Where's Krugman? Hillary's Right Wing Talking Points

Well, we have seen the consistent attacks by Paul Krugman on Obama due to his perceived issues with Obama's rhetoric, though Obama has an extremely progressive record (moreso than even Clinton and Edwards).

More specifically, one of Krugman's issues is the claim that Obama uses 'right-wing talking points' in how he defends himself against Clinton's policy attacks.  

Fair enough, I disagree with Krugman's analysis but everyone is entitled to their own opinion and Krugman is a progressive icon and guru that we all admire.

The question I have is will Krugman speak out against Clinton for attacking Obama for being too progressive in terms of actual belief and record?  Too liberal in his core beliefs?

Stay with me...

After, Obama's amazing performance in Iowa and with New Hampshire so close by, it is fairly predictable that the Clintons will try to slow Obama down.  I don't think that from a political point of view that this is unreasonable, but look at how the Clinton campaign is trying to do this:

Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination.

 via HuffPost

I suppose that an extremely progressive record is a bad thing that should be attacked.  Keep in mind that this is a Democratic primary.  

As well, the Clinton campaign oppo team gave video to ABC news saying that Obama supports a single payer health-care system, something that most people on this community supports.  

http://link.brightcove.com/...

Obama has consistently said in the campaign that if he had to build a health care system from scratch, that he would go with a single payer system but since America is where it is now, that he believes that improving the system with the plan he proposes is the most practical approach.

Regardless, will Paul Krugman speak out against Clinton and defend Obama's honor in the manner that he seems willing to do for Clinton and Edwards?

•  Tips etc...

  ...for a progressive conscience.

  by there will be blood on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:15:03 PM PDT

•  Um, how about waiting to see what she actually

  says?

  by BoringDem on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:22:08 PM PDT

  •  She won't say anything...

    ...her cronies will do all the sliming and so will Bill.

    I hold her responsible for her campaign.

    She gets surrogates out there to do her dirty work and then if the public gets mad, they can resign:  See Shaheen, Bill

    by there will be blood on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:36:00 PM PDT

    •  Do you hold Obama

      responsible for McClurkin?

      by dhonig on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:30:13 AM PDT

      •  Is He On the Payroll? n/t

        by pletzs on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:29:48 AM PDT

        •  He headlined an Obama event

          on behalf of Obama.  Sorry, but that particular out won't work.  You can't have it both ways.

          by dhonig on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 07:52:50 AM PDT

          •  So The Answer Is No n/t

            by pletzs on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 08:54:40 AM PDT

            •  Incorrect

              I do not know if McClurkin was paid for his appearance or not.  I know he was doing what he does for a living.  Additionally, the same criticism was made of Bob Kerrey, who is most definitely NOT on Clinton's payroll.  So no, I think the hair you are attempting to split is both insignificant and hypocritical.

              by dhonig on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:23:15 AM PDT

  •  You think her campaign aides are doing this

    without authorization?

    by Geekesque on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:48:47 PM PDT

•  Attacking Krugman is . . .

  . . . counter-productive.

  by XOVER on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:22:57 PM PDT

  •  I want to see...

    ...if Krugman will be consistent, that's all.

    I freely admit that he is a progressive hero, but I want to know if he is partial to a campaign...

    ...or not.

    by there will be blood on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:37:46 PM PDT

    •  Why does Krugman have to be consistent?

      Why can't Krugman be partial to a campaign? What you're asking for is the same kind of mindless, distorted, "fair and balanced" presentation that the rest of the media churns out.

      If you want fair and balanced, read Broder or watch Fox.

      Otherwise, celebrate the fact that Krugman actually thinks about issues and has opinions about what's right and what isn't. That doesn't mean you have to believe him or agree with him, but at least you can think about what he says and make up your own mind.

      If Obama can't handle one columnist disagreeing with him, he's going to have a hell of a time dealing with Congress if he gets elected.

      Somehow, I doubt you'd write this diary if it were Clinton that Krugman criticized instead of Obama, so I think your concern about "consistency" is, to put it politely, bullshit.

      by badger on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:53:39 PM PDT

•  said it once, say it again

  krugman is a fucking hack.

  the NYT is a national treasure, and without it we'd be halfway toward totalitarianism. but their REPORTERS are the heroes (and i'm not talking political reporters). their COLUMNISTS are, by contrast, unimportant to the proper functioning of democracy.

  krugman is a fucking hack.

  i can't wait to read his bitter shit.

  by blueterp on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:32:09 PM PDT

  •  snark? right? nt

    by JedReport on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:52:50 AM PDT

•  a little harsh...

  Krugman believes the right things and is a stalwart supporter on the frontlines of the fight.

  I simply want to see if he will be consistent.

  by there will be blood on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:39:28 PM PDT

•  Hilliani is also attacking him for opposing

  mandatory minimum prison sentences.

  The Clintons and Giuliani are beginning to become mirror images of each other.

  by Geekesque on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:47:45 PM PDT

  •  Yup

    Exactly right...

    by there will be blood on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:53:47 PM PDT

•  Well...

  Are they supposed to sit back when the media is giving Obama a pass and not point out anything regarding his record?

  And you are TOTALLY mischaracterizing the healthcare point her campaign is making. Maybe one day the Obama annex at Dkos will be  intellectually honest when talking about Clinton.

  This is child's play compared to what the Republicans will do to him.

  And being all self-righteous - as if they have no right to point out his record - is hysterical.

  I hope New Hampshire brings him and his followers back down to earth.

  Because the Republicans surely will.

  And it won't be pretty...

  by GregNYC on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:51:58 PM PDT

  •  Hillary makes an excellent stand-in for Giuliani.

    Good point.

    by Geekesque on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:57:55 PM PDT

    •  ha! god that was good. devastated i didn't come

      up with that!

      by blueterp on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:16:30 PM PDT

      •  When one's opponents tie themselves in knots,

        one can at least put their finger on it to faciliate the process.

        by Geekesque on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:26:57 PM PDT

•  Mom!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Hillary hit me first.

  by kaleidescope on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:53:46 PM PDT

  •  lmao

    Emotional infants yes ;)

    by phoenixdreamz on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:04:26 PM PDT

•  Get over Krugman. Sheesh!

  If Hillary's campaign does attack along these lines (mandatory minimums, death sentence, etc...), watch out. She's going to get shelled by the left. I actually would consider not voting for her in the general. No kidding.

  p.s: Did anyone here know that Jeff Sessions of Alabama is against mandatory minimums? Call it your fun fact for the day.

  by crazymoloch on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:59:53 PM PDT

  •  Also. An attack on Obama for his ....

    .... position on mandatory minimums would be beyond the pale. Its more than invoking right wing frames. Its attack ACTUAL, PROGRESSIVE IDEALS.

    by crazymoloch on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:02:42 PM PDT

    •  She's already opposed him on crack vs powder...

      ...sentencing guidelines. She thinks crack cocaine should be sentenced more harshly than powder.

      This is obviously and patently racist.

      As I went through my "I am furious at Obama" phase, someone sent me the article discussing that (maybe it was you, i forget), and I remembered: man, Hillary is a calculating hack.

      Just ask Marian Wright Edelman.

      by JedReport on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:55:40 AM PDT

      •  False

        the only dispute was retroactivity.  They agreed on the guidelines themselves.

        by dhonig on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:32:06 AM PDT

  •  I do not believe the articles

    Something sounds fishy to me.

    by BoringDem on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 01:43:43 AM PDT

•  I don't see why he wouldn't

  He's ignored her recently, but he hasn't been afraid to go after her in the past.

  The only one he hasn't gone after is Edwards.

  by MattBellamy on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:22:30 PM PDT

  •  Because he supports Edwards (and he's right!)

    To the extent that there has been any hackery in what Krugman has done it's because he's an Edwards partisan who understands that it's unlikely the contest develops into an Obama v. Edwards rack.

    It's also true that Krugman's critiques turned out to be right.

    I thought at first that he was being too harsh on Obama, but when Obama unleashed the 527s attack and the Harry and Louise attack, he needed a reminder to not stray towards the dark side.

    None of what I'm saying defends Hillary's attacks, nor is it a fundamental criticism of Obama.

    by JedReport on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:59:12 AM PDT

•  If Hillary's people attack progressive policies..

  Then Hillary will lose.
  The more her advisors tell her to continue the status quo; the more her support will fade.
  Hillary is not now, and will never be, an agent of change.

  by manwithnoname on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:49:54 AM PDT