by hilzoy
Paul Krugman’s column today is just bizarre:
“The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. 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.
Why, then, is there so much venom out there?
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 the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.”
Note to self: whenever someone writes an article that doesn’t reference any specific individual, just a mindset attributed to an entire group of people, beware.
I have no doubt that most of the venom that Krugman sees comes from Obama supporters. He has, after all, been on an anti-Obama tear for several months now. But he is an economist, and economists should know enough about basic social science techniques to be able to ask: am I working from a genuinely random sample? In the case of, say, Krugman’s email, the answer would have to be: no.
Next question: are there any better sources of information out there? Well, yes. For one thing, there are the Super Tuesday exit polls:
“Nearly two-thirds — 72 percent — of Democratic voters said they’d be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee, and 71 percent said they’d be happy with Obama.”
Or, to put the same point slightly differently:
“Just 49 percent of Democrats who voted for Clinton said they would be satisfied if Obama won, while just 52 percent of Obama voters said they would be satisfied if Clinton won.”
Note that there’s a lot of room between being “satisfied” and being venomous. Had I been asked, I’m not sure whether or not I would have said that I would be “satisfied” with Clinton as a nominee. As I have said earlier, I would vote for her over McCain in a heartbeat. I think she’s a better nominee than Kerry, and certainly better than other nominees I have voted for (cough, Michael Dukakis, cough cough.) So if “being satisfied” with a candidate means something like that, I’d be satisfied. But it seems to me to connote something more than that: thinking a candidate is just fine, perfectly OK, not my first choice but just dandy. And I’m not sure I could feel that way about anyone who voted for the Iraq War Resolution, or who did some of the things Clinton has done this primary season.
So I might have been one of the minority of Obama voters who was not “satisfied” with Hillary Clinton. But I hope I’m a long way from “venom”. I have, at any rate, argued against any sort of Democratic civil war, and I do not foresee one. Note as well that according to the exit polls, more Clinton supporters would be dissatisfied with Obama as the nominee than the reverse: even if “dissatisfaction” does mean something stronger than I’m imagining, there seems to be more of it among Clinton supporters.
The blogosphere is not particularly representative, but it’s probably a lot more representative than Krugman’s mail. For what it’s worth, I don’t see a lot of venom among pro-Obama bloggers either. I mean, does anyone think that Matt Yglesias is venomous, or consumed by hatred of all things Hillary? I don’t. What about Mark Kleiman? Or Anonymous Liberal? Or, well, publius and me? We’ve all been supporters of Obama for a while, and I don’t think any of us is particularly full of hate and bitterness. For that matter, none of us strike me as lending much support to another of Krugman’s claims: that “the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.”
In any case, when we vote for President, we are not voting for someone’s supporters. Even if people who support Obama are doing so in a cultish way — and I have seen no evidence that they are, though I’m sure that every candidate has some supporters who are cultish or otherwise silly — that’s irrelevant to the choice we face as citizens.
Paul Krugman should know better than to write a column based on so little. Democrats are not consumed by bitterness and hatred. We are in the midst of an exciting primary race between two formidable candidates. I see nothing to indicate that this is anything but good for the party, and no indication that the kind of venom Krugman talks about is more widespread than usual. I’m sure that a disproportionate amount of it is ending up in his inbox, but he should know better than to base a whole column on that.
Good Lord, Krugman is driving me crazy with this stuff…all he is doing is pouring gasoline on a fire that has yet to really even ignite.
And he can’t even get through the column without throwing another jab at Obama’s health care plan, completely out of context…
Those two paragraphs just cost Paul a lot of the considerable support he’s had from me in the past. “Why, oh why is there so much venom!? I’m gettin’ the vapors!”
Gee, Paul, could it have anything to do with widely-respected liberal columnists essentially calling all Obama supporters sheep, comparing them to Bush supporters, and then accusing them of being ‘venomous’? Nah. That just don’t make no sense.
Go Ron Paul!
Agreed that the Krugman column is bad, that it’s bad because of the unsupported assertion about where most of the venom is coming from, and that if he’s extrapolating where most of the venom that’s been directed towards him is coming from to where most of it’s coming from in general, that would explain the mistake.
But, sometimes we are voting for people based on their supporters, we assume that they’ll have to cater somewhat to their supporter’s policy views and that’s one way of figuring out what they’ll do in office. That doesn’t really go along with the cult complaint, since that seems to be a (largely false) argument about how Obama’s supporters don’t have policy views and are just swooning over him, but I don’t know that you should state the, “we aren’t voting for supporters” point so strongly.
Reactions like Krugman’s always surprise me. I mean, it is one thing to support someone, and even to criticize the other candidates position on issues. But with Krugman, it is almost like he is trying to create a high degree of polarization.
And the inevitable question is why?
Usually, in situations like this, it comes down to two things.
1> A form of rev3enge factor. In this case Krugman is trying to get back at Obama for some perceived slight. And it is true, IIRC, that Obama or his campaign did say some not very flattering things about Krugman, but only after Krugman had started attacking Obama, so that doesn’t make sense.
2. A fear of something. I have been trying to figure out something that Krugman would be afraid of, and the only thing I can think of is that he has planning for some position in a Clinton administration and an Obama victory threatens that. This is conjecture on my part and I am open to other ways of thinking.
Regarding venom. There has been some, even on this site, directed both ways. And, I admit, I have contributed to it toward Clinton. However, and I only speak for myself, despite my feelings about Clinton, I will vote for her, and it won’t even take a holding of my nose.
Will I be satisfied with a Clinton victory regarding the nomination? No. Will I be comfortable with it? Yes.
I’m an Obama supporter, but you need to get out more — I have seen a lot more anti-Clinton venom than anti-Obama venom. In fact, while I have seen quite a few comments in various places against Obama, I would characterize few of them as venomous. They are mostly of the “your guy is an empty suit” type.
Conversely, based on what I’ve seen, there’s a lot of outright hatred for Hillary out there, and I’ve read comments from far more people saying that if Hillary wins, they will refuse to vote for her (particularly if she does so through by playing bullshit with the Michigan-Florida delegates).
Steve H., have you taken a look at the comments and diaries on MyDD?
–“the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.”–
maybe true, probably true. but…
*cough* there’s no *cough cough* cult of personality *cough* *hack* around Hillary?
(falls on floor, coughing up blood)
Extremely anecdotal evidence: in my latte-swilling elitist Washington State suburban caucus, we had one very pissed-off Clinton supporter and a lot of mellow Obama supporters. I myself have no rancor against Hillary Clinton. Why should I, she’s losing.
Since Clinton is the candidate who expected to cruise to the nomination, I would expect more of her supporters to be upset at this point, than Obama’s. But who knows? Certainly not me, but not Mr. Krugman either.
There are truly a lot of people out there, and I think they are Obama-ites second and Hillary haters first. It is pretty constant. I find it quite sad. The extent to which anti-Hillary tirades have been internalized by many on the Left in addition to those on the right is astounding.
The problem with Krugman’s column isn’t that his observation about “venom” is wrong (though debatable) or even that it’s one-sided (also debatable). It’s that it’s ludicrously hypocritical for him to whine about “venom” and then in the very next paragraph call Obama’s supporters cultists and compare them to pro-Bush war supporters. Seriously, Paul Krugman is smarter than that.
Adam: Seriously, Paul Krugman is smarter than that.
Apparently not. 😉
For Krugman in particular this is of course above all about mandates for health insurance. The problem is that the basic reasoning of mandates is “Since single-payer isn’t going to fly right now, this is a relatively good way to improve things overall with relatively few drawbacks”, which then shifts in argument to “This is the best way available to us to move toward real universal care.” But there are legitimate arguments against mandates in practice as a burden on the neediest in a way that many other service fees have been over the decades, and room for argument that some other kind of incremental progress might be better. Such things tend to get dismissed, and then tempers rise, and people on all sides say stupid things, and we get columns like this.
I voted for Obama in the MA primary. I think Obama can beat McCain handily in the general. I think Obama will make an excellent President.
BUT: every time I hear, from any “Democrat”, that s/he will not vote for Hillary in the general because only Barack will do, I get mad. Likewise when I hear a “Democrat” say the opposite. It’s just fine with me if some Republican or “independent” says s/he will vote for Barack but not Hillary in the general, or vice-versa. Such people may be misguided, but at least they don’t have the gall to call themselves “Democrats”.
I don’t get to read Krugman’s e-mail, but I read a fair number of blogs and comments on “Democratic” sites, and I must say: there ARE Obama cultists out there, and they ARE more venomous than Hillary cultists — and slightly more numerous, too. I don’t want “our” nominee to be selected by cultists of either flavor.
Krugman is a Democrat. He is trying to warn Democrats that, in his opinion, Hillary is a better choice FOR THE NOMINATION. Mark Kleiman is a Democrat who thinks the opposite. I know Kleiman will vote for Hillary in the general, and I bet my house that Krugman will vote for Obama in the general. Neither is a cultist. Each is entitled to denounce cultists. Both would do well to denounce cultists who favor their own candidate, as well as cultists of the opposite flavor.
If it turns out that cultists are few and far between, no harm done.
— TP
Meanwhile, if you want venom and parties torn by factional strife, a good place to look might be at Washington state‘s Republican caucuses.
Agreed almost entirely, with the one caveat that even though I am pro-Obama, I’ve basically stopped reading Kleiman’s once-must-read blog because he is, in fact, kind of venomous about Clinton.
I don’t think Krugman was referring to his email or the blogosphere at all. I think he meant the MSM, which is ludicrously hostile to Clinton.
At Krugman’s own paper, Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich have it in for Clinton big time. Elsewhere there’s Chris Matthews, Andrew Sullivan, etc. etc.
Obama, on the other hand, gets surprisingly good coverage, even from conservatives – witness David Brooks’ column last week as an example.
In fact, Krugman himself is the only prominent media presence I can think of, outside of the far right, who has consistently opposed Obama.
Krugman’s point is that the Brooks, Matthews etc. of the world will turn on Obama the moment he wins the nomination, and give him the same treatment they are now giving Clinton.
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.
First, the vibe I’m getting is that Obama supporters are an optimistic hopeful (and slightly anxious) bunch, because their expectations so far have been surpassed, while the Clinton backers are bitter because they had their hearts set on something which now seems like it may not happen.
But this:
I have no idea who Krugman might be talking about. I haven’t met or read a single Obama supporter who said they would sit out the election or vote McCain if Obama didn’t win the nomination. Not. A. Single. One.
Much of the leadership of the Dem Party, and apparently Krugman, are obsessed with health care. The problem is, the electorate is not. The Democrats have run on health care for the last 20 years, and they keep losing. The only time the Republicans made a serious effort to fight that battle, with the “Harry & Louise” ads, they won with frightening ease.
Polls keep telling us that healthcare is a key issue. There are two simple reasons the polls are misleading on this point.
1) Health care is a relatively tangible issue, unlike the inchoate identity issues most people actually vote on. It’s easy to poll for.
2) It is of greater concern to the sort of people who have the most time to answer telephone polls–seniors and shut-ins–than to most people.
Health care is important, but this election might finally teach the Democrats to stop making it their centerpiece. That doesn’t work.
I haven’t met or read a single Obama supporter who said they would sit out the election or vote McCain if Obama didn’t win the nomination. Not. A. Single. One.
I did — one guy at the caucus who said he usually votes Republican and is crossing over this year because of Obama. If Clinton is the candidate, he’ll go back to McCain.
That may be, but this is the same Dowd who refers to Obama as “Obambi”. She has it in for any Democrat, and provides the most superficial political “analysis” in the Times.
I certainly have. Wade into the comments and diaries on MyDD and you’ll see plenty of Obama supporters saying just that, along with plenty of Clinton supporters saying they’ll stay home or vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. I imagine most of them are lying or will change their minds after a cool-off period, but they exist.
I have seen the bitterness in some comments section — and responses implying that a lot more are getting like that. Someone talked about ‘piefights.’
I think some — not all, probably not a majority, but a substantial amount — is coming from trolls hoping to make reconciliation impossible.
But a lot of it is genuine. I think a good part of it comes from a couple of sources.
A lot of us are angry at politics in general. We’ve spent eight years with Bush and Bush supporters, we’ve forgotten how to argue reasonably and calmly. (We shouldn’t be calm with Republicans, and they’ve acted in such irrational ways that ‘being reasonable’ is being unrealistic.)
Our political adrenaline is already so high that any dispute gets loud and extreme.
A lof of us are afraid of ‘what will go wrong this time.’
We have an awful lot of disappointed expectations to deal with. We won almost the biggest congressional majorities ever after Watergate — and gave them back with Jimmy Carter. Who then lost the Presidency to an aging actor ‘playing the part’.
We lost twice to a boob like Dubya, and saw an authentic hero portrayed as a traitor, liar, and coward.
We’re afraid ‘the other guy’ might trigger those same frustrations. We can’t quite accept the obvious, that this really is our year.
I haven’t met or read a single Obama supporter who said they would sit out the election or vote McCain if Obama didn’t win the nomination.
A number of commenters at this site said so in the Democrats & Unity thread.
I generally love Krugman (in the darkest hours of Bush’s term he was one of the only consistent bright spots of reason), but he’s clearly taking the rise of Obama personally. His most balanced column on Hillary and Barack dealt with the differences in their healthcare plans, but even then, there was a whiff of wing-nuttery about his prose. Even if I supported Hillary, I’d be embarassed by this blantant hackery on his part. He will lose my trust if he keeps it up.
I haven’t met or read a single Obama supporter who said they would sit out the election or vote McCain if Obama didn’t win the nomination. Not. A. Single. One.
here are some.
and, i’ve said i’d sit out, multiple times, right here on this blog, if HRC is the nominee. if she gets it, i’ll give her the chance to change my mind in the general campaign. but right now, she rubs me all the wrong ways. and, since i’m in NC, i can probably safely sit-out voting for a Dem President – i can vote my conscience here.
one nice quote from that Sullivan link:
The most heated moment came late in the process, when an elderly gentleman for Hillary said, “I want everyone here to make a pledge, and I’m talking to all you Obama supporters. I want you to pledge that you will be loyal Democrats, and vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.” The 4 (former) independents all said flat-out if it was Clinton vs. McCain, they would be voting for McCain. One Obama supporter said, “I’m an American first, not a Democrat, and I will make no such pledge.”
John Cole (who’s actually been defending Clinton a lot, though he’s said he’ll vote for Obama — the “magical unity pony” — in the primary):
hilzoy: Paul Krugman should know better than to write a column based on so little.
I think I’m actually starting to OD on shadenfreunde…
john miller: …the only thing I can think of is that he has planning for some position in a Clinton administration and an Obama victory threatens that.
That’s what I think, although he expected that in 92 as well and it didn’t work out for him. BTW, wow Wiki is fast. I was confirming that and found that this post is already linked from Krugman’s Wiki page as one of “several other progressive blogs” condemning this column.
Odd. From where I sit, he hasn’t changed at all. Possibly he was saying stupid things, before, that just didn’t annoy you.
Unless I’m misreading Krugman, he cites Hillary’s mau-mauing of David Shuster as evidence that Obama’s people are venomous. He certainly doesn’t cite any other evidence.
From where I sit, he hasn’t changed at all. Possibly he was saying stupid things, before, that just didn’t annoy you.
Possibly. I think it was more that I agreed with him so it didn’t seem stupid. I’m not sure it even seems stupid now, as much as transparent. He’s pulling for Hillary but pretending he’s pulling for reason. I’m not sure I’d describe the times he was criticizing Bush as the same thing. Then he was right! 😉
“I’m an American first, not a Democrat, and I will make no such pledge.”
Amen to that.
If I end up believing that 4 or 8 more years of Hillary (and Bill, because he’s part of the package) is likely to be in the long run and in the bigger picture worse for the country than the alternative, then it is my privilege to vote that way, and my privilege to beg to differ — as civilly as I can manage — with anyone who thinks it’s his privilege to dictate how I’m allowed to define myself (I’m looking at you, Tony P.).
Harrumph.
Surely you jest. There is nothing bizarre at all about the venom and calumny directed toward Senator Clinton both by the mainstream media and Senator Obama’s echo chamber are astounding.
See both of Stanley Fish’s columns at NY Times:
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/all-you-need-is-hate/
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/a-calumny-a-day-will-keep-hillary-away/index.html
I suppose that he too will be subjected to same dismissive attiude as Krugman. People just don’t want to confront their own biases.
Krugman’s critique of the Republican Party’s feckless incompetence and immoral obsession with screwing the many for the sake of the few was and is right on. I don’t see that as all incompatible with disagreeing with him about some aspects of what to do about it. Particularly given that he and many of the folks he’s picking a fight with actually agree on what would be most desirable, and the disagreement is about make-do and interim measures.
Okay, everyone. Sorry. I misspoke and said something ridiculous. Yes, I know Obama pulls independents and Republicans. What I meant to say is that I didn’t know any Democrats who were crossing over. Since it would be utterly unremarkable for Republicans to swing back to McCain, I can’t imagine Krugman was speaking about them when he was criticizing the Obama supporters who wanted Obama or bust, as he claimed. (I mean, think of it this way: if you knew someone who was otherwise politically apathetic but was motivated to vote for Obama, you might criticize them for their apathy, but not because of their divisive unwillingness to compromise!)
Well, yes, since you’re indulging in the same strategy of “win by belittling the opponent” that’s been common in politics.
As well, you’re ignoring the same behavior in the Clinton camp.
And, of course, you’re generalizing from a small sample to the larger population with insufficient evidence. That’s generally called stereotyping; some of us don’t cotton to that.
In other words, you’re a hack.
“I’m an American first, not a Democrat, and I will make no such pledge” (namely to vote for the Democrat in the general no matter what), is a fine, noble sentiment. But what business is it of “Americans” to select the DEMOCRATIC PARTY’s nominee?
Anyone who is “an American first, not a Democrat” is welcome to start his own party, or stay out of party politics altogether. Here in America, party affiliation is entirely voluntary. But it ought to mean something.
I belong to the party of “Barack or Hillary”. I wish to hell my party had never decided to allow people of other parties (e.g. the “Barack or McCain” party, the “Hillary or McCain” party) to vote in our primaries or attend our caucuses. Say what you will about superdelegates, at least they are Democrats — members of the “Barack or Hillary” party, like me — rather than “Americans first, not Democrats”.
— TP
Near the end of the column was this gem:
“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.”
Huh.
Unnamed Obama supporters are first criticized for their allegedly hateful rhetoric toward HRC, and then in a most underhanded way, likened to to racist, misogynistic, character assassinating Nixonians, and contrasted with those who care about issues and in the making politics of hatred unacceptable.
Pot, pot, the kettle’s calling.
That attitude pretty much insures they’ll NEVER be Democrats.
Not sure I want to operate like that.
Starting another party is a fairy tale in this country, and sitting out isn’t palatable either, and why should I? I happen to be a citizen too.
The 2-party system isn’t going away any time soon, so those of us who aren’t willing to toe the party line (as if there could be just two ways of thinking in a nation of 300 million people) have as much right as party loyalists to try to affect outcomes, which are going to affect our lives just as much as they are going to affect yours.
Andy, your links in no way support your claim that venom and calumny is being directed at Sen. Clinton by Sen. Obama supporters unless you think that all people are either Clinton or Obama supporters.
This year’s democratic primary doesn’t seem to me to be more venomous than previous ones. (Remember the vicious fights between the so-called “Deaniacs,” “Clarkites,” “Kerryites, etc. on dailykos in 2004?) But it is a much more extended primary season than we’ve had in a long time, and as long as the contest remains close people will rally around their chosen candidate. I have no doubt that things will quiet down after the convention as people unite behind the party’s candidate. There will not be a mass exodus of hardcore Obama or Clinton supporters, unless the superdelegates or the MI/FL contingent end up playing a decisive role at the convention. The latter scenario is my one big fear.
Your criticism is fair and on-target. Overall, though, the column made several excellent points MSM columnists don’t typically make.
Anyone who is “an American first, not a Democrat” is welcome to start his own party, or stay out of party politics altogether.
…
I belong to the party of “Barack or Hillary”.
you’re right. why on earth would anyone principles get in the way of partisanship ?
s/anyone principles/anyone let principles/
I belong to the party of the first part, and will have no truck with the party of the second part.
Did someone say we should all party in trucks? With multiple parties?
Great idea!
If anyone here actually wants to read vituperation directed at Senator Obama by Senator Clinton’s supporters, just go to
Hillary is 44. Particularly check out the recent “Election Weekend With Hillary” comments as the posters begin to realize that Maine is slipping away. “Bambi” is the nicest thing anyone calls Obama.
Just sayin’ it’s out there.
You mean there’s a second party? I hope they have a designated drinker.
To gwangung:
“Americans” vote in the general election. They get to vote for the candidate (of whatever party) that they prefer. It behooves any “party” to offer up the candidate with the widest appeal to “Americans”.
You don’t have to be “a Democrat” to vote for the Democratic nominee in the general; you don’t have to be “a Republican” to vote for the Republican nominee in the general; you just have to be “an American”.
What it means to be “an American” is that you are signed up, as I am, for this Government-Of-The-People-By-The-People-And-For-The-People thing. (GOTPBTPAFTP rocks!) It means that you don’t let people who are NOT “Americans” vote for your president, and it means you accept the choice of your fellow “Americans” even if it was not your own. I want that description to apply to “the Democratic Party” (and “the Republican Party”, too, but it’s not my business to advise THEM) by analogy: being “a Democrat”, and being allowed to vote in “the Democratic Party”, ought to mean that you’re signed up to support the choice of your fellow Democrats.
If 90% of Americans were “Americans first, not Democrats”, mmeaning that each “party” was something like 5% of the population, that would be a GOOD thing. If those 90% decided they like neither party’s nominee, they would soon enough form “the American Party”. I would be delighted to see how _that_ party goes about selecting its nominee.
— TP
And here you are, trying to restrict people’s choices by trying to restrict who selects them.
Not a good strategy for getting what you want.
I smell a juicy game theory open thread. Not that I’d participate, because that stuff bores me to tears.
javelina: that is one scary site. I scrolled down a bit to get to Sunday, and about six comments in got to this:
“I am so disappointed that the majority of AA are voting for Obama. Where is their loyalty. Clinton did so much for them when he was president.”
Wow. Words fail.
Note: this is one idiot commenting. I do not believe, and thus d not want to imply, that this person is representative of any larger group.
That said: “where is their loyalty” — ??!
So, Tony, you are saying that the approximately 40% of Americans who identify with neither party should either:
1. Have no say in the party nominees, but then be forced to choose from those party nominees in the general election, OR
2. Sacrifice their personal principles by joining one of the parties and agreeing to vote for whichever candidate is the nominee of the party regardless of whether they find said nominee less desirable than the other party’s nominee.
Presumably, your answer is:
3. Start a third party.
Of course this ignores that the two major parties have made this nearly impossible through ballot access laws and other so-called “reforms.” It also assumes that the 40% of self-identified independents are monolithic, rather than reflective of numerous ideologies/philosophies poorly represented by both parties.
I promise I will not post every single HillaryIs44 comment that amuses me. Really, I won’t. But the unintentional irony of this one is too — well, eerie — to pass over:
Yow.
Personally I am surprised by just how little venom there is towards HRC among Democrats. I suppose that’s because people feel, rightly, that she’s taken a lot of unfair criticism from wing-nuts for the past 16 years. That seems to shield her from the fact that, objectively, she would appear to be a pretty awful candidate from the POV of most liberal Democrats. First of all there’s just the unsavoriness of electing a President’s spouse – powerful dynastic families should not be encouraged. But even more bizarrely in the current environment, Hilary was for the war in Iraq. The records of her advisors and husband in the Clinton administration suggest this is no accident – they were gung-ho to use military force in Yugoslavia, Somalia and Haiti. There is a war hawk element in the Democratic party that really believes the US can use military muscle to make the world a better place. Maybe HRC doesn’t share that view, but she certainly seems to rely on that element on awful lot. HRC is really the perfect candidate for Lieberman Democrats. I think a lot of us have decided that’s not the Democratic party we want in 2008. It’s not “Obama or bust” as far as I’m concerned, it’s “any Democrat but Clinton.”
hilzoy – Amazing, isn’t it? I was particularly struck by the “loyalty” comment. Also by one referring to Obama as a “boy,” though that might not have been deliberate.
My first reaction to the comment citing the “Hillary is 44” website was, “I thought she was 60.”
Hillary-44D
tastes like hell and puts you to sleep.
On Krugman: calls for civility accompanied by accusations that we’re cult-like & resemble Bush and Nixon supporters are pretty ridiculous. That said, this just underscores why campaigns always tell supporters who are canvassing/phonebanking: if they’re firmly committed to another candidate, say something polite about him/her & thank them for their time. Obviously, blog discussions are a little more freewheeling, but hostile flame wars are just counterproductive. This goes quintuple when they’re directed at really really stubborn NY Times columnists with well-earned credibility among Dem. primary voters.
By the way, what on earth does John McCain think he’s doing re: the Washington caucuses? Apparently for the GOP, not only does requesting a routine recount to make sure the outcome is accurate make you a “sore loser”–so does actually expecting the vote to be fully counted the FIRST time. I’m no fan of Mike Huckabee, but what a bunch of crap.
From Bruce Baugh:
For Krugman in particular this is of course above all about mandates for health insurance.
No, this is about Krugman and a host of other respected progressives who seem to be willing to squander much of their hard-earned and and often well deserved credibility in the name of disingenuous influence peddling.
“Particularly check out the recent ‘Election Weekend With Hillary’ comments”
All I can get is a blank page, no matter that NoScript is set to let javascript run, and all the ad-blockers are turned off; it’s the same for both Firefox and IE.
“…ought to mean that you’re signed up to support the choice of your fellow Democrats.”
TP, a variety of state parties choose to allow anyone who hasn’t signed up to participate in another party’s convention to participate. Other state parties require registration as a party voter at a set advance date. Yet other state parties allow fully open primaries, which means you are able to freely choose your party on any given date.
If you object to any of the state parties’ rules, you are free to move to that state, join said party, and propose rules changes as you wish, including telling them what they “ought” in your opinion to do. Meanwhile, they’re democratically voted on and passed rules, set by each state’s parties.
I never heard of “Hillary is 44,” but my first thought was that that made perfect sense. G. W. Bush is famously “43,” and famously calls his dad “41, after all.
I suppose there are two kinds of people…. (It’s a political junkie test, in other words.)
I’m not sure McCain’s to blame, rather than the idiot Republican Party chair in Washington State, but at least they’re making the Washington Democrats look less insane by comparison, even when said Democrats hold a caucus that determines the delegates followed a week later by a primary that doesn’t actually mean anything.
Yeah, considering that the Republican Party was making all the noises about voter fraud in the last gubernatorial election. If I were Republican, I’d be kinda mad about that sort of seeming hypocrisy.
To expand on the health care points raised by trilobite:
Everyone observes that health care is in a mess and could be better. I want a single payer system with some cost controls, for while it’s sad when someone with $2000/month in prescription meds loses their coverage, you don’t want to be in a pool where half the people have those kinds of bills.
We aren’t getting it, so best case is taking some steps to make things better and start us on that track. And this is where Krugman’s and Clinton’s focus on universal coverage as THE BIG THING worries me. Maybe it’s just that it’s overblown because it’s where the plans differ, but it looks like this is one point where her last effort went down, overlooking a bipartisan plan that wasn’t universal for her way or the highway. C and K get down to “if we just do one thing, it will be to get universal coverage.” Which I don’t think is a good last inch to fight for. I think you can get 90% of the populace on board with “Let’s insure all the kids, no gaps, since it’s not your fault if you get brain cancer, or hit by a truck, when your parents are out of work.”
As to the venom: I’ve seen it, and there’s more directed toward Clinton than Obama. Sometimes it’s offputting, though so are the 101 conspiracy theories advanced for every Obama victory. And I’ve seen the threats both ways, but polls suggest it’s the independents for Obama who mean it. We all have a while to calm down, anyhow.
But in January, a regular comment was “Where’s the vast right-wing conspiracy? I want to join.” Which I understood, because that was the month I went from “not my favorite candidate” to “I’d be embarrassed to vote for her.” I think people who in the 90s thought the Clinton venom bizarre and over the top found a little of it welling in their breasts.
OK, but don’t you think it’s understandable for independents, with no tie to the Democratic Party to feel that? And isn’t Krugman and other Clinton supporters conflating this segment of Obama supporters with all Obama supporters, including those who came through the Democratic party?
I would just like to reiterate my first point in this thread, in response to hilzoy’s
Clearly, you’ve been fortunately spared from interacting with too many Ron Paul supporters.
Krugman? Fake evenhandedness? I haven’t even seen authentic evenhandedness from him. Anyway, Hil, now you have a small taste of how Krugman’s arguments appeal to conservatives. His methods aren’t all that different.
Mark:
According to my Town Clerk’s voter rolls, I am independent, or “unenrolled” as we say around here. So why do I call myself a Democrat? Because I know, today, that I will vote for the Democratic nominee in November.
I know how I will vote in November because I hold certain principles. I believe in my principles — otherwise I’d hold different principles. The Democrats mostly espouse my principles, the Republicans mostly reject them.
I am willing to subordinate my preference of nominee to my principles. It sounds to me like “independents” are quite the other way: either they are more swayed by personalities than principles, or they really can’t see much difference between the two parties’rather distinct bundles of principles.
If “independents” all wanted the SAME Democratic nominee, I would gladly let them have their way in “our” primary. But then they would not exactly be “independents”, would they?
— TP
Like many people I know, it’s not that I don’t like Hilary, it’s that I REALLY like Obama. Part of it is his charisma — both it’s direct impact on me and my thoughts about what a charismatic leader (whose politics I like) might be able to bring to the country. And part is that his positions seem genuine and pragmatic to me. And part of it is idiosyncratic: He and I both graduated from Hi school in Hawaii in 1979, so — I know it’s meaningless, but it’s part of the reason I identify with him.
What rankles me about the Hilary supporters is their oft-stated assumption that those who don’t like her are doing it for the wrong reasons: sexism or internalized right wing Hilary hatred. I find that premise incredibly offensive. And incredibly arrogant. What if I were to say Krugman doesn’t like Obama because he’s a racist or he’s unwittedly bought into the right wing barak hussein muslim story? I give him more credit than that. He and fish and the HRC supporters should do the same.
Obama is a muslim muslim muslim muslim Muslim!
Oh, NTTAWWT, it would be irresponsible not to bring it up.
It’s good you put those words in quotes, since by your own account, regardless of what’s in your head, you’re not a registered Democrat, and, ironically, you appear to favor rules that wouldn’t allow you to vote at present in a party election.
Or they see things differently than you, valuing different sets of principles and seeing them expressed differently than you do by the candidates.
You do realize they’re “allowed” to do that, you know…
I don’t know, Krugman may well be going off of the content of the comments on his blog, which have been far more vituperative than what I’ve seen Krugman write at any time before his column today. I realize I may have missed some things and there are definitely issues with this most recent column, but what is it Krugman wrote before this that is a smear? I remember the “Paul Krugman Now and Then” thing which didn’t seem to hold up well as a criticism of Krugman. What has he written, exactly, that’s crossed the line from criticism into smear?
I’ve seen the same sort of thing happen with bloggers, too. Digby at Hullabaloo wrote a post criticizing Oprah Winfrey that contained a factual error about union presence on her show, and a bunch of Obama supporters descended on her site, issuing threats about forcing her into irrelevance, accusing her of supporting Hillary, and calling her a dishonest smear-merchant. It was an embarrassment, especially considering that she’d also criticized Clinton in the exact same post. It was just a really weird thing to see. I don’t really know what to make of it.
bbs, I think the swift reaction to digby (who made a really uninformed remark) was based on the fact that the internet is vacuum, where misinformation (particularly from an apparently reputable source) instantly expands to fill the news universe. Think Michael O’Hanlon (now thankfully discredited) “The surge is Working.”
“Or [independents] see things differently than you, valuing different sets of principles and seeing them expressed differently than you do by the candidates.”
At least one of them thinks exactly as Tony P. does, since Tony P. is registered, he says, as one.
“You do realize they’re ‘allowed’ to do that, you know…”
But Tony P. thinks people like Tony P. shouldn’t get a vote in party proceedings. That’s his argument. It’s weird, but that’s his argument. He wants a rule that would either a) prevent him from voting in a Democratic Party primary or caucus; or b) that applies to every other person not registered as a Democrat, except him.
Other explanations do occur to me, but they involve things like time travel, travel to alternative universes, and the like.
He’s the same Paul Krugman he’s always been. Just like John Cole, who’s also cited above. He was a rabid, blind baiter for the anti-left, and it loved him. Now he’s a rabid, blind baiter for the anti-right, and it loves him. It’s a good exercise in moderation to stand on the opposite side from your heroes once in a while and see how they cheat.
Callimachus, I can’t speak of Krugman, since I only recently began reading his column. As for John Cole, though: I’ve been reading Balloon Juice since long before his road-to-Damascus moment, and, to my recollection, you are wrong on both counts. He has never been sparing in his condemnation of what he sees as stupidity, among his allies or among his foes, and this is as true now as it was before.
Bbs, who has argued that Krugman wrote a smear? And who has suggested that Krugman has been more vituperative than his commenters? If we’re only holding op-ed columnists to the standard of being not as bad as blog commenters, then things really are going to hell.
Hilzoy, just because your analysis impresses me and I can’t figure this out at all: Why are the Clinton campaign and supporters ceding Wisconsin to Obama today? Primary state, few blacks–haven’t they been arguing that’s the kind they always win?
Charles and Slarti,
In the past, when I’ve been pointed to conservative criticisms of Krugman’s economics writing, I’ve found them to be…somewhat lacking. Perhaps I just hadn’t read the correct ones though.
In any event, I don’t think you’re going to convince anyone who otherwise thought Krugman was a generally smart economics writer by making one line comments in this thread. Perhaps one of you could write up a post laying out the evidence for Krugman’s alleged sins so that we could have a thread where people can debate the issue on the merits? It seems that Krugman is as incredibly evil as you say he is, it should be easy to find cases where he’s (for example) accused Bush of lying about the budget and provide evidence that Bush was telling the truth.
Gary:
You may find it hard to tell the difference between “independent” and independent, but I don’t. That’s why I bother with the quotation marks.
If you are committed to voting for the Democrat in November, no matter which one it ends up being, and no matter which Republican the GOP coughs up, I call you a “Democrat”. If your name has a (D) next to it on the voter rolls, I call you a Democrat. I have no immediate clue which of those you are, if either; I have made it clear which I am.
I want “Democrats” (like me) to pick the Democratic nominee. How you get from that, to time travel or alternate universes is a bit mysterious.
gwangung:
I can only interpret your last comment this way: some people want to elect a President who espouses and articulates Democratic principles, but they feel that only Hillary (or only Obama) does so. And if the Democratic Party fails to nominate Obama (or Hillary) they are willing to accept (or even vote for) a President McCain or a President Huckabee. Are THOSE the people of whom you write that “they see things differently” than I do?
If so, to return to the origin of this thread, neither Krugman nor Kleiman fit that description.
— TP
Wait, so the independents and Democrats with the scare quotes are the good ones?
And, Tony, neither Kleiman nor Krugman have said anything about staying home or voting for McCain if their preferred candidate loses. In fact Kleiman, at least, has specifically said he’ll vote for (and otherwise support) Clinton if she’s the nominee.
“Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts.”
-Krugman
Krugman has a valid point here. Obama has promised too much to be able to deliver. The federal budget is already on the brink of insolvency. Here is a list of new promises cut and pasted from Obama’s own website (sorry in advance for the long post, cut into pieces because the length doesn’t seem to make it through the filter):
* Obama will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal.
* Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels
* Under the Obama plan, full-time workers making minimum wage would get an EITC benefit up to $555, more than three times greater than the $175 benefit they get today.
* Barack Obama is committed to signing universal health legislation by the end of his first term in office
* Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.
* …climate change plan will invest in America’s highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers…
* Obama will also provide assistance to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient vehicles are built by American workers.
* The Obama plan will increase funding for federal workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate green technologies training,
* Obama will also create an energy-focused youth jobs program to invest in disconnected and disadvantaged youth.
* Obama will also extend the Production Tax Credit,
…To be continued…
I breathlessly await the next installment.
Try harder.
cut and pasted from Obama’s own website (sorry in advance for the long post, cut into pieces because the length doesn’t seem to make it through the filter
maybe a simple link would be more appropriate, then ?
Bill, Obama will do none of those things. Nor will Hillary do any of the things on her web site, nor will McCain.
That’s the wonderful thing about our style of government. It requires (unless the president is named George W. Bush) for Congress to make those decisions, including how to pay for the things it passes.
Now I know from your previous entries that you actually do plan on voting for Obama if he ends up with the nomination. It is just that Krugman is wrong as well.
And part of it is idiosyncratic: He and I both graduated from Hi school in Hawaii in 1979
Which school, if I may ask?
Bill’s next installment should include ‘Obama is going to force every young person in America to work for a measly $4000 dollars‘
* Obama will invest in rural small businesses
* He will improve rural schools and attract more doctors to rural areas.
* Obama will also increase the minimum wage and index it to inflation to ensure it rises every year. [note: Union pay and government contracts are tied to the minimum wage.]
* Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief.
* Obama will create a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners.
* Obama will double funding for after-school programs
* Obama will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses.
* Obama will also make the federal government a model employer in terms of adopting flexible work schedules
* Obama will create Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state “zero to five” efforts
* Obama will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both.
* Obama will also provide affordable and high-quality child care to ease the burden on working families.
* Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law.
* Obama will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts
* Obama will double funding for the main federal support for after school programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children.
… to be continued…
Not Prince Hamlet,
I did not go to Punahou like Obama. I am a public school girl, from Kalaheo. Are you a contemporary of mine and “Barry’s”?
KCinDC:
Yes, the “Democrats” are the good ones 🙂
And yes, both Krugman and Kleiman are “Democrats”. I don’t know, and I don’t care, how either of them is officially registered.
As far as I can tell, when an officeholder (Jim Jeffords, Joe Lieberman, Michael Bloomberg to name three recent examples) changes party affiliation, the operative official step is to file a new voter registration form. For all I know, Zell Miller is still a Democrat (note the absence of “scare quotes”), but I would not want him within a mile of a Democratic primary.
Now consider Colin Powell. He apparently says he’s open to supporting a Democrat in November. He is, let us suppose, a registered Republican. Do I welcome his support? Sure. Am I content to nominate a Democrat that will GET his support? Absolutely. Do I want him actually voting in the Democratic primary? Not if he declares he will turn around and vote for McCain in the general if he doesn’t get his way in OUR primary.
— TP
No, but my wife is (also public school), as are various friends (give or take a year or three).
* Obama will create new Teacher Service Scholarships that will cover four years of undergraduate or two years of graduate teacher education
* Obama will also create Teacher Residency Programs
* To support our teachers, Obama’s plan will expand mentoring programs that pair experienced teachers with new recruits.
* He will also provide incentives to give teachers paid common planning time so they can collaborate to share best practices.
* Obama will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit.
* Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees
* Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects
* Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth
* Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize
* Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund
* Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies.
* His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers
* Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities
* Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid
* Barack Obama will establish policies to help Americans currently facing foreclosure through no fault of their own.
* Barack Obama has re-introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act
* Barack Obama would expand the highly programs like the successful Nurse-Family Partnership to all low-income, first-time mothers.
… to be continued …
Obama will….
One of our nominal national goals for the last seven years, for our foreign policy at least, has been to eliminate evil everywhere around the world.
In comparison, Obama’s agenda seems concrete, modest and pragmatic. Hillary’s, too.
Thanks –
And now… Drum Roll Please…
…
…
…
Barack Obama’s Plan
Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington
Mark says it would be bad to make independents choose between:
1. Have no say in the party nominees, but then be forced to choose from those party nominees in the general election, OR
2. Sacrifice their personal principles by joining one of the parties and agreeing to vote for whichever candidate is the nominee of the party regardless of whether they find said nominee less desirable than the other party’s nominee.
Why would that be so bad?
That’s kind of the definition of “politics” — if you want any say in how things are done, be ready to compromise.
In real life, of course, nobody is forced to vote for anybody. But there is an understanding that joining a party means you will generally vote for its candidates. People can and should cross party lines in extreme cases. But there’s a lot to be said for day to day party loyalty — it lets you build coalitions that have some force and stability.
Independents I have talked to often seem proud that they refuse to make a commitment. It reminds me of people who want to live in a commune, but avoid the chores. If you really hate all the party nominees, get involved and organize. You might be surprised at how little effort you have to put in to get anyone, even yourself, elected to, say, the local school board, or to become the local district party chair.
Or, you can sit on the sidelines, grouse, and pride yourself on your independence. But don’t expect a lot of sympathy.
Bill, an awful lot of that list is small-ticket items, a few billion if that. As for the big stuff, I can see how it’s much more important to keep millionaires taxes low than to do those things. After all, look how much the tax cuts helped the economy over the last 8 years.
The real question is how the total for that list compares with the total current budget (or to Bill’s preferred budget) for killing Muslims.
We spend around $166 million per day in the “War on Terror”. We incur over $8 billion per day in unfunded entitlement liabilities per Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, without any of Obama’s proposed increases.
KcinDC; Please don’t insinuate that I would advocate a budget item for ‘killing Muslims’.
I have advocated a policy of disengagement from the Muslim world to allow them to sort out their own problems (the Democratic platform, I think).
I have also advocated a Constitutional Amendment stripping the teachings of Mohammed of the status of ‘religion’; welcoming Apostates as Citizens in good standing and giving those choosing to retain their allegiances to the ideology humane transport back to any Islamic country of their choice.
Muslims are people and I’m sure most of them are good. It’s the ideology that we need to confront.
So you see, Bill is perfectly reasonable.
I have also advocated a Constitutional Amendment stripping the teachings of Mohammed of the status of ‘religion’; welcoming Apostates as Citizens in good standing and giving those choosing to retain their allegiances to the ideology humane transport back to any Islamic country of their choice.
Can I declare Muslim for the weekend and get a free trip to Dubai? I’ve always wanted to visit Dubai.
Maybe some of that venom (negativity) is from the candidate and his wife, to the effect…I’ll have to think about that.”
From the Candidate: Her voters will vote for me but I don’t know thay my voters will vote for her (Implied: and I won’t do much to try to persuade them to do so)
From the Candidate’s Wife (when asked if she would vote for Sen. Clinton if Sen. Clinton becomes the nominee): “
I wonder if a commenter can be banned for self parody. It’s sorta like having a law against suicide–it’s for their own good, really.
Hm. If that’s venom, then I’d say you haven’t been out much.
Jim Parish: “He [John Cole] has never been sparing in his condemnation of what he sees as stupidity, among his allies or among his foes, and this is as true now as it was before.” That might be true, I don’t know. It seems he’s always cleaving the world into people who are exactly right and people who are total idiots. And after his road-to-Damascus moment, he switched the labels on the two bins. The tactics and the tone of his blog didn’t changed. He just turned about-face and started firing the same weapons in the opposite direction. And people who used to cheer him on now find him unjust and simplistic.
Which is why I introduce him as an example of how it might feel to people who usually applaud Krugman and who now find him firing in their direction.
From the Candidate’s Wife (when asked if she would vote for Sen. Clinton if Sen. Clinton becomes the nominee): “…I’ll have to think about that.”
IIRC, the question was not whether Michelle would “vote” for Clinton but whether she would “support” Clinton, and the context was actively campaigning for Clinton. Not unreasonable at all on its own, but according to MyDD of all places, followed by Mrs. Obama saying:
One of the things that can contribute to unnecessary venom is quoting people out of context, in my experience. FYI, YMMV, etc.
I wonder if a commenter can be banned for self parody.
Be quiet! You’re going to lose me my trip to Dubai.
Very regrettable that Krugman writes about an Obama cult when Obama has already been the subject of smears from the right about belonging to a secret Muslim cult.
As for Obama’s campaign happily supporting the media’s “Clinton Rules”, I think that’s unfounded, at best. In fact, Hillary’s New Hampshire primary win was attributed by Rachel Maddow and others to the “Tweety effect”, an outpouring of sympathy for Hillary against the excesses of media treatment. Democratic folks are on to the media’s “Clinton Rules”, and their anti-Hillary excesses are not helpful to the Obama campaign.
Fresh face + excitement = cult, huh?
*sigh*
Some folks are determined to take the fun out of politics….
I trust you’re aware that it’s nothing so innocent. It’s an extremely finely calculated line of attack, as are “he’s not ready,” “he’s not really a Democrat,” “he’s untested,” “he’s all fluff,” “he’s just talk,” “we can’t trust him,” “he’s unreliable,” “he’s as corrupt as the rest of them,” “he’s just another politician,” “he’s unproven,” “he’s inexperienced,” “he’s just a weird fad,” “he’s creepy,” and all the other lines of attack tried out to see which works, and then used by the Clinton campaign, and which will be adopted by the Republican campaign.
Innocence has nothing to do with this, either with the leaders who create the idea, or the followers who carry it out. Response varies, of course, depending on who you’re dealing with.
The total idiots I can understand, but who do you believe John Cole thinks is exactly right? Certainly no Democrat I’ve seen him write about.
“The total idiots I can understand, but who do you believe John Cole thinks is exactly right? Certainly no Democrat I’ve seen him write about.”
Although John does tend to charge off in every direction, and can go from 0 to 120 mph in sputtering outrage instantaneously, one of his many admirable qualities is that he doesn’t think John Cole is exactly right, but that he’s instead often wrong.
The tactics and the tone of his blog didn’t changed. He just turned about-face and started firing the same weapons in the opposite direction.
So if you change your opinions on something you also have to change your writing style and mannerisms. No wonder it’s so difficult to change!
Just a comment on the Stanley Fish columns Andy linked to: fair enough that you can’t blame Hillary for Bill. But, to affirm the point Vanya made, you can reasonably say that no matter what really good things Hillary brings to the table, the need for new blood, and the need to resist the dynastic formation that has begun to blight American politics at all levels outweighs it. Sometimes, one person, however good, represents in themselves an unacceptable political trend.
Consider: the Bush family, the Podhoretz family, the Kristol family, the Kennedy family, the Clinton family; nine more families and we have the ruling class of El Salvador. Americans who say that, however good a job Hillary Clinton might do, they want a name they haven’t seen before really do have a point. Saying not another Clinton doesn’t necessarily mean blaming Hillary for Bill. It may well mean resisting a dynastic trend that has the potential to seriously compromise American democracy.
If you can’t blame Hillary for Bill (which is fair enough), you also can’t credit Hillary for Bill, which is what she seems to want. From the feminist point of view, one of the more worrying bits about the ‘dynasty’ argument is how many of Hillary’s supporters may be voting for her because they actually want a third term of Bill. There would be a better argument for her as a politician in her own right, if, like female heads of state in a number of other countries, she was an ex-president’s widow, not his wife. (Note, this is not a call to assasinate Bill).
As an Obama supporter I still have to say that Krugman is right.
Krugman is as hard as anyone I have seen on Obama, and that is not very hard.
On the other hand Andrew Sullivan and Frank Rich spray spittle whenver they talk of Hillary. I hear Maureen Dowd is just as bad but I won’t read her. I just haven’t seen anything comparable aimed at Obama. CDS is real.
It seems that Krugman is as incredibly evil as you say he is…
Perhaps you can show me where I said Krugman was evil, Turb. What I actually did say was that Krugman lack evenhandedness, which is a supportable statement. Whether you’re convinced or not, that’s your choice.
Charles then
In any case, you don’t have to read that many columns to know the agenda of this bitter and vengeful man.
I guess ‘bitter and vengeful’ doesn’t equal ‘evil’, but I think it is in the same neighborhood…
I’m not sure what that link is supposed to prove, Charles, unless we are supposed to accept that partisanship or “even-handedness” is reducible to a math problem. Does any reasonable person believe that Michelle Malkin is, thanks to some arbitrary numerical index, less partisan than Paul Krugman? Or Coulter?
Um, dude, if you’re using those yardsticks to measure Krugman…well, I don’t think even Charles would go there.
Possibly I’m wrong, though.
Tends to depend on how one defines “evenhandedness.” CB apparently thinks it means saying the same number of positive things about both sides, or the same number of negative things about both sides, which of course is nonsense.
That type of thinking implies that both sides are identical in goodness or something.
By that definition, CB is one of the most unevenhanded people I know.
I wouldn’t deny that, and I don’t think anyone else here would deny that. I just think that conflating that with Obama supporters as a whole is unsupported and illogical. CDS may lead to support of Obama, but support for Obama does not mea you have CDS.
Slarti, I’m not using that yardstick — Charles’s link is. Click on through: Using their special formula, they rank Coulter and Krugman as equally partisan (a “61,” whatever that is), and Malkin some 13 points less partisan. So save your mockery for Chuck and his link.
But…it was playful mockery, Phil.
Sure, Charles’ link shows just balance of positive and negative commentary w/no weighting for extremism of the comment. I think that throws off the whole discussion of “evenhandedness”. I mean, I could be evenhanded, by that definition, if I made one perfectly reasonable criticism of Democratic tax policy, for instance, followed by a dig at baby-raping Republicans.
Which is why Coulter falls anywhere on the scale at all, most likely.
Waitaminnit — you mean Republicans don’t rape babies?
Well fsck me.
“if I made one perfectly reasonable criticism of Democratic tax policy, for instance,”
I didn’t know there was such a thing. And by that you could read either reasonable criticism or Democratic tax policy. 🙂
Well fsck me.
Why, are you a baby?
Tony P,
Methinks you’re missing the forest for the trees.
I love liberal/progressive policies. I hold many liberal/progressive principles. I have identified as liberal/progressive ever since I found myself rooting for Dukakis over Bush I, as an eight year old. That being said, I think Hillary will do more to damage liberal/progressive policies and principles than to advance them, and it is because of her method of politics. Using triangulation, manipulation, half-truths, fear-mongering and obfuscation (which have all been on full display by her campaign so far, albeit not nearly on the level of the Bush Administration), might get some of those policies enacted, but it will not get them to take root in the minds of the American people.
Just look at Reagan. Say what you will about the man, but he didn’t just enact conservative policies, he convinced Americans to be conservatives. On the other hand look at Bush…he did the half-assed method of enacting his policies based upon the above faulty methods instead of laying out prerequisite intellectual arguments. The result is that he has lost popular support for almost every principle he stood for.
I worry that Clinton will do the same for liberals as Bush did for conservatives. And unfortunately for her, no amount of competence or ambition will help her in this regard. It is born out of her tactics and methods, and her history, and it is a phenomenon not entirely of her own making. Throughout the years, the most hatred directed at her has been from those on the right using her same tactics to the nth degree. That is not to say that we should vindicate those on the right who use those tactics, but rather, that we merely recognize it on our side and make a conscious decision to rebuke it. When we do that, we will forge a new Democratic party that’s not only based on liberal/progressive policies, but on fostering a truly informed and enfranchised electorate, which will beget more responsive and accountable representative government in the longterm.
We have to think long-term here. Not just the next four-years-worth of policies.
Ben: it doesn’t get more long-term than the Supreme Court.
Ben: it doesn’t get more long-term than the Supreme Court.
True, and it’s my main worry about a McCain presidency. But I also have hope that a more empowered House and Senate will at least be able to pass some reasonable justices along the lines of Souter, Kennedy or O’Conner, rather than Scalia, Thomas, or Alito.
I have always liked Krugman, but he has been petty in some cases. That is not to say some of his points are not correct — they are. His close relationship with the Clintons, Hillary in particular, is clouding his objectivity, at times, and likewise many of Hillary’s supporters — some I suspect may be republicans. I do not notice that as much with Obama’s supporters, but that is not to say it does not exist; it does.
It is bothersome when someone is critical of Hillary, her supporters consider it hatred. And But least we forget that is the same scenario when criticism of Bush was considered spewing hatred. It is intended to shut-down discourse which is not a good sign. Thus I cannot help but wonder if the same would occur should Hillary become president. If so it would be disastrous for the country.
Iam a middle-aged female who is voting for Obama. I believe if anyone can unite the country he can. That is one of his appealing qualities among many others. If — god forbid — he does not win the nomination I will vote for Hillary because of the SCOTUS. With 6 of the Justices over 70 years of age it is highly likely at least one or two will step down.
I believe in social justice. However the 5-4 rulings have been unfavourable to the individual. Their rulings have empowered corporations and increased police powers. Today I read that Justice Scalia said, “It is “extraordinary” to assume that the U.S. Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” also applies to “so-called” torture.” That is scary.
Speaking of Scalia, he subscibes wholeheartedly to the 24 theory of ticking-time-bomb scenarios. Well, given that, I’m sure that if any of those cases ever make it to the Supreme Court, he’ll recuse himself.
HAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahah!
Sorry, I almost believed it for a second.
Ben:
As I said at the start: I voted for Obama, and I hope he wins. I did not do so to “stop Hillary”, although I do accept much of the case you make against her. If she ends up being the nominee, I will gladly back her in the general, because there’s a good case to be made FOR her, as well.
But “the forest” I have in fact been addressing is the question of what it means to be a Democrat. Not who should win THIS primary, but how the Democratic Party should pick its nominees in general. I say “Democrats” should pick the Democratic nominee, and I say “Democrat” should mean, at minimum, “not-Republican”. And I say people who declare they will vote for McCain unless the Democratic Party nominates X are NOT “not-Republican”.
Consider this asymmetry:
“I will vote for the Democrat in the general EVEN IF it’s not X”, versus
“I will vote for the Democrat in the general ONLY IF it is X”.
Some people consider the latter to be somehow more honorable or principled a stance than the former. The problem is, there are other people whose honorable and principled position is:
“I will vote for the Democrat in the general ONLY IF it is Y”.
Since there’s no way to satisfy BOTH the Xs and the Ys, my suggestion is that the best the Democratic Party can do is to find a way to let the EVEN IF crowd dominate its primary process. The EVEN IF crowd is neither apathetic nor monolithic — witness Krugman and Kleiman. I don’t know if it’s a large or small fraction of the party. But it is at least the “not-Republican” wing of the Democratic Party.
— TP
TP,
Within your postulation, there seems to be no room for reason beyond partisan lines. I’m as liberal/progressive as they come but I could easily see myself voting for Eisenhower over Carter in a hypothetical matchup. You seem to assume that only Democratic candidates can advance your ideals, and that Republicans will only impede your ideals, but often the opposite is true. I doubt a Republican would have credibly been able to pass Welfare Reform, or NAFTA, or the TeleCommunications Act with the credibility of Bill Clinton. Or conversely, and Andrew Sullivan made this argument on his blog today, no Presidential nominee would be able to leave Iraq as cleanly, quickly and decisively as McCain, regardless of his stated position on the Iraq War.
It’s not just about getting people elected to advance your ideals. You need to determine where your ideas fall along the ideological spectrum, and gauge how you think each of the candidates will inspire the electorate, and thereby alter the trajectory of the country, towards those goals.
I read a great quote recently that sums it all up:
“Politics is the art of getting morons to do the right thing.”
It’s not merely about picking the right policy and enacting it. If policy can’t be sold to the public, regardless of it’s actual merits or benefits, there is little chance it will take hold as an ideology among the American people. And if, through either clumsy rhetoric or underhanded tactics, a politician manages to destroy all public credibility for a policy, then he has done more harm then good for his cause.
Bottom line, I will always consider myself a liberal/progressive, and as such I will always have a home in the Democratic party, but I can think of plenty of scenarios where I think it would be helpful for me, my political ideology, and the Democratic Party, to vote Republican. We might not win every election with that philosophy, but it’s not enough just to win elections and enact policies. It’s about advancing a strong, coherent, politically stable, liberal/progressive ideology into the next generation and beyond.
Ben,
Like you, I can imagine a hypothetical Republican who is a better choice for progressive/liberal causes than his Democratic opponent. I’ve just never seen a real case in my voting lifetime.
I’ve tried to find the point about McCain that you say Sullivan made on his blog. Did I miss something? You seem to refer to a point he QUOTES from one of his readers, apparently so he can REFUTE it. In theory, it’s true that “McCain Leaves Iraq” would be akin to “Nixon Goes to China” in one particular way: selling it to the Neanderthal base of the GOP. But Nixon did not run on an “I will not go to China” platform the way McCain is running on his “We have to stay in Iraq” platform. It’s not remotely plausible that John McCain would get us out of Iraq as quickly as a President Obama (or even a President Hillary) would.
Incidentally, I call to your attention a different post on Sullivan’s blog today — the one titled “Republicans for Clinton”. Tell me whether the reader he quotes in THAT one ought to have a say in selecting our nominee.
— TP
I have no doubt that most of the venom that Krugman sees comes from Obama supporters. He has, after all, been on an anti-Obama tear for several months now. But he is an economist, and economists should know enough about basic social science techniques to be able to ask: am I working from a genuinely random sample? In the case of, say, Krugman’s email, the answer would have to be: no.
You’ve apparently learned a lot about basic social science since March 2007.
Wow, someone’s had a hard-on for the better part of a year…
You’re supposed to see your doctor if it lasts more than 24 hours. Now that swelling will never go down.
TP,
Here’s the Sullivan post I was talking about…
I’m more apt to believe McCain’s military-imperialist tendencies are a little more deep-seeded than that (going by his family history), but it’s a thought-provoking point.
Ben,
Thanks. I really did miss it when I looked the first time.
I can’t resists pointing out that, by Andrew’s logic, the President most able (rather than most likely) to “declare victory and get out” is in fact George W. Bush. He declared “Mission Accomplished” once, he can easily do it again.
And what the hell does Andrew mean by “muster a majority”? No President has to MUSTER a majority for getting out of Iraq — just stop thwarting it.
Oh, and by the way, the President most able (not most likely) to muster a majority for universal health insurance is … Ron Paul 🙂
— TP