But not you, Reed. Not you at all.

There is an assumption here that negative campaigning means personal smears. It doesn't. Obama needs to go negative by picking the low-hanging fruit of Hillary's vulnerability, and it has nothing to do with personal attacks. Hillary Clinton is vulnerable on the secrecy issue. She is vulnerable on the experience issue (the idea that she is "tested" is preposterous, and Obama should say so). She is vulnerable on the ethics issue.




What's interesting is whether, as David Brooks suggests, Obama risks a backlash by women if he goes seriously negative. My guess is that he does, in the same way blacks reacted negatively in South Carolina to attacks against Obama. Until South Carolina, Obama did not have the black vote locked up.

Really Reed. Do you really think that those of us who read your posts are that shallow? Look at yourself; you have just written a post based on the notion that Paul Krugman is the same as David Brooks. Reed, I know that we're in a heated election campaign, but please. Indeed, if you were really being genuine, wouldn't you include something about MoDo and Frank Rich and what they've been dishing out on a regular basis? You're making a political statement here, Reed, like everyone else. Please don't try and tell us you're doing anything else.

I understand where Krugman is coming from.

He did a couple of mild posts about how a mandate was better for healthcare, and the Obama campaign went after him with heavy duty oppo research.

What's more, they went after him with transparently inaccurate heavy duty oppo research.

It's led him to doubt their competence and honesty, which is an entirely reasonable response.

Krugman's statement today that, "...Mr. Obama’s attempt to win over workers by portraying himself as a fierce critic of Nafta looked, and was, deeply insincere — an appearance particularly costly for a candidate who tries to seem above politics as usual" was probably written before the news came out that it was someone from Sen. Clinton's campaign, not Sen. Obama's, who warned the Canadians that her speeches about NAFTA should be understood as mere politics. This crucial reversal of the original story was widely disseminated yesterday. Why did the NT Times editors allow Krugman's statement to stand without the caveat that Sen. Clinton's claims were false? Moreover, whoever approached the Canadian gov't from the Clinton campaign certainly knew that Sen. Clinton's speeches and radio ads whacking Sen. Obama's insincere opposition to NAFTA were false. This person should no longer be working for the Clinton campaign. And if Sen. Clinton knew throughout that she was making a false charge, that it was her campaign that warned the Canadians, that would speak volumes about her character. Will Krugman, who prides himself on scholarly, factual analysis correct this false accusation that he has, to use Sen. Clinton's phrase, "Xeroxed" from the Clinton attack machine? Will he at least admit that he was bamboozled?

Krugman's fairly mild statements about Obama are nothing to what the rest of the NYTimes editorial page has been writing about Hillary Clinton. And I say this as someone who thinks Hillary Clinton should bow out of the race now.

There are plenty of people who do not prefer Obama, and Krugman is one of them. But he has always said that both are light years preferable to McCain or any of the Republicans. Just because someone has a different preference doesn't make them a shill.

I agree that he was wrong to repeat the NAFTA charge; I had not heard that he did. I live in Canada and that story is everywhere here.

I do not say that Krugman is infallible or incredibly wrong at times. I was responding to the idea that Krugman is a hack on the level of Brooks. I don't think he is. He would have a long way yet to fall to reach that level, in my opinion.

Let's be real. Krugman is not the obverse of the Brook's coin as asserted by Reed Hundt. This is like Nader saying that repugs and dems are identical twins. It won't wash.

But Krugman needs to correct the impression that he may be willingly repeating Clinton's slander about Obama's insincerity on NAFTA. By now, Krugman should know that it was Clinton's campaign that was being insincere, and someone in her campaign was outright lying. By allowing his repetition of this slander to stand, he tarnishes his reputation for scholarly analysis.

After all the many wishy washy things Hundt has said, he's redeemed himself by that truth alone.

Neither of those two suck ups has a dime's worth of integrity or independence. Both are shills placed on the NYT to carry the water of their political camps. They will not only say, but believe, just about anything required for the job.