Krugman went there: "The Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality"

[Phil McCavity]

Let me point out that unlike some DU'ers, Krugman explains this in a very respectful tone, never attacking Obama himself.

I think it's a must-read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?hp

[Proud2BAmurkin]

1. ouch that one's gonna leave a mark

[cottonseed]

112. Krugman's been reading too many posts on DU:Primaries

I'm supporting Obama during the the primary, and I really like Krugman, but I'm not sure where he's been spending his time. From his column:

"I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody."

I'm not exactly sure you can point to one side or the other as being more venemous. I know it's ruff and tumble on the blogs and political boards, but in Iowa or Nebraska, can you really say there's "venom" out there? Then there's this:

"For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November."

I don't know where he's getting the impression that Obama supporters will not support Hillary. I for one, see it as possibly going the other way on that. Regardless, I'll end up voting for whomever the Democratic candidate is.

It's too bad for a writer of such esteem. I think he's just really making his push for his preferred candidate, but the points he's trying to make, seem only to make sense on such forums as DU : Primaries.

[waiting for hope]

197. Or Daily Kos -

and MyDD - really, you need to get out more!

[Barack_America]

2. Hey, another gem from Taylor Marsh's male counterpart!

Well, waddaya know!

Forgive me if I don't read this as Krugman has shot his credibility to hell with his recent and blatant Obama-bashing.

[Phil McCavity]

4. Maureen Dowd comparing Hillary to Godzilla. Now that's credibility! n/t

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

181. Welcome to DU, "Phil McCavity" n/t

[VolcanoJen]

62. Taylor Marsh's counterpart

Never really thought of that one before I read this piece, but yes, I think I'm there with you.

[stillrockin]

3. And Krugman's seems dangerously close to becoming

a totally disingenuous hack. I think he's a must-ignore.

[krabigirl]

32. Ignore him because he questions the Obama movement?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

84. Could he at least be a little more original, and a little less transparent?

I never believed for one minute he supported Edwards. He was shilling for the Clintons from the get-go.

[ClericJohnPreston]

116. Ignoring opinions which clash with your own?

Is cultist exclusivism.

Thanks for proving this point so ably in about 20 other threads as well.

[ellisonz]

185. He's such a lazy writer.

The problem for people like Krugman (hack economists) is that history begins in 1950. There's a sort of false constancy to his perception of what history dictates the norm of American politics to be. Peace, crisis, redemption, repeat.

[Thrill]

5. He can't be taken seriously anymore

His writing is clearly tilted in Hilary's favor

[Proud2BAmurkin]

10. Krugman, Bill Clinton, Joe Wilson, Clark, the NY Times, RFK Jr. Who else?

[Renew Deal]

13. You

[joshcryer]

42. He has more hearts than you! He's clearly more loved!

:evilgrin:

[jackson_dem]

Edwards is next if he endorses Hillary or if he doesn't endorse Obama and St. Obama loses

[Phil McCavity]

11. But Dowd, Herber, Rich and Collins can be believed, even if they rip Hillary every day, right? n/t

[joshcryer]

40. I think he's more for Hillary at this point, but it's probably because of the harrassment...

...more than anything else. I mean, you look at his older opinion pieces, they were very clear cut, but after admitting that he got a lot of hateful responses over his health care analysis, he's become more adament about Obama's inferior policies.

[tabatha]

6. So, I guess Krugman thinks we should go along with

politics as usual.

[jsamuel]

7. Cult of Personality is not a "cult" the way people usually think of them.

It is a specific term used for political leaders in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Personality

A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships but can be found in some democracies as well.

A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders.

[sandnsea]

16. Like the world's "most admired woman"

over and over and over, who has never had a true accomplishment in 35 years. Is that what you mean?

[nonconformist]

130. Never had an accomplishment?

That is bullshit and you know it.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

135. He's right, its a cult of HOPE MONGERS!

[nonconformist]

8. K & R. nt

[Renew Deal]

9. Krugman has become one of the biggest Obama haters out there.

His article is hypocritical.

[Phil McCavity]

hater? I'll tell you who s a hater: Maureen Dowd n/t

[Renew Deal]

19. Can they both be?

:shrug:

[Phil McCavity]

31. No. Krugman doesn't compare Obama to a fire-breathing monster n/t

[Renew Deal]

35. Sorry, I got lost in the hypocrisy of it all

[VolcanoJen]

38. They all will surely be

Regardless.

[joshcryer]

46. OK, seriously? Walk away from the keyboard.

Put your keyboard down, step back, and leave the computer for a week. OK?

Krugman has always had a calm and respectful tone. There's nothing in what he writes here that exhibits "hate."

[Renew Deal]

53. He's obsessed

He's completely obsessed with Obama. He's writing about Obama almost on a weekly basis. And it's always negative. Krugman is beginning to realize he's far less relevant than he thought. This last op-ed has "jumped the shark." Krugman goes the cult route? How low brow. How DU. How elitist.

[joshcryer]

68. Krugman calls it like he sees it, he always has, and always will.

He's not going to placate a certain group on the internet just because they don't like what he has to say. When it comes to economics you can't refute the guy. When it comes to the health care plan, the only people they can find to refute him are fucking AEI and some asshole who worked for Exleon. It's a joke of epic proportions when "believers" just ignore the facts and throw bullshit out there because somehow their candidate has flaws.

You know, I've only seen two Obama supporters in here agree that Obama's health care plan is inferior to Hillary's.

Two.

On a forum with hundreds of posters.

I spent almost a week trying to get them to understand why Obama's plan is bad.

THEY STILL DIDN'T GET IT.

So yaknow, I think Krugman deserves to say what he wants if he's getting attacked constantly like I believe is highly likely. Both in emails, on blog postings, and on forums like this one. The guy deserves to strike back against the behavior.

[Renew Deal]

81. He should stick to Economics

He's good at that. Hillary's Universal Insurance plan is a giveaway to her biggest contributors. I agree, everyone should be covered, but not buy enriching the people that are the cause of the problem.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

91. No, he sucks at economics too. He still loves outsourcing. nt

[joshcryer]

108. You're absolutely wrong. Obama's plan has higher payouts to corporations.

Beacause Obama's plan doesn't cover everyone unhealthy and irresponsible people will raise the premiums for everyone else, allowing insurance companies to profit off of the volitility in the system.

Obama naively thinks he can "broker with" the insurance companies and get them to keep premiums low, but that's a bunch of bullshit, the markets decide these costs, and because he doesn't mandate insurance, the most irresponsible people will make those costs go up.

Under Hillary's plan, I have a heart attack, I go to the hospital, I'm covered.

Under Obama's plan, if I chose to be irresponsible and am not covered, I have a heart attack, I go to the hospital, I get treated because it's against the law to refuse treatment, and I'm not covered, the financial hit goes to the hospital, and costs go up. ALL PREMIUMS RAISE JUST A SMALL AMOUNT.

No amount of brokering by Obama will keep those premiums low. Krugman's observation is infallible. It's basic utility theory.

(I took Economics, btw, not that it means much.)

[VolcanoJen]

69. That was over-the-top whack

I mean, is it possible that he filed that before the weekend? If not, isn't that even more embarrassing?

Does anyone remember when Krugman wrote about the Economy and the Republicans?

[hfojvt]

75. more like he is openly endorsing Clinton for one reason or other

you might as well say I am obsessed about Clinton since I write about her/them several times a day.

[nonconformist]

114. Has it ever occurred to you that there may be something to that?

That maybe he didn't just suddenly go nuts?

[jackson_dem]

66. Bull. Maybe Obamites should read the article before bashing Krugman

[Renew Deal]

70. I did

Now what?

[jackson_dem]

76. Hates St. Obama?

-snip-

Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.

[Renew Deal]

90. But if you rally around Obama

you're a cultist following a dictator. Krugman has gone overboard on this one. It's DU level discourse and no better.

[paulk]

101. especially when any criticism

any at all

is defined as "hate".

[Bongo Prophet]

189. I agree with the essence of your post, both sides shout "HATER" when criticized

it was mostly on one side, now mostly on the other.
Interestingly, (and tellingly) it accompanied a higher level of confidence.
The underdog chips away, trying to undermine, while top dog tries to marginalize and dismiss the upstarts.
Pretty standard group psychology, most likely.

[incapsulated]

12. If Paul Wellstone rose from the grave to say the same thing

They would throw him under the O-bus.

It's hopeless.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

15. correct of course

[KittyWampus]

24. Wellstone activated people at the grassroots as did Obama in Chicago and as he's doing now.

When did Hillary every do that?

NEVER.

[incapsulated]

43. Obama called him a "liberal gadfly"

You think he would love that too?

My point is, it doesn't matter who warns Obama supporters that their overzealousness is making them irrational and turning people off and that all the shit they love the media heaping on Clinton is just a little taste of what their candidate will get if he gets the nom.

It's hopeless no matter who the messenger is.

[KittyWampus]

64. actually, Clinton's supporters' dishonesty about the extent to which she represents the fucked up

status quo, 50+1 strategy is turning off even MORE people.

And my point about Wellstone and Obama both being activists stands.

And I do not know what the context af the Obama quote is BUT being a gadfly is not an insult. It can mean being a prick to the conscience. Sort of like you can call someone a muck racker, it might sound negative but it's not really.

[incapsulated]

115. The usual bs

Black is white, insults are praise.

If you think Obama is some radical that is going to upset the status quo....

This is exactly the kind of delusional thinking I'm talking about.

[Renew Deal]

99. Turning people off by winning election after election?

This petty bullshit about supporters and cults is an insiders game. It goes from Hillary's oppo research people to their mouthpieces in the media. Real people with real problems don't care about this stuff.

[incapsulated]

119. Turning other dems who are active politically OFF

BIGTIME.

You know, the ones who don't vote based on some Obamamania but actually have been bothering to vote and work for democratic causes for decades?

Those people you think you don't need.

[Renew Deal]

123. Who says we don't need them?

I don't know where this comes from. I think it comes from the fact that some people have been invested in the idea of a Clinton presidency and are disappointed. I am a Democratic committee member in my area. I will be busting my ass this season no matter the nominee. I expect others to do the same.

[sandnsea]

138. A gadfly is basically a thorn in the side

Yes I think Wellstone would have been fine with someone who said he was "magnificent" and "something of a gadfly". He was a magnficient pain in the ass to those he fought against. Thank god for Paul Wellstone when Bill and Hillary were selling us down the river.

[Renew Deal]

28. I have a feeling that Wellstone would be an Obama supporter

"Sometimes, the only realists are the dreamers. Robert Kennedy once said, 'The future will not belong to those who are content with the present.' I think the future also will not belong to those who are cynical or those who stand on the sidelines. The future will belong to those who have passion and are willing to work hard to make our country better. The future will belong to those, in Eleanor Roosevelt's words, 'who believe in the beauty of their dreams.'"
-Paul Wellstone

[incapsulated]

45. After your sexist shit

I don't care what you "feel".

[Renew Deal]

59. Why should I care?

:shrug:

[incapsulated]

120. Obviously you do

Or you wouldn't bother posting.

[ekwhite]

206. No - Wellstone would have been running for president himself

And I would have been supporting him. We all miss you Paul :cry:

[madfloridian]

14. Sorry, but Krugman is on a campaign against Obama. I have often been called a cultist.

So go ahead, I am used to it. I am a new Obama supporter, but I am still an avid Deaniac.

Call me cultist. Go ahead.

[Gloria]

20. Somebody has to have the guts to raise questions....

[madfloridian]

30. I was called a cultist for Dean. It no longer bothers me. Disappointed in Krugman.

He seemed to classy to be an attack dog. I expect it of Maureen Dowd, or people like that. I respected him.

[Cha]

49. Well, Gloria, we don't consider

ourselves cultists because we support the anti-war on Iraq candidate so krugman can take his shit jealousies and stuff 'em up his arse.

[joshcryer]

50. He backed Dean, if you recall. If he's on a campaign against Obama, it can only be Obama's fault.

[Cha]

77. I love that you're supporting Obama now,

madfloridian! All the friends and family I have who I most admire and respect have come to the same conclusion(without any input from me) that it is Obama who they want for our Pres..and a lot are women in New York(who know hilary the best).

This post from another thread has an interesting take on us being called "cultists"..the 3rd paragraph down where I've underlined it. Here it is, too.

The Cult Meme was also used against Howard Dean. It’s the attempt by the Force of Inertia to stop progress. It’s Cynicism trying to validate itself by keeping things static.



CS Says:

February 10th, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Now on to the Clinton campaign web-page. Very few Issues have detailed policy p-roposals. That says volumes as well. Obama has VERY detailed policies on all Issues.

Heal-th Care? Clinton lies by trying to imply she is fighting for Universal Health Care. She is for Universal Health INSURANC-E. Big difference. And she refuses to admit wag-es will have to be garnished. Unlike S.S., this is m-oney from our wage-s going to p-rivate corpor-ations. At least Obama is honest.

The Cult Meme was also used against Howard Dean. It’s the attempt by the Force of Inertia to stop progress. It’s Cynicism trying to validate itself by keeping things static.

As an Esoteric Astrologer (I do not do Mundane) I say look to Pisces and Neptune.

Because Obama and the movement towards Progress and Unity (bringing pol-tical center back to the left) is the best aspect while Clintons are the worst.

Who was it in this thread who said there is something ‘dark’ about Obama. Subconciously, that says quite a bit about that poster. Obama’s career is out there. An open book. After University he took a $10,000 a year job organizing poor people in Chicago and helped them find a voice and change their environment. He literally helped change the face of Chicago politics.

Hillary touts her 35 years of experience. Another bit of smoke and mirror. She spent less than a year working for the Children’s Group. Was a corporate lawyer, was on the board of Walmart and then was married to a POTUS and largely won the NY seat by using her husband’s name recognition.

She lies about her vote for the IWR. She claims she didn’t know it was for war even though it was in the Resolution’s T-ITLE.

Look to Pisces/Neptune for the contrast.

Saturn for Hillary’s true self in politics.

Jupiter/Sagittarius for Obama. Childhood spent traveling in foreign lands, College yrs playing Sports & studying Law, Expansive and Inclusisve world view."

http://starlightnews.com/wordpress/?p=266#comments


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4531520&mesg_id=4532236

[VolcanoJen]

Love it, madflor!

Here's some Kulty Kool-Aid. I make mine with three parts Fruit Punch, one part Absinthe.

:toast:

They so did this exact same thing to Dean.

[joshcryer]

134. BTW, I was a Deaniac too, and I personally don't remember it being "this" "cultist."

I was defending Dean ardently back then, I think I still have emails in my PM from people like dsc who were thanking me for helping out. But I never got called a cultist, I swear.

[hay rick]

193. Cultist!

Happy to oblige your request. I think the whole "cultist" issue is a tempest in a tea pot. I think most current "cult" references reflect the fact that Obama is the only charismatic candidate out there. Dean- now THAT was a cult.

[ursi]

17. Jealous, paul?

[KittyWampus]

18. Krugman is a hypocrite. He makes the point that candidate's policy proposals are a sign

of who that person is and how they'll operate in office.

Hillary's policy proposals on her Issues webpage are vague and fuzzy. MOST issues are barely fleshed out.

She doesn't even address Poverty or Telecommunications/Net Neutrality.

When it comes to actual policy proposals Obama DOMINATES.

And when it comes to stirring enthusiasm and bringing voters out, Obama also outshines Clinton.

[emilyg]

82. Dope.

[zulchzulu]

21. I wish Krugman would stick to economic issues where he is very good

This "cult" talk is bullshit. People are voting for Obama because it's a "cult"?

[Hutzpa]

22. Hey! two words for Krugman

FUCK YOU!

This is cynicism at its highest, just so you know Krugman, I've never seen you as a credible
writer, you are part of the brainwashing media.

Sell your brothers for 2cents.

:smoke:

[madfloridian]

23. I notice Obama is not asking for him to be suspended.

:shrug:

[returnable]

27. Line of the night. Thanks!

:hi:

[joshcryer]

29. I guess if he called Obama's wife a whore he might.

:shrug: :hi:

[Phil McCavity]

44. "cult of personality" s neither racist of sexist. Bad analogy n/t

[madfloridian]

47. Good analogy....controlling the media.

Shuster was one of the good guys.

[jsamuel]

73. Shuster is a good guy, but good guys can make mistakes too.

[madfloridian]

143. Shuster is on indefinite suspension...Krugman is still on a crusade.

Obama has not asked that he be suspended

[waiting for hope]

200. You don't see the difference?

I found Shuster's comment disgusting - almost as bad as McCain's: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/09/john-mccains-crude-chelsea-clinton-joke - I won't repeat it here. Chelsea Clinton has done nothing wrong but be attacked because of who her parents are. How many people enjoyed seeing Alexandra Kerry flashing at Cannes? Come on, we know that was pretty stupid on her part, but as the daughter of the man running for president on the Democrat side, didn't you feel a tad bit protective? And what has Chelsea done? She's working on her Mom's campaign, end of story. Shuster should have been suspended and the lack if outrage over his statement here makes me sad - the direction this party is going scares me.

[Hoof Hearted]

201. Did Krugman call Obama's wife a whore? That could be the difference, right there.

Just guessing.

And for the record, don't you think it would be better for this "cult" thing to get out in the open now so it can be dealt with early? If Obama gets the nomination, I want to see this dealt with NOW, early in the campaign, and dealt with well. I think it's a good and necessary challenge for him to deal with so we can see if he's fit to handle the mud and dirt of the general election. He's had an easy ride so far. It's time for a road test.

[SoxFan]

58. Nice!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[TwilightGardener]

25. Is it a journalist's job to worry about supporters of a candidate? I mean, we're

talking millions of people across the country who voted for Obama. Who is he generalizing about? Again, it's the Hillary/GOP Rove tactic of hitting Obama the only place they can: his popularity. Make fun of his supporters, make them look and feel foolish for actually liking or believing the guy, or God forbid--actually donating or voting for him. What kind of shitty fishwrap is this? Krugman doesn't know me. I'm sorry Paulie isn't getting his way, but his insults to a broad segment of America aren't helping.

[joshcryer]

36. Krugman has been harrassed ever since criticising Obama's inferior health care plan...

...he's come out against the health care plan and in recent weeks noted that he's been getting some very vitrolic responses for his position.

[TwilightGardener]

41. Yeah, perhaps some vocal ones complained, as some might do for any candidate. Not really a

good or reliable way to generalize Obama's supporters and voters, though.

[joshcryer]

60. I think it has become very bad there, to be honest. dKos, DU, the blogosphere.

Just 1% is enough to drive one man mad.

[hfojvt]

97. Harrassed? He should be used to hate mail from Bush supporters.

Not used to getting it from Democrats, perhaps because he usually does not attack Democrats. Interesting that I perceive his attacks on Obama to be inaccurate/unfair. Makes me wonder if his attacks on Bush aren't sometimes the same way, but I gloss over it because I hate Bush even more than he does.

Krugman, in his own way, is probably not any worse than Herbert, who goes out of his way to unfairly slim Hillary. Herbert ran with the MLK comment.

[joshcryer]

106. He never "attacked" anyone. That's the point. He's defending himself.

Look at you fucking people, Jesus.

[VolcanoJen]

102. Right. And now he's stepping completely outside the box.

"Hate Springs Eternal."

In a primary season of record turnout, unprecedented excitement in my lifetime, mindblowing crowds, a Democratic nominee who is guaranteed to be an African American or a WOMAN, and he wants to characterize it as "Hate Springs Eternal"?

Just because his candidate is having a bad weekend?

[joshcryer]

110. There's absolutely nothing hateful in what he said. If you think there is you're just projecting.

He's pointing out the venom that he is observing, most likely on web forums, blogs, his own blog (comments and so on), and he's observing, correctly, that Obama supporters are where most of that venom comes from.

Now don't take that the wrong way. It doesn't mean "Obama supporters are evil." Obama has *more* supporters, thus statistically they're going to have more people spreading vitrol. It's OK. He's just saying that he doesn't think we should operate this way.

Of course look at this thread, there's nothing he could say that could calm people down, and they just prove him right.

This is fucking Nixonland.

[VolcanoJen]

118. He does not prove himself right.

He titles his piece "Hate Springs Eternal." He writes that he's admittedly not a fan of the Obama health care platform and favors Clinton's (no shit, Krugman). And then goes on to say, "I won't even try to fake evenhandedness here." Thanks, Paul, for the disclaimer. Thrice.

But what should disturb you as much as it disturbs me is that he dismisses the Obama movement as wholly similar to the Bush "movement." He even invokes Bush's phony Mission Accomplished victory lap in defense of his argument.

And I'm sorry, but if you want to compare Bush parading in a flight suit to a man speaking to people across this nation this winter about the American Dream and winning their votes, you're going to lose that argument. Krugman already knows he lost the argument, whether he filed that piece before the weekend or not. If Krugman were comparing Hillary Clinton to George Fucking Bush right now, I'd be livid.

[joshcryer]

125. He didn't compare it, he said it's trending in that direction, which indeed it is.

When hundreds of people flame Krugman over a simple issue like health care, unable to recognize the flaws in Obama's, then you start to have people who don't actually appreciate policy decisions, but rather are just "smitten" with the nice white smile and "likeliblity," of that person.

You have to admit that Paul Krugman has got a lot of shit here over his initial criticisms. I consider this a response, a reaction, not an attack. He's defending himself.

[VolcanoJen]

133. He's defending himself?

Since when was this election about Paul Krugman's fucking ego? And he uses the valuable real estate called the New York Times Op/Ed page to talk about Paul Krugman's personal feelings? While slamming those who disagree with Paul Krugman's Personal Feelings as members of a "cult of personality"?

[joshcryer]

137. It's called an op ed. He didn't say they were members of such a cult, merely that they were...

...risking becoming members of such a cult. I know it's hard to read these sorts of things because you think someone is attacking you when they use words you don't like, but honestly, he's not attacking anyone. If I were him? I would've went on an insane rant by now!

[VolcanoJen]

139. Except he's going even farther than calling Obama supporters a "cult"

He's comparing them directly to Bush supporters, tying us into his nifty new "Clinton Rules."

Apparently, in Krugman-World, "Clinton Rules" are infallible. Resistance is Futile.

[joshcryer]

144. Actually, that part he addresses to both sides.

He then says that he's not professing fair handedness (because he knows he's come out for Hillary before and people would just call him biased), and that from his observation that vitriol seems to be coming from the Obama camp more than Hillary's, and that it is verging on becoming the very thing we don't want to see. The Bush-esque insane popularity contest that just defies reason.

[VolcanoJen]

152. How totally bizarre that a professed Clinton partisan would find the Obama camp "hateful."

I mean, are you really paying attention, here?

[joshcryer]

156. Yes. And I like numbers.

Here's how it works. There's more Obama supporters on liberal websites than Hillary supporters. People, by virtue of anonymity, are assholes on the internet (note that I am not anonymous and you can find more about me if you wanted to than I personally like, but I don't care too much). If there are more Obama suppporters than there are Hillary supporters on the internet, and people on the internet are assholes, then there will be more Obama supporter assholes than Hillary supporter assholes.

Krugman gets the brunt of it.

[VolcanoJen]

165. Show your math

If that's the case, Krugman has no business writing about his bizarre internet support theories in the New York Times. Oh, wait, he didn't write about them! But that's what you're getting out of this?

Really, is that your extrapolation? I'm sure Paul will appreciate your defense. And that's funny, "people on the internet are assholes." OK. Should go over well with the kids, and well into the future with everyone else.

I'm one of those semi-popular anonymous bloggers, though, so I guess you have me there. Sign your name, and you're automatically not an asshole!

[joshcryer]

171. Fuck internet anonmity.

People are cowards who can't say their real name on the internet. And they do it because they know they can get away with being the worst people alive. This forum I swear I have never encountered such insanity before in my whole entire life. Never! I've seen racist biggots have more civilized discussions (I have sometimes gone to debate the various racist forums out there, rather I used to debate anti-choice people, racists, bigots, whatever, grew out of that though)!

Greanted I do have an anonymous site myself, but it is anti-political to the core, so it's not even relevant here.

[VolcanoJen]

176. Been there, done that, too.

Let's end this subthread. We're not even beginning to reach each other.

And my site has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, so it is also irrelevant here.

It's one thing to not use your real name on the internet, but I've been on this site since the very day it was launched, you can read all my posts if you'd like to, and I don't feel I'm all that anonymous. I think if you were to read them, you'd learn we have practically everything in common except for our preference in Democratic nomination victors.

And that, as far as I'm concerned, is all.

[joshcryer]

26. The responses to this thread overwhelmingly prove Krugman's point.

Indisputable.

[Phil McCavity]

54. i wonder how many people went and read the article

Probably many, but most of those, I would guess, read it AFTER attacking Krugman.

[joshcryer]

71. Amusing beyond belief.

:rofl:

[KittyWampus]

80. I read him regularly & responded to Krugman's own point about candidates policy proposals.

He says it's important that candidates provide detailed policy proposals as it indicates who they'll be in office.

Hillary has an extremely weak bunch of policy proposals. Many are vague and fuzzy. Exactly what Krugman warns about. And he even mentioned that about Clinton.

The fact is, at this point, Krugman has become obsessed with the Health Care debate.

The fact is, he did, in the past, oppose Mandates.

His opinion is not the only valid one on that topic. He acts as if it were.

He attacked Obama for using "right wing talking points" when the garnishing of wages was mentioned.

Clinton is NOT pushing for Universal Health Care. It's Universal Health INSURANCE.

And the money coming from our wages would go to private corporations.

I'm not going any further in that argument.

Have a good night.

[joshcryer]

113. He never opposed mandates! That's an outright lie.

When you say he "opposed mandates" you're using a "quote" from him that our friend ProSense likes to run around with. The same quote that never actually states that he doesn't want them, merely that there's a political hurdal you much breach to achieve them. He says they're "problematic," not that they're "wrong" or that he "opposes" them.

The "garnishing of wages" was the freaking Harry and Louise ad! That's the same exact ad, down to the same clothing and hairstyles, that the right wing used against Hillary's first attempt at universial health care!

As I and others have pointed out, both plans have a government insurer (the one the Senate uses), if there's a mandate people would flock to the government insurer, which would essentially be single payer (single payer works like insurance, most people who are healthy pay into the system, those who are not get taken care of).

You really have it wrong on every single point you have said! My God!

[AX10]

33. K & R!

Unlike Dowd, Herbert, and Rich, Krugman tells the truth.

[onager]

34. Here, at least get some entertainment out of it all...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5SVDYBNrY

Cult Of Personality...

[Tatiana]

37. He's certainly entitled to his opinion. As as an op-ed columnist, he is free to support his

preferred candidate. He's not a NEWS reporter, he's an opinion columnist. As such, he's free to slam Obama on a weekly basis, if he wants.

[Cha]

39. Fuck you krugman and the wagging finger

you ride around on. Sounds like you're jealous and don't want to see Obama get the presidency 'cause then what would all those warnings you gave look like? Pile o' crap? Yeah.

[Phil McCavity]

48. Yeah, and God bless Peggy Noonan, Drudge, Brooks, Murdoch and other conservatives-for-Obama n/t

[Cha]

88. "The cult meme was also used against Howard

Dean. It’s the attempt by the Force of Inertia to stop progress. It’s Cynicism trying to validate itself by keeping things static."

[emilyg]

Of course. LOL

[SoxFan]

51. Krugman has issues and needs an intervention

[Orangepeel]

52. I respect Krugman, but has he never paid attention during a primary before?

This one really isn't all that bad.

[VolcanoJen]

55. Nice meme-propagating, Krugman

Is he spending too much time in the blogs? It's bizarre to think that he's really encountering this viral Obama-bullying that he describes in actual, real life. I'm certainly not seeing it. I swear, if I were to take a poll of the 400+ employees of my workplace tomorrow, maybe 10 of them would even know who David Schuster is. I am absolutely not condoning what he said, but really, I'm very surprised this is the foundation about what Krugman builds his argument.

It just seems separated from reality. That was something quite close to a hit piece, printed in the valuable real estate known as the New York Times. And something tells me he filed this before the weekend was over.

[killbotfactory]

56. Heaven forbid people be excited to vote for a charismatic progressive candidate

What an asshole.

[BeyondGeography]

57. As a political analyst, he makes a fine economist

:boring:

[ProSense]

61. Paul Krugman is becoming a hack

fast becoming a hack

[Phil McCavity]

63. Hey, think about the bright side: Krugman says It's not a cult yet. It's close to being one

Imagine the hatred spewed here if Krugman had actually said it IS a cult of personality already.

[kurth]

132. Hell, it doesn't matter - you can't come within 100 yards of the curtain

Especially uneducated racist hacks like Krugman.

[hfojvt]

65. "I won't try for fake evenhandedness here." he writes.

Well, at least he admits it, but the only examples he gives of venom are not coming from the Obama camp, they are coming from the M$M. He acts as if the Obama camp planned the Shuster remarks. He also acts like a Clinton supporter did not say "shuck and jive" and another one make reference to youthful cocaine use, and then disingenuously lie when called on it.

And contrary to your OP most of the column is not about a supposed cult of Obama, it is about an M$M that consistently attacks Democrats. Does he feel like he needs to slime Obama just to make up for an excess of M$M attacks against Clinton? With that one paragraph and the attack of the Obama campaign, he becomes part of the very process he is decrying - the sliming of a leading Democrat.

[joshcryer]

93. He's pointing out MSM things that the Obama supporters rally around.

And they most certainly do. The fact that the Shuster incident here was completely overwhelmed by posts bitching at the Clintons is evidence of that. He pays attention to forums and blogs, don't think he's an idiot.

[hfojvt]

100. What do Obama supporters here have to do with his actual campaign?

Some of us progressives here are simply long time Hugh Hillary Haters. I do not think all of the BS here is coming from Obama supporters either. It may just look that way to a Hillary supporter.

[joshcryer]

103. Oh OK, because you're Hillary haters it justifies your hateful behavior.

Rational reasonable people, like Paul Krugman, are turned off by this behavior.

If Paul Krugman is nearly calling Obama's campaign a cult of personality, I believe it could only be his supporters who give merit to that observation.

[hfojvt]

109. I do not believe I have engaged in actual hateful behaviour

I'm only saying that I understand people who do, and it's not really about Obama. It's about the Clintons and the motherfu$%ing DL fu$%ing C. Many of the people who are now Obama supporters, such as myself, were previously Kucinich or Edwards supporters.

Krugman may be rational and reasonable, but he has not been fair or objectively accurate about his attacks of Obama. This is the 3rd time I have seen it IIRC.

[joshcryer]

117. I see no requirement in an opinion piece to be either fair or objective, these aren't "attacks."

However, I do believe that Krugman has been very neutral on this topic, and I believe he was pushed into a corner by Obama supporters who just threw out all the hate. I fully believe that. If someone is going to attak you, if some side is going to attack you, you're going to defend yourself.

And that's what I do here every day I post.

[hfojvt]

obviously it is not an NY Times requirement, see; Safire or Dowd

It is only a requirement if you are gonna be respected and liked by critics in the blogosphere. If you write "the Obama campaign did this" or "Obama proposed this" and it's not true then people might call you on it, or see you as an enemy. Krugman attacked Obama first, Hillary-haters or Obama fans attacked back.

Dr. Krugman might take his own prescription that he gives to HHHers. Do you really want to slime Obama? What if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee and Rush Limbaugh and Drudge start using your old columns?

It's one thing to call the M$M on sliming Clinton. It's another to slime Obama in the process.

[joshcryer]

164. Fuck the blogosphere, they're just talking heads taken to another level.

This is in fact Krugmans' essential "fuck you" to these assholes out there. Do you know how badly he's going to be talked about now? Just look at this thread. Yet he was very clear here and wasn't hateful at all.

But people will project and say "seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality" actually means "is a cult of personality"! That's how idiotic assholes on the internet are!

Ugh.

[hfojvt]

178. The audience is never wrong.

If so, Krugman is saying FU to a lot of people who might otherwise buy his books or read his columns. He did in fact slime Obama, and people who want Obama to win are not gonna be happy about that. The OP here slimed Obama further than Krugman did, and that's partly what people are reacting to - not Krugman's words, but a dishonest OP's interpretation of Krugman's words. Further, Clinton supporters/Obama haters are quickly R-ing it onto DU's front page - a cheap shot at our current front runner.

[joshcryer]

194. That's why Krugman is so respectable, he doesn't pander.

He doesn't pander like you want him to do. He never gave in to the Bush admin when most journalists were scared shitless of saying anything bad about the All-mighty Uniter.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bongo Prophet]

131. I have a guess. Where's the betting counter?

NewtRon, perhaps.

[jannyk]

72. K&R nt

[gmudem]

74. Krugman is letting me down

It is very disappointing that he would lower himself to this utter crap. It doesn't bother me that he criticizes Obama's healthcare plan but doing this stuff is just so cocktail circuit/DLC of him.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

78. Go Cheney yourself, Krugman.

Krugman has finally jumped the shark with this one.

Obama's supporters are cultlike. Tres original, Paul. :eyes:

Obama's supporters are more venomous. No substantiation of that from Mr. Krugman. Just trust him on that.

Obama has enthusiastic supporters (see: cult), therefore he is just like George Bush.

Obama's supporters are happy about Sen. Clinton's negative media coverage. Again no proof of this from Krugman, he just says so.

Jewish leaders probably don't like Obama.

Paul is just "concerned" that Democrats won't rally around Clinton when she assumes her inevitable coron...uh nomination.

[VolcanoJen]

154. Thanks, cat

That's it in a nutshell. Especially the "therefore he is just like George Bush" part.

[geek tragedy]

79. Respectful my ass. He compared Obama and his supporters

to Bush and his supporters.

Fuck Paul Krugman.

[frazzled]

83. A surprising lapse of logic contained in Mr. K's column

He notes "most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama."

D'oh. He expects to have gotten angry emails from Clinton supporters? He has been avid in his attacks on Obama's health-care plan for months now (and, concurrently, supportive of Hillary's). That is, of course, his right--but other prominent economists have strenuously disagreed. It would hardly be surprising that his singular preoccupation with this subject would garner him some angry emails from the other side. And that Clinton's supporters would be pleased as punch.

This cult of personality thing has to stop: the party is evenly divided between these two candidates. Does the enthusiastic support of the Clintons deserve to be called a cult? No, and neither does enthusiastic support of Obama. The only way you could say that only the latter obtains is if you are yourself a "cultist" of the former. Or perhaps you have been promised a position of "Health Care Czar"?

[BeyondGeography]

107. Great point...where is the outrage among Clinton supporters for his slams against Obama on mandates?

:freak:

[jackson_dem]

150. That lends credence to his point

He discusses policy in his column and when he judged that Edwards and Hillary had better plans on the merits he said so and Obamites went after him viciously. What do you expect him to think when this is the reaction criticizing Obama produces?

The cult of personality thing can be cut down a lot if Obama's campaign didn't rely so heavily on chanting slogans, a cult tactic used to reinforce loyalty. Do you see any other presidential candidate doing this? About twenty ran. Only Obama does this.

6 million Obama voters aren't cult members but there are obvious cultish tendencies among many Obamite activists. There is ample evidence of it at DU.

[Jim Sagle]

85. Krugman RRRRRAWWWWXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!

:beer:

[Eric J in MN]

86. Krugman doesn't describe one thing Obama supposedly did wrong...

...he just describes the Obama campaign as nearly a "cult" because some of his supporters aren't planning to vote if Obama isn't the nominee.

There are always people who feel that way.

Does he think that every supporter of Clinton would vote for Obama? Does he think that every supporter of Huckabee would vote for McCain?

[hfojvt]

105. and my being ABC has nothing to do with Obama

I would happily support Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Edwards or Obama. Only Gravel, Clinton and Richardson give me pause, and even Clinton may win me over. She's certainly better than McCain or Huckabee.

[joshcryer]

87. The replies to this amusingly continue to prove Krugman correct.

This is awesome. How many more people will reply this way before this thread dies? I can't believe it. If I read that I certainly wouldn't prove the one I disagreed with correct! It defeats the purpose of replying!

:rofl:

[Eric J in MN]

92. If citizens defend a candidate they prefer, it proves the campaign is a "cult"? NT

NT

[joshcryer]

95. "Hate springs eternal." Nixonland. :)

Welcome to Nixonland, you are the citizens.

[maximusveritas]

98. That seems to be the definition they're going by

Anyone who becomes popular can be dismissed in this fashion. It's just a sign of their desperation and jealousy.

[joshcryer]

121. No, it's not popularity, it's vitriol.

Now the popularity may be responsible for the excessive vitriol in his direction, but he is clearly pointing out the behaviors that this forum, the blogosphere, and places like dKos exhibit.

And don't think he doesn't read these places, he's a liberal (and that's the fucking truth) after all.

[Eric J in MN]

141. If he's writing about "Daily Kos" and DU...

...then he should at least name these websites and get us visitors.

[joshcryer]

146. He most likely gets most hits from these sites, you know. Referrals are sent by your web...

...browser, so he knows where the attacks are originating.

[VolcanoJen]

122. It's not just a sign of desperation and jealousy, it's their strategy.

And that's what should disturb people most.

[FrenchieCat]

89. He can kiss my ass and continue to support War loving PNAC.....

guess the business has been good for him! People used to actually care what he had to say. That will be stopping soon.

[ClericJohnPreston]

WTF does that mean, "it will be stopping soon"?

You think ( I know you don't think )learned , well read folk like myself will abandon other good thinkers like Krugman on your recommendation? Or, is it that under Obama, Krugman will be denied the freedom to speak? He will be silenced?

Nah, it's just my favorite voice of hyberbolic irrationality: FRENCHIE CAT!!

Give yourself a hand Frenchie for being so darned irrelevant!

[jackson_dem]

145. Krugman supports PNAC because he doesn't worship the deity known as Barack Obama?

:rofl:

[maximusveritas]

94. Smells like desperation

Get ready Obama supporters. It's only going to get worse. As the possibility of Obama winning becomes more and more likely, the Obama haters will grow in their desperation. It's sad to see from someone like Krugman who I used to respect. And I do mean "used to".

[murielm99]

96. Careful now, Phil.

First, the Obamites are going to start castigating you for being a newbie.

Then, they are going to start smearing Krugman. Never mind that he is a respected liberal icon here. He dared to criticize Obama. You should have seen the things they said about Joe Wilson when he endorsed Clinton and criticized Obama.

BTW, thank you for that column. It was indeed respectful and thought out carefully.

:thumbsup:

[Renew Deal]

104. So you agree 100% with everything Krugman, Willson, and Clinton have ever done.

Maybe he's actually wrong on something?

[ClericJohnPreston]

129. Do you specialize in making straw men?

Or is that the only way you know to argue? Good grief, I've never seen posters with such absolute disregard for logic or even common sense.

Oops....it's Obamaland, where warping and distorting are a way of life.

[Renew Deal]

136. Are you an expert in Ad Hominem arguments?

Or is that the only way you know to argue? Good grief, I've never seen posters with such absolute disregard for logic, civility, or even common sense.

Oops....it's Hillaryworld, where warping and distorting are a way of life.

[ClericJohnPreston]

148. I know you don't have

an original thought in that empty noggin of yours Bleachers7, but can you read?

I support the liberalism of JOHN EDWARDS.

Repeat after me: L-I-B-E-R-A-L

I know, being an Obamite, that word has no meaning for you, but try to understand it, just the same.

By the way, there is nothing Ad Hominen about my questioning your lack of reason, which is legendary. Like the shield against libel, TRUTH is a defense. Embrace who you are Bleachers. It is amusing.

[VolcanoJen]

161. Ready to join the cult if Edwards endorses Obama?

Just lazy curiousity, that's all. It could go either way, so I'm curious.

If the liberalism of John Edwards is what you support, will you become an "Obamite" if he asks you to?

[Renew Deal]

168. Yes, that liberalism of yours

The type that cheerleads for wars and cuts off bankruptcy for sick people. How very liberal of you. :eyes:

[ClericJohnPreston]

191. Are you crazy?

I mean that, sincerely. Have you lost your mind Bleachers?

I know I accused you of strawman arguments, but this is an entire silo of hay.

Umm, since when have I ever argued for war or in favor of poverty? Hmmm?

Now that we have answered that non-issue, tell me who the greater voice for anti-war and poverty is, Edwards or Obama? Hmm?

If you answered Edwards, MY CANDIDATE, you would be right. Obmam is light years behind Edwards Iraq position and on the war against poverty.

So, you provide sane voters, the chance to see what Obamaland is all about. It is akin to the BIZZARO world, where everything is backwards.

Wake up from your trance dude. You scare me.

[murielm99]

184. Is that what I said in my reply?

Go back and read it.

[VolcanoJen]

127. DUers would never criticize liberal icons.

*cough* John Kerry our last nominee *cough*

*cough* Ted Kennedy Caroline Kennedy *cough*

*cough* MoveOn Membership *cough*

[murielm99]

188. You have the right to criticize anyone you want on DU.

But any time there is one word uttered against your candidate, the thread lengthens and fills with foul language and name calling against the critic.

I was here for the last primary, but it was nothing like this. I believe that Obama supporters are fracturing this party, and I do not like it.

Krugman says he is getting it in his messages. He is seeing it on the blogosphere. I see it in real life, too. No one needs to behave this way.

I have made it clear here and elsewhere that I will support the nominee. I have never seen such hate toward anyone but republicans, and I have been a Democratic activist for a long time.

[Phil McCavity]

128. You are welcome and thanks for the warning :-) n/t

[cottonseed]

111. Read it. Honestly, it sounds like he's been spending time on DU:Primaries

I'm supporting Obama during the the primary, and I really like Krugman, but I'm not sure where he's been spending his time. From his column:

"I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody."

I'm not exactly sure you can point to one side or the other as being more venemous. I know it's ruff and tumble on the blogs and political boards, but in Iowa or Nebraska, can you really say there's "venom" out there? Then there's this:

"For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November."

I don't know where he's getting the impression that Obama supporters will not support Hillary. I for one, see it as possibly going the other way on that.

It's too bad for a writer of such esteem. I think he's just really making his push for his preferred candidate, but the points he's trying to make, only seem to make sense in such forums as DU : Primaries.

[Hutzpa]

126. Very good pick

I'm impress, valid points...

I thinking someone must have whispered some good hope monger in his hear.

Bahamas here we come, Cayman Island here we come......catch my drift.

[cottonseed]

153. Thank you. Good guy, but questionable analysis in that commentary.

nt

[joshcryer]

140. I think he's been watching GD-P, dKos, and his own blog and the blogosphere in general.

We know that the op ed page can show "referrals," and he may well be getting attacked on his blog (comments are moderated), seeing them, and seeing where they're originating from.

It's kinda obvious really, he's not oblivious to technology and liberal websites.

Also, he doesn't say they won't support Hillary:

"Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod."

[cottonseed]

159. Yup, he just left mainstreet and stepped in a pile of blogosphere.

If he wants to help Hillary with a little push, that's fine, but this just isn't what's going on in the Midwest, and just about anywhere else that's not an internet political wrestling match.

[angie_love]

147. If you want my honest opinion it sounds like hes panicking that Hillary might lose

Why else would he use such harsh and appalling language towards Obama supporters. Hes basically dissing millions of voters who voted for Obama and saying we won't support Hillary if shes the nominee. Where does he even get that idea? I think you're right, maybe hes trolling DU. Its too bad hes acting more like a bully than an esteemed writer. He should back off alittle, or this will backfire on him.

[cottonseed]

180. Exactly. The guy's nationally syndicated, with that comes responsibility.

It's all fun and games with the cult accusations on the internet, but when you're writing for a national audience, you've got to step back and take a few breaths before sending this off to the printers.

[jab105]

124. I wish he hadn't...I have great respect for Krugman, but I disagree with him greatly here...

I don't feel like agruing the point, so I'll leave it at that...

[ProSense]

142. Former deputy assistant sec. of the Treasury under Clinton already called out Krugman

Former deputy assistant sec. of the Treasury under Clinton already called out Krugman

Krugman Wrong on Obama and Mandates

[joshcryer]

149. I already deunked this garbage.

Is the Obama mix as good at reaching universal or near universal insurance as the Clinton mandate? The reality is we don’t know.

---

Get back to me when you can find someone who is sure about their analysis, like Krugman is.

[ProSense]

157. You debunked nothing. Here is Krugman pointing out why mandates are bad

Single-payer insurance solves all three problems at a stroke. The Schwarzenegger plan, by contrast, is a series of patches. It forces everyone to buy health insurance, whether they think they need it or not; it provides financial aid to low-income families, to help them bear the cost; and it imposes “community rating” on insurance companies, basically requiring them to sell insurance to everyone at the same price.

As a result, the plan requires a much more intrusive government role than a single-payer system. Instead of reducing paperwork, the plan adds three new bureaucracies: one to police individuals to make sure they buy insurance, one to determine if they’re poor enough to receive aid, and one to police insurers to make sure they don’t discriminate against the unwell.

link

[joshcryer]

158. No where there does he say he opposes it. And your response remains worthless.

Please provide something meaningful next time.

[ProSense]

162. Denial? n/t

[joshcryer]

166. Realist.

[ProSense]

172. Reality says Krugman is wrong, a hypocrite and he's being called out by many economists and

experts

[joshcryer]

174. Not one of them refute the MIT study.

I read it, have you?

[ProSense]

179. Whatever you've read, doesn't change that they all say Krugman is wrong! n/t

[joshcryer]

195. First, they "endorsed" Obama before the MIT study. Second, they don't say "why" he is wrong.

Until you can find a counter-study then you're just full of hot air. The cloest thing you have is that talking head idiot who doesn't even disagree with Krugman. Merely saying that Obama's penalties might actually be mandates in and of themselves.

[ClericJohnPreston]

155. Nonsense strikes again!

Boy, there is nothing like being called out by the DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY.

Is that one step up from the clerical pool?

What claim to fame is being one of a dozen deputies in a nameless role? Can you even tell me what this man's job is? How is that relevant to Krugman?

Is your name meant to be sarcasm or parody?

[ProSense]

160. "Is your name meant to be sarcasm or parody?" Is your question a sign of stupidity? n/t

[joshcryer]

167. I think we have our answer.

[ClericJohnPreston]

190. No, you are

is the equivalent of your non-answer. Then again, asking you to explain anything is frought with peril. Ask at your own risk.

[bagimin]

203. My screen says you're addressing Ignored

(hint)

[TexasObserver]

151. Krugman is a Clinton lackey. Nothing new about that.

[waiting for hope]

202. Really - I was under the impression that

he adored Edwards. I don't think Krugman is anyone's lackey.

[Bongo Prophet]

163. If anyone is freaked out in this thread, they either didn't read it, or need to grow thicker skin

Hey, the best way to prove you're not an unquestioning zombie robot is to listen and respond reasonably.
The OP is trying to stir the pot, and sometimes we need to get a little stirred - if one becomes so reactionary and lash out at Krugman, it kinda proves his point.

but really now, the overall point of the story is much broader than an attack on Obama - it is an exoneration of Adlai Stevenson's vision of the age of Nixon, how that has evolved, and the dangers of what Uncle Adlai called Nixonland. Read it, and calmly.

Defensiveness makes it hard to see objectively.
Always on the attack, or always ready to be outraged, wears on the system.
One might have noticed a bit of that around here.

Here is the take home thought of the OpEd:

But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.

One of the most hopeful moments of this presidential campaign came last month, when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim. It’s a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles that matter more than short-term political advantage.

I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election.

What he leaves unsaid, and I will not, is that the candidates have done the "I respect my opponent" bit - will their supporters do the same?
Will they start reasoning together instead of clashing like billygoats?
Can we take even a flamebait thread, and turn it into a productive discussion?
Are we big enough for that?
Only time will tell.

[joshcryer]

169. *nod* I've already posted twice about this. People here just prove him right.

We're dividing ourselves for no fucking reason.

[Bongo Prophet]

182. With each side trying always to push each other's buttons, it becomes a feedback loop.

I try not to add to the mess, just encourage the thinking process. :hi:

[Political Heretic]

170. Umm.... its the media meme -- they are ALL going there. You know why?

Emotions and tensions are extra high this year for two very obvious and non-sensational reason:

1) Democrats are anxious and intent on restoring some kind of reality-based order to Washington after an eight year nightmare.

2) Many, many people who have been disillusioned by and disenfranchised from politics for a very long time have become activated this year. You can't finally find a candidate that you really believe is the right person at the right place in the right time for America after years of voting for the "lesser evil" or not voting at all, and then keep all emotion and passion out of it. It's ludicrous to expect that.

It's ridiculous and insulting that the establishment elite on both sides of the political spectrum are so afraid of popular engagement that they must resort to this consistent bashing of people's enthusiasm. They're not scared that supporters are "creepy" or "cultish" or that its a "cult of personality." They're scared that the public is not doing what it is told to do, which is sit down, shut up, and consume -- take the candidates we choose, do what we say, speak the words we put in your mouth, and by all means do not, do not, DO NOT even attempt to seriously participate in the political process. Leave that to us.

The people are guilty of nothing other than believing that their participation in politics and support or a political leader actually means something again - and that terrifies the establishment. The establishment was more comfortable when they felt they could predict (and in some ways had picked) the candidates... Clinton was supposed to be the clear candidate for the democratic party, and the people were supposed to be handed that choice, not choose something else. Guiliani was supposed to be the other clear candidate, but he bungled and fumbled and blew it - so the media anointed John McCain.

On one hand, journalists in the media like the story of the "underdog" or the unexpected new player that adds spice to the story and generates ratings. But on the other hand, they do not like popular mobilization that they cannot control - which is why you hear this unified talking point in the press that continues to insult the public and mock their enthusiasm and involvement. It's all part of beating the people back down to where "they belong" - listening to the media and not getting to riled up with thinking that they matter.... and people at DU should remember this when they choose to perpetuate that theme.

[joshcryer]

173. This is the most consumer oriented election I have ever witnessed.

Don't be silly! Both of our candidates are the American Idol's of our elections. They're both being uplifted, and both being praised to the ends of the earth. I think Hillary has already lost this thing, but I haven't sat down and calculated the totals yet, I will soon.

But seriously, that's all this is. Do ya know how much ad revenue you're getting for people by going to all these various websites, posting in blogs, posting about whatever vitrolic inanity you wish (not accusing "you" of that)? This is the most profitable election season yet!

And by making a horse race of epic proportions, it'll get even more profitable!

God you know that they want it to be so down to the wire that there's a 10 delegate spread between the two candidates. There's no uprising here. If anything we've become more complacant because we've allowed the media to run this thing from the start.

[Political Heretic]

187. There are other ways to consume that are safter to establishment interests

Trust me, the worst thing establishment interests can imagine is an activated and engaged public. They'll happily make their profit in other ways that are safer.

[kristopher]

175. It's an opinion piece, here is another

He was in the forefront against the Bush junta and I applaud him for that. In this case I disagree with his opinion. He is an advocate and that is is right, but those here who insist his repeated endorsements of HRC have some sort of intellectual basis and insight behind them are totally off the mark.
His article endorse Clinton's health care plan was particularly off base IMO. This article says it well:

"The error of the pro-mandate faction of the Democratic Party (no Republican candidates are in favor of universal anything in the health sector, except universally disappointing experiences, even for the rich) is this: they see the future and know exactly what regulations must be passed, how they will affect behavior, and what outcomes will result.

Speaking as a former regulator, this is an easy error to make. I certainly made this mistake back in my FCC days. It is the inevitable pitfall and trap for the unwary in any system of centralized government. It was the self-inflicted error of the Clinton Administration’s failed health care reform effort of 1993-4.

The starting point for effecting change in markets through government action is a statement of goals, and a clear recognition that tactics are not goals. As I understand it, Obama has four goals in terms of health care: (1) everyone, from birth to death, should have health care insurance; (2) everyone should have affordable health care, as well as affordable insurance; (3) everyone should enjoy the benefits of rising quality in health care; (4) Moore’s Law – ever increasing cost-benefit results – should be enshrined in the health care industry, through investment in r & d, new entry by new competitors, and wise government purchasing actions, inter alia...

...The most respected economist in America, for me, is Paul Krugman. But having spent a lifetime learning from, hiring, following the instructions of, cross-examining, preparing the testimony of, reading, and very rarely disagreeing with economists, I can only say this: they are better in diagnosis and far better in design of models than in predicting precisely how individuals, person by person, will react to changes in law, or even price. In particular, where value is acutely a function of not only price but also quality, as in the case of cable television or health care, economists reach limits on the efficacy of their art. This is not to criticize Paul Krugman. I think he should get the Nobel Prize for economics and literature too, and I’m not kidding. But I don’t agree with his vehement insistence that mandates vel non define the difference between a good and bad candidacy for the Presidency. Instead, I think the insistence on a legal mandate as the sine qua non of any approach to a problem as multifaceted and changeable as health care is a counter-indicator of fitness for that office, where it is certain that as things change one’s tactics should change, while one’s goals probably should be as close to immutable as possible.

If one of Obama's rivals, or even Krugman, questions Obama's commitment to changing our health care system because he won't commit in advance to one single tactical choice, they have no facts to support their claim. Moreover, anyone who is rigidly fixed to a single tactic thereby suggests that he or she is not adroit, adaptable, and persistent in achieving the stated goals. In a similar vein, it is a goal to catch Osama, and not to be committed in advance to a tactical decision about whether to put troops into Pakistan. It is a goal to achieve peaceful and productive relations with Iran, and it is important not to choose in advance such tactics as promising never to talk to its leaders or voting for military action against Iran without knowing all relevant facts. Candidates that make much of tactics, while not necessarily focussing with unrelenting commitment on specific (as opposed to overly general) goals, are not necessarily wise enough, reliable enough, or even experienced enough to be President. Obama, it seems to me, shows passion and clarity of thought about goals and the flexibility and humility necessary to choose tactics that work efficiently and effectively not only in the area of health care reform, but in all the other major discussions of the time. In other words, Dr. Krugman, please go back to focussing on the Republicans!"

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/12/07/but_life_is_experience_not_log/

[Zueda]

177. Well, consider who's been sending him hate mail lately...

[nonconformist]

183. Geez, what did he even say in that article that was offensive?

I don't get the outrage.

[dicknbush]

186. all I have to say is......HOPE????? HOPE???????..........

WE DON'T NEED HOPE WE NEED HELP!!!!!!

VOTE CLINTON FOR THE HELP WE NEED.. IF I WANT A SERMON I'LL GO TO CHURCH!

[Samantha]

192. This is a very slanted article

Slick but still obvious. And we have already discussed how provocative the mere use of the word "cult" is intended to be.

A number of people who say they will not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee do so because of her position on the war, not because Obama is the only candidate among the field they could have supported. Simply when the field became narrowed to two, one was acceptable because of his position on the war from its inception, one candidate was unacceptable because she is perceived to have facilitated the pre-emptive attack. He fails to make that distinction.

In fact he fails to criticize Hillary at all.

[QC]

196. The groupthink fury of these responses proves Krugman right. n/t

[ProSense]

198. The fact that the OP is enjoying pizza is a sign of something too. n/t

[DrFunkenstein]

199. Obama Doesn't Say I'll Take Care of Everything, He Says You Must Take Part in Democracy

That's not a cult, that's a call to democratic action in the major fights that confront us. I want someone who can enlist people in demanding health care and energy reform.

And, I must say, that Obama seems the most human of the candidates I've seen in a long time - something that is all but impossible in running a national campaign to unite various factions, especially in this Party.

[Phred42]

204. NOnsense. You're probalbly too young to remember what went on around jack Kennedy,

Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King.

People need something to look up to

[ekwhite]

205. I don't buy the "cult of personality" thing.

It seems to me that Krugman may be a bit biased toward Clinton, and discounting the other side of the argument. I have seen nasty behavior on both sides of the Obama / Clinton divide (I was an Edwards supporter). The one thing I will agree with Krugman about is the "Clinton Rules" comment. It seems that the MSM has been over dramatizing even the most innocuous comment by Hillary or Bill, just to generate controversy. I put the meme about the "Obama Cult of Personality" into the same category.

What I do see is two candidates who can both do a good job of leading this country, and who can both win the general election, if their supporters can stay away from each other's throats long enough! We need fewer posts denigrating the opposing Democratic candidate, and more posts on why your candidate is the best person for the job. Save the bile for John McCain please.