Hillary’s Voice

Last week, economist Paul Krugman made it very clear that he finds John McCain’s gas tax holiday proposal potentially harmful. Krugman also made very clear that he doesn’t like Hillary Clinton’s counter-proposal but considers it harmless.

That said, Krugman reportedly heard about (but has not seen) a negative Obama ad that falsely uses Krugman’s criticism of McCain as an attack against Hillary. At his blog, Krugman made it very clear that he would be displeased if Obama’s ad did this:

“I did not say that the Clinton proposal would increase oil industry profits. If the ad implies that I did, it should be retracted.

“The Clinton proposal is financed by an excess profits tax. At worst, it sends money in a circle. In practice, it would probably reduce oil industry profits at least slightly, since the rise in the pre-tax price of gasoline probably wouldn’t wipe out all of the tax cut.

“I was very clear when I wrote about the Clinton proposal that while I didn’t think it was good policy, it was not the same as McCain’s, and relatively harmless. If the Obama people are suggesting otherwise, they’re being deliberately dishonest.” (Krugman blog, emphasis added)

Below is a YouTube clip of Obama’s ad, which does mention a New York Times piece from April 28. Krugman wrote such a piece: in it, he says that McCain’s plan (not Hillary’s) “would boost oil industry profits.”

Yes, Obama’s people certainly seem to have been “deliberately dishonest” when using Krugman’s quote against Hillary. ‘So much for the Obama campaign’s proclaimed aversion to dirty, old-style politics.

The decent thing would be for the Obama campaign to broadcast a retraction, as Krugman suggests — and to publicly apologize for having twisted Krugman’s words.

This is not the first time that an Obama campaign ad seemed misleading. Recently, one of his ads stated that he hasn’t taken tainted money (i.e., money from lobbyists and special interests), when evidence suggests that he has.   Cross posted at Buck Naked Politics.