Krugman - Divided They Stand (on latest Obama ginned up fake Hillary scandal)

[papau]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/opinion/26krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin



Op-Ed Columnist
Divided They Stand
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 26, 2008


It is, in a way, almost appropriate that the final days of the struggle for the Democratic nomination have been marked by yet another fake Clinton scandal — the latest in a long line that goes all the way back to Whitewater.


This one, in case you missed it, involved an interview Hillary Clinton gave the editorial board of South Dakota’s Argus Leader, in which she tried to make a case for her continuing campaign by pointing out that nomination fights have often gone on into the summer. As one of her illustrations, she mentioned that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June.

It wasn’t the best example to use, but it’s absurd to suggest, as some Obama supporters immediately did, that Mrs. Clinton was making some kind of dark hint about Barack Obama’s future.

But then, it was equally absurd to portray Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that it took L.B.J.’s political skills to turn Martin Luther King’s vision into legislation as an example of politicizing race. Yet the claim that Mrs. Clinton was playing the race card, which was promoted by some Obama supporters as well as in a memo by a member of Mr. Obama’s staff, achieved wide currency.

Why does all this matter? Not for the nomination: Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But he has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.

-----snip------

[BlooInBloo]

1. THERE'S the hat trick! Bravo!!!

:applause:

[grannylib]

2. Well at least Krugman has the sense to know that Clinton is a fake.

Note that he wasn't calling the SCANDAL fake. :-)

[aquart]

10. Yah, he was.

[grannylib]

47. He was TRYING to, but he obviously can't write correct English.

[MercutioATC]

3. Obama's statement was that he didn't think she meant anything by it...

...even if it was an unfortunate statement.

he strongest response from his campaign stated that the language she used was unfortunate and had no place in this election.


Contrast that with the Clinton campaign (not just her supporters) handing out "I'm not Bitter" stickers in Pennsylvania.


Who's the real scandal creator here?

[aquart]

11. Obama. From the getgo.

But he's a messiah (who brings pretty much nothing) and Hillary's a "monster". Obama isn't going to lose because we can't afford that. The Democrat will win.

But some of us don't forgive that easily. Or at all.

Now you go follow your herd, you cute little critter, you.

[MercutioATC]

12. Care to support your contention?

...or are you one of the remaining dozen or so here who like to just call names and make vague disgruntled noises?


You claim that Obama has been the transgressor "from the getgo". Would you like to elucidate?

[smiley_glad_hands]

18. This is all they have left. Its sad to see. eom

[mitchtv]

4. besides, someone said "pansy"

[PSPS]

5. Krugman pretty much nails it here

Of course, to the wild-eyed obamaniacs, they'll just start smearing Krugman (or me.) That's their modus operandi. But to the rational (are any left here on DU?) it hits all the right notes.

The most important thing to remember is that obama can't win in November without Clinton supporters. Without them, he's got maybe 35% of the total vote, tops. And, as Krugman accurately points out, obama will lose in a year that should have been easy street for democrats.

It's up to Obama to undo the damage he and his supporters have done. And even that can't be done without Clinton's help.

[nebenaube]

7. wow

such delusion...

[Bumblebee]

14. Ditto. See also:

Hating Hilary

Andrew Stephen

History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.

...

But will Obama live up to the hype? That, I fear, may not happen: he is a deeply flawed candidate. Rampant sexism may have triumphed only to make way for racism to rear its gruesome head in America yet again. By election day on 4 November, I suspect, the US media and their would-be-macho commentators may have a lot of soul-searching to do.

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-clinton-vote-usa-media



Our fellow "progressives" among most zealous Obama supporters have demeaned not just Clinton but many of her supporters by their language and behavior towards Clinton. In their minds it is of course we -- and not they -- who are delusional when we think that Obama will lose as a result in November... After all, like any abused wife, for the sake of the "unity" we are supposed to forgive and forget. But many won't. Krugman is right. It won't necessarily translate into people voting for McCain instead but it will translate into them not working for Obama as hard as they would have otherwise. Call us sore losers all you want to -- just like GOP did with Al Gore. That would only make it worse.

[beac]

31. I think if you are HONEST with yourself, you will have to agree that

the name-calling has been just as vigorous from your side.

[beac]

32. "wild-eyed obamaniacs" isn't a smear, eh?

[Gman]

6. Every one of these fake scandals means I won't do a damn thing for Obama in November

I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire right now.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

8. Then...

I trust you will remember vow that when we are up to our eyeballs in a complete lack of rights and privacy, thenks to McCain-appointed Judges, all the way to the USSC. And then reflect upon that vow.

[sjs42]

9. Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman IS Lanny Davis.

[Bumblebee]

15. What is that supposed to mean? Because they are both Jews?!

A bit of anti-Semitism to add to misogyny?

[sjs42]

40. PK

It means that he sounds like Lanny Davis in his irrational attacks against Sen. Obama.

[pokercat999]

46. That's interesting...I didn't know either one of them was

a Jew....as a matter of fact it never occurred to me that it would matter.....I wonder who the real anti-semite is here?
I immediately took the poster to mean they were both huge Clinton supporters and had been for some time; I think your hate is showing, my suggestion is that you take a little while away from politics. The primary is basically over and the GE won't get started for a while yet so now is a good time to cool your jets.

[MercutioATC]

13. What did Obama do to arouse your ire so?

"Snipergate"? Obama refuses to attack and says that Clinton can answer any questions about her statement.

"RFKgate"? Obama says that it was an unfortunate coment, but he doesn't believe she meant anything by it.


I agree that RFKgate was ridiculous, but how is Obama to blame for it? How is he to blame for any of the "fake scandals"?

[Bumblebee]

19. Are you really so naive? Why do they then keep circulating Olbermann's diatribe

about Clinton and RFK?

[TheMadMonk]

24. He's to blame for not turning them into fake outrage...

...which could then conveniently be used to hang him out to dry.

One thing I have noticed about the few Hillary supporters who still post is that they come across, virtually identical, to professional creationists arguing against evolution.

For their part they offer up unsubstantiated (or outright fallacious) claims, turning any request for substantiation or proof into personal attacks against them.

They themselves indulge in the worst kind of personal attacks against their perceived opponents.

Highly substantiated facts which might (hell would) kick the soapbox out from under them are examined for the slightest inconsistency, which is then used as a reason to dismiss out of hand any "attached" data points.


The more I see of these people's arguments (three persons in particular) them more I am convinced that they are in no way true believers in the "Hillary way" but are instead professional "debaters", there to muddy the waters and sow the seeds of confusion. There to create the appearance of conflict.

[Gman]

35. You can judge a person by the friends he keeps

and there's a whole lot about Obama's supporters I don't like.

[smiley_glad_hands]

17. From your rhetoric, I doubt you would anyway. eom

[Bumblebee]

21. and from yours I am not sure you have a fucking clue as to what it's all about.

[smiley_glad_hands]

23. Are you afraid to vote for a black man too? eom

[Bumblebee]

26. You, sir, are a fucking bastard.

[smiley_glad_hands]

28. Thankyou thats the nicest thing said to me today by a Hill supporter. eom

[Gman]

36. Are you afraid to vote for a woman? She intimidates you, doesn't she?

[smiley_glad_hands]

37. Nope, voted for women previously. Will do so again, if she is worthy of my vote. eom

[mrbluto]

27. I would.

Nobody should be left on fire.

That's just how I roll.

Actually - whoever is on fire is who should be rolling.

[here_is_to_hope]

38. Them are Du'zys! n/t

[Skittles]

49. there will be plenty of fake scandals on Obama too

it's not a good reason not to vote for him - we still HAVE to beat McCain

[Gman]

51. I didn't say I wouldn't vote for Obama

as I vote a straight Democrat ticket. So if Obama so happens to be on the ballot then I guess he would benefit from my straight party ticket along with the Democratic candidate for Dog Catcher, Precinct 14.

[smiley_glad_hands]

16. They were her words and poor choice of context. Get over it. She has lost. eom

[Bumblebee]

20. WE ALL HAVE ALREADY LOST -- except some of us know it and some will

just learn in November and will have to get over THAT. Good luck.

[smiley_glad_hands]

22. Go vote mcsame already. Speak for yourself: You have already lost.

Nice try though.

[Bumblebee]

25. I have been a proud Democrat who never have voted for a single Republican and

worked my butt off to elect Democrats for probably much, much longer than you. You really do not get it. With supporters like that Obama hardly needs any enemies, and that has been a HUGE problem from the start.

[smiley_glad_hands]

29. Cry me a river. You don't get it. Obama is the nominee.

Cut the crap already.

[mitchtv]

43. your vote is clearly not wanted or necessary

That is painfully obvious They hope to do this without Democrats That way they can have loads on nuclear power plants

[PSPS]

30. And then?

Okay, so Obama is the nominee. Then what? Without winning over Clinton supporters, he's going to lose in November. That's the point. Obama and his supporters have so villified Clinton and her supporters that they'll largely stay home on election day. Congratulations president McSame. Think of giving obama a position in your cabinet as a reward!

The real test of obama's character (or the very veracity of his campaign as a democrat) will be if he reels in his rabid destructive supporters. But I doubt he will because, lately, I've begun to think this was the plan all along -- supress democratic voter turnout. That's what let them steal the last three elections. I mean, come on. As Krugman points out, how could any democrat actually lose after eight years of bush? Well, this is how. And it seems to be working.

[mitchtv]

41. will be if he reels in his rabid destructive supporters.

good luck with that. My Latino in laws are voting McSame, I can't talk them out of it. I will reluctantly vote Dem(depending on VP choice)

[gaspee]

33. Exactly

I'm not voting for Obama. I've never voted for a Republican in my life and I'm not about to start now. But I will not be voting for Obama come November.

Of course, I live in a state where it won't matter that I leave the top of the ticket blank. The Dem will win RI with an 80/20 split.

I'd have a very tough decision if I lived in a state where I couldn't make my protest vote without risking the election. I'm not a spiteful person, so I have to think I'd vote for Obama even though I really don't like him or the way he's run his campaign. But luckily for me, I won't have to face that decision.

[northernlights]

45. You're lucky...

I'm struggling with it every day. I live in a swing sorta state, with "moderate" repub senators, a dem governer, and a lot of just plain stupid people. So my vote could make a difference.

Part of me says write-in a name at the top that I don't revile. Part of me says vote against McCain.

Happily we have one local candidate I can totally support. His platform is "impeach bush"

[susankh4]

34. Krugman nails it.

Axelrod has pushed it too far with this little bout of heresy.

Brava.

K&R

[here_is_to_hope]

39. Isnt 'nails it' kind of sexist?

"Hey bro, did you nail it?"
"Oh yeah, bro, nailed it!"

[susankh4]

42. I have no idea what you are talking about or who you are referencing here.

"Nailed it" has been a figure of speech long before "Bro" used it.

Whomever "Bro" is.

[elias7]

44. Though I admire Krugman's opinions in his field of economics

his political opinion pieces for this primary cycle suggest that is either pro-Hillary or anti-Obama, or both. There has been a clear bias, which is his right, but it detracts from the neutrality I expect from true thinkers.

[Skittles]

48. shocking how many DUers fell for this utterly fake "scandal"

I used to think only freepers were that f***ing ignorant

[EstimatedProphet]

50. This is a real problem on DU

For myself, i am going to vote for the nomineee, regardless. McCain as president has to be fought with everything available. But we are going to have a real problem if we can't unify, and some of the Obama supporters on this board are so self-obsessed and arrogant that they are actually working to keep unity away. I've seen people saying that Clinton supporters are just as bad, but I don't agree - there's a few, but there's a core of Obama supporters here that are arrogant elitist tools who take any attempt at anything other that blind adulation of Obama as a personal attack. Banning's too good for them.