivins, but since she's gone I guess Obama decided to take down one of the only progressive columnists that have our back. At issue isn't just the personal attack on Krugman because he dared to analyze Mr. Obama's health care plan, an analysis that was right on the money. The bottom line is that this proves what I've been saying for over ten months. Barack Obama has no ideological compass.
[Snip]
So, of course, Mr. Obama has no compunction of going after the leading progressive economist, Paul Krugman, because Obama's loyalty is not to Democratic principles, but to his own agenda, which at it's core can be summed up in four words: Let's Make a Deal. Just look at the Obama campaign's attack "Facts Page" on Krugman. Take this snippet:
THE PLAN
KRUGMAN THEN: Obama's Health Care Plan "Is Smart And Serious, Put Together By People Who Know What They're Doing." Paul Krugman wrote, "The Obama plan is smart and serious, put together by people who know what they're doing...So there's a lot to commend the Obama plan." [New York Times, 6/4/07]
KRUGMAN NOW: "The Fundamental Weakness Of The Obama Plan Was Apparent From The Beginning." Paul Krugman wrote, "The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning." [New York Times, 11/30/07]
In the "then" section above there is another point completely left out of Obama's (ahem) "Fact Check" item:
Now for the bad news. Although Mr. Obama says he has a plan for universal health care, he actually doesn't -- a point Mr. Edwards made in last night's debate. The Obama plan doesn't mandate insurance for adults. So some people would take their chances -- and then end up receiving treatment at other people's expense when they ended up in emergency rooms. In that regard it's actually weaker than the Schwarzenegger plan.
I asked David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan, about this omission. His answer was that Mr. Obama is reluctant to impose a mandate that might not be enforceable, and that he hopes -- based, to be fair, on some estimates by Mr. Cutler and others -- that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured without a mandate. Call it the timidity of hope. ... ..
There is no "then" and "now" with Krugman. But you wouldn't know that from Obama's "facts" because the only goal is to cannibalize a progressive who dares rebut Obama's health care spin with the truth. Obama puts himself above a progressive with unquestioned liberal bona fides; someone who stands alone in the rhetorical world. It's not like we have a lot of op-ed contributors taking up the progressive cause in newspapers across this country. To attack a leading liberal economic writer from The New York Times makes it worse.
When I wrote my previous post here, back on November 4, it was in the context of Senator Obama's appearance that evening on Saturday Night Live. My complaint was that Obama seemed to be a little too tentative in his approach to the campaign and was further alienating me by talking about the "Social Security Crisis" as though it actually existed outside the feverish imaginings of Republican political strategists. My conclusion was that Obama needs to get his head on straight before I would consider voting for him.
This new attack on Paul Krugman came about, as Ms. Taylor said above, because the New York Times columnist dared to state his opinion that the Illinois Senator's Healthcare Plan not nearly as strong or as comprehensive as those of either of his chief Democratic rivals.
The use of selective quotes to falsely suggest that an opponent has changed his stance on an issue is something I'd expect from Rush Limbaugh ot Sean Hannity, not from a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.
I haven't made up my mind yet who I will vote for, but I am sure now that it won't be the Junior Senator from Illinois. I'm afraid my disillusionment with Mr. Obama is complete...