Not stunning

Further proof Paul Krugman has become little more than a shill for the Clinton campaign stems from his criticism of Barack Obama's speech on the economy.

Matthew Yglesias thinks it's off base and he references two columns to prove his point. One features Robert Kuttner calls Krugman's argument 'preposterous' and the other has Jared Bernstein expressing similar disbelief.

Listen, Krugman not liking Obama has almost become a comic novelty these days and one that is gradually eroding the confidence of even his most fervent supporters, but I would expect that, as an acclaimed economist, he would actually be able to process the arguments and positions made in the speech. I mean, Obama's speech is just the type of big-picture, pro-active progressive economic policies that most Democrats would like.

I think Kuttner had the money quote ...

But Krugman, ordinarily an ornament of fair-minded progressive economics commentary, writes almost as if he has become part of the Clinton campaign. His latest characterization of Obama's proposals in commenting on the New York speech -- "cautious and relatively orthodox" -- was preposterous. Even if Krugman's sympathies are with Clinton, he owes it to his readers and to his own credibility to play it straight and credit Obama with a breakthrough when credit is due.