A Liberal Conscience
In yesterday’s op-ed piece in the New York Times (the quite aptly titled “Hate Springs Eternal“) Paul Krugman did himself few favours. Anyone who thought that Mr. Krugman was unduly harsh to Barack Obama in the past, now has a full page of evidence to support that view. Krugman’s intellectual dishonesty boggles the mind. Under the impression that the media are unfair in their criticism of Sen. Clinton, he actively tries to correct this imbalance by attacking her opponent with a similarly unsupported slant.
It is unclear what Krugman aimed to do with this piece. The central claim of the article, that Obama’s supporters are behind much of the venom in the campaign, receives no relevant proof in his arguments. He just plants this assertion on the page, as if his liberal conscience should be assurance enough that it is indeed legitamite.
The most vicious attacks he can point to, all emanate within the media. Krugman seems to be implying, that because these outlets attack Hillary disproportionately, they are by default supporters of Obama. This is, a completely faulty argument. The kind of argument, which, in a fair society, would only find expression in the form of excrement smeared on alleyway walls. MSNBC are as much surrogates of Obama, as Krugman is a surrogate of Hillary’s. As for Hillary’s real surrogates, the Bob Johnsons, Tom Vilsacks, Andrew Youngs, like the Iraq War, they receive little mention in Krugman’s writing.
Obama must be glad to see his most credible adversary make such an unfortunate fool of himself.
