This is just weird.  Amanda Terkel of the Huffington Post:

Obama For America’s New Mexico Director Sends Out Email Bashing ‘Firebagger Lefty Blogosphere’

The Obama campaign’s point person in New Mexico recently sent an email to supporters defending the president’s position on the debt deal and bashing the “Firebagger Lefty blogosphere,” including the Nobel Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

The article quotes an email sent out by the Obama for America (OFA) New Mexico State Director Ray Sandoval to their email list:

Paul Krugman is a political rookie. At least he is when compared to President Obama. That’s why he unleashed a screed as soon as word came about the debt ceiling compromise between President Obama and Congressional leaders – to, you know, avert an economic 9/11. Joining the ideologue spheres’ pure, fanatic, indomitable hysteria, Krugman declares the deal a disaster – both political and economic – of course providing no evidence for the latter, which I find curious for this Nobel winning economist. He rides the coattails of the simplistic argument that spending cuts – any spending cuts – are bad for a fragile economy, ignoring wholeheartedly his own revious cheerleading for cutting, say, defense spending. But that was back in the day – all the way back in April of this year. [...]

No, the loudest screeching noise you hear coming from Krugman and the ideologue Left is, of course, Medicare. Oh, no, the President is agreeing to a Medicare trigger!!! Oh noes!!! Everybody freak out right now! But let’s look at the deal again, shall we? [...]

Now let’s get to the fun part: the triggers. The more than half-a-trillion in defense and security spending cut “trigger” for the Republicans will hardly earn a mention on the Firebagger Lefty blogosphere. Hell, it’s a trigger supposedly for the Republicans, and of course, there’s always It’sNotEnough-ism to cover it.

I’m not sure what to make of this. Sandoval’s dismissive response to Terkel indicates that this wasn’t an “oops” moment, and that OFA believes this is a sound political strategy.

Atrios says, “politicians gotta do what they gotta do and if attacking the Jane Hamshers Of The Left and KRGTHULU is the way to get money, love, and votes, then more power to them….If.”

I totally agree, if they’re doing this because they think it’s a good campaign strategy, do what you have to do. The qualifier, of course, is the if.

The California Democratic Party just refused to renew the charter of the largest caucus in the party, the Progressive Caucus, after they passed a resolution calling for a primary challenge to Obama in 2012.  So this isn’t an isolated incident.  It’s clear that the the Democrats want to marginalize liberals in 2012 for basically promoting the same values and saying the same things we’ve said during every presidency since time immemorial.

But if this is a brilliant political strategy on the part of OFA, someone is going to have to explain it to me.  I know the goal is to attract the much-prized Independent for 2012.  But who do they think is keeping Obama’s poll numbers afloat?

Paul Krugman is a Nobel prize winning New York Times columnist who consistently sits at the top of every poll of “most influential liberals.”

What exactly does OFA think they stand to gain by ridiculing Krugman as a “political rookie,” a hysterical “fanatic” and an “idealogue”?  Do they think they hold so much sway with liberals that they can discredit Krugman and thus neutralize his criticism?

This smacks more of narcissism and personal vendetta than any sound political “strategy.”