That doesn't mean, of course, that there isn't justification for that title in other things that he's written.
Two other points:
1. Krugman is certainly going to be wrong if he claims that Hazlitt was wrong in everything he wrote. Whatever the value of Hazlitt's own thinking in economics, he was clearly well read so presumably there's a lot of stuff he wrote about economics that all economists (Krugman included) would agree on. So in this sense I agree with Boettke but my suspicion is that "wrong about everything" was hyperbole in the first place so it's not something to get so bent out of shape about.So what do you think? What is the case for Hazlitt's brilliance? Point me to something (a particularly persuasive passage or article, not a whole book) that you think proves the case. I hear assertions to this effect but not much on what people like. Boudreaux provides a passage, but again this seems like evidence to me that Hazlitt did not grasp what was at issue in the big economic questions of the day, not that he did.
2. If you like Hazlitt, you're not being a very good ambassador for him by questioning Krugman's status as a public intellectual (Boettke) or suggesting that Krugman "bought his ticket" to the public debate rather than being "self-made" like Hazlitt (Mingardi). Remarkably Boudreaux was the only one who didn't bash Krugman in getting out his post. And this is just in these posts. Of course much worse has been said about Krugman by these guys. Lecturing others on intellectual civility isn't going to fly when you try to pull stuff like that.