“And naturally, in response, Obama’s press secretary attacks Cramer by name.”

Okay, that sounds interesting, so I click on the link.

The top of the text of the linked article says, “NBC’s Tom Costello, on duty at the White House today, asked press secretary Robert Gibbs about some comments made by his CNBC colleague Jim Cramer. On the Today show this morning, Cramer called Pres. Obama’s budget a ‘radical agenda,’ adding, ‘This is the greatest wealth destruction I’ve seen by a President.’”

So Gibbs “attacked” Cramer “by name” because Tom Costello asked Gibbs for a comment on Cramer’s comments? Wasn’t there a pseudo-blog-fiasco about this a few years ago, but going in the other direction?

And then, the passages quoted make Gibbs seem like he’s trying above all to not really attack Cramer, but just backhand him a little. If that’s what passes for an attack, it’s no wonder that Pelosi runs things.