We're not near 'Nixonland' yet
By Steve Benen Sunday Feb 10, 2008 8:15pmPaul Krugman’s latest column is generating a lot of attention, and with good reason; it’s a provocative perspective on the topic d’jour. I’m generally an enthusiastic Krugman fan — though I’ve been a little troubled of late by his apparent pre-occupation with opposing Barack Obama — and today’s piece takes a few interesting twists and turns.
In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”
The quote comes from “Nixonland,” a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein, the author of “Before the Storm.” As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.
And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.
Krugman goes on to lament the “bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination,” and all the “venom out there.”
Maybe I’m in the minority, but this primary fight hasn’t seemed that ugly to me at all. Indeed, aside from occasional moments of discomfort, and a few annoying direct-mail pieces sent by both of the leading candidates, it’s actually been kind of mild. Plenty of hardball, but not much in the way of dirtyball, at least not yet.
In 2004, a Democratic group affiliated with Dick Gephardt ran a TV ad that focused in on image of Osama bin Laden, while telling viewers that Howard Dean is unprepared for a “dangerous world.” That was ugly. Ron Brownstein recently noted, “At one New York City debate late in the 1984 race, Walter Mondale and Gary Hart battered each other so relentlessly that Jesse Jackson almost needed to physically separate them. In an especially heated 1992 encounter, Bill Clinton appeared ready to lean over and deck Jerry Brown.”
This year has been quite pleasant by comparison. Blog commenters have been hitting each other pretty hard, but the candidates? Not so much.
Login or Register to post comments.
"This year has been quite pleasant by comparison. Blog commenters have been hitting each other pretty hard, but the candidates? Not so much"
Agreed - and as long as it stays that way, an extended primary just means free media coverage all the way up to the convention with both candidates reminding the public over and over again how the policies that they would pursue are in line with the majority of Americans.
A bit ironic that Krugman is complaining about Obama in light of the Clintons' problematic behavior.
But if you want to see ugly, just wait until the real "split" of delegates.
"though I’ve been a little troubled of late by his apparent pre-occupation with opposing Barack Obama"
You make Krugman's case for him. Obama supporters are like cultists. They can't stand for anyone to ask hard questions about him. Thank goodness Krugman is paying attention. He is an economist and he knows when numbers don't add up.
He is also a shrewd observer of Washington, and he knows that unless Obama hires Pollyanna as a cabinet member, the Republicans will get what they want out of him. Obama is either naive, as Krugman kindly asserts, or he is cynical and willing to say and do anything to win.
His eloquent speeches that actually say little tell us all we need to know. He wants to be president. Period. He intends to do nothing to turn back the clock on Bushism. After all, he says the 60s and 70s were "excessive." In other words, he wants the Democratic base to shut up and assume the position.
Right now I am angriest at John Kerry. If he wasn't such a dope we would be talking about his re-election instead of this slap fest between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.
I suppose it was just a matter of time.pretty sad to see it undoing our party.
Bill Clinton in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."
This was in response to a question from ABC News' David Wright about it taking "two Clintons to beat" Obama. Jackson had not been mentioned.
Race-baiting isn't ugly?
I used to think highly of Krugman. His infatuation with Clinton and consequential trashing of Obama is inexcusable.
Maybe I’m in the minority, but this primary fight hasn’t seemed that ugly to me at all
I absolutely agree -- I don't find the Democratic primary campaigns to be viscious at all. The media is trying to fan nonexistent flames as they usually do. They are sexing things up so they can have an excuse to blather on endlessly about the 'bad blood' and 'ruthless political machines.'
Billy Bob @ 6:
Agreed, it seems Krugman either has an ax to grind or he desperately wishes it were 1992. I dont get it.
I think you miss the larger point that Krugman is making. It is the voters themselves that are getting nasty. At least the ones that post on the blogs that I read. I have to admit that I got frustrated with Obamania and once posted that I would not vote for him. There is a lot of time between now and November for me to change my mind. But I see the same thing and more coming from Obama supporters. That is what Krugman is saying.
He isn't talking about the candidates themselves getting nasty.
And is Krugman really bent on opposing Obama or is he just trying to get people to look at the details of the various proposals? Unless I am missing factual information that his critique of Obama's healthcare plan is wrong and he is denying it, getting people to focus on policy is a good thing. We need informed policy debates in this country, particularly after Bush.
Maybe so for the primaries, but I fear the general election will be a Nixon wet dream.
I love how the Clinton supporters refer to Obama supporters as cultists, or claim if you don't support Hillary, you're a misogynist or a Bush supporter and then claim that it isn't they who are doing the smearing. Get over it. What the hell is wrong with you people?
Those that refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Damn here we go again!
J>S> @ 8:
Could someone please point to specific information where Krugman is factually wrong? Everytime I hear that Krugman has an axe to grind or is flat out anti-Obama there aren't any facts for me to check. And please don't respond by saying just read Krugman, you will just prove his point.
mr. krugman is really started to depress me. if i have to i'll hold my nose and vote for whoever the democratic nominee will be. what mr. krugman is doing is the service for the republican party by publishing these depressing case against obama. i respect his opinion even though i disagree with him time to time, i'll always be a fan. but what he's writing these days almost as if he's handing talking points memo for the republicans to use in this november. either hillary or obama, we must win the election this time. someone has to tell him go easy on those "talking points memo" on obama.
Margaret @ 3:
its not that he isnt saying anything, its just that what he is saying, no one wants to look at from either side because it is so egregious and everyone's standing around guilty with blood on there hands.
read on
http://counterpunch.org/segura02112008.html
Obama supporters as cultists?! Oh, puh-leeze! Give me a fucking break! That's the biggest crock of shit I've heard yet from any pundit during this year's primary. Give us some credit, Krugman. I like Obama: he's the real deal. He's not perfect, but who the hell is? I ain't drinking any Kool-Aid. I'm just realistic about who and what it will take to end the tyranny of W's neocon, truly cultist regime. (How else to explain the likes of Alberto Gonzales, Condi Rice, and the rest who back W in his tyrannical ways when they should know better?) Krugman and the rest are entitled to their opinions. But nobody's got a monopoly on the truth and they've got no right to impugn the motives or intelligence of those with whom they might disagree. Oh, and by the way, I'm an economist, too, pal. And Hillary's numbers don't add up. I'm perfectly happy to support Obama -- warts and all -- because, no matter how you slice it, Hillary will bring out right-wing haters to pull the lever, not for McCain or Huckleberry, but AGAINST her and her hubby. Those 47% negatives she has are a pretty strong headwind.
Clinton's new campaign manager has an interesting history.
The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”
What country is this guy living in? I know he's referring to the Democratic primary, but based on the last eight years, Nixonland looks like Disneyland to me...
Krugman et al are getting really out of proportion. What's the real goal here people???
I support Obama because he is a great breath of fresh air, but I do not hate on Hillary in any way. The press even got me so worked up that I almost forgot that the Clintons are alright by me, in the end. I will support either person to take on John "Bomb, bomb Iran..." McCain. Let the "pundits" rant, but let the PEOPLE speak. End of story....
And for those who go on about how Obama only appeals to vague hopes without solid solutions, I say two things. First, read his frickin' website if you want to know the details!! - or has reading further (the horror!) gone the way of platform shoes? Second, let the voters speak - his recent margins do not lie. When he beats HRC, it's by 20-30% or more. When he loses, with the exception of some states, it ain't by nearly as much.
The problem that Krugman has with Obama is probably the same as many of the rest of us: the absence of substance. Krugman wants more substance, though given his chose field—the dismal science— you would think he would be have to be somewhat comfortable with "fuzzy" math and gauzy reasoning. Although I'm now backing Obama I'll never be a true believer like many of the uncouth posters; I date my support of hearing a blurb from Obama where he stated that the reason we don't have national healthcare isn't from the lack of plans but from a lack of will. I hope that the campaign Obama is running will allow him to create a Democractic tidal wave in November that will provide sufficient Congressional support enact the changes badly needed in this country. I think as long as Edwards was in the race I would never have backed Obama. As with any politician, you have to guess what he will attempt to do once elected and what he will be able to do.
If Clinton had ever apologized for her Iraq vote, I might have been able to consider her, but I've already seen what an always-right president can do and I don't want any more of the same (though if the choice comes down to HRC vs. 100-year-war McCain, the choice will be abundantly clear).
C&L, your utter inability to criticize obama in any intelligent way shows your colors more and more every day.
What would Zeus do? @ 20:
I think you mean 10,000-year-war McCain.
When people say Obama supporters are a cult, what they really mean is they are old and don't get it. And what do old people do when they don't get something? Call it something EVIL!
Bottom line, the Democratic establishment is completely out of touch with this election and are now realizing they're about to get tossed out on their asses for not doing jack shit for 8 years but meekly complain that things were better with the Clintons. They want Hillary to come in and slam the Repubs like they've been getting slammed during the Bush years. They want blue team over red team. That's it!! And this "fall in line with Hillary" bullshit will not fly.
I hope Krugman and everything he represents about the whiny, petty, resentful and jaded Democratic establishment will go away with the rest of the Baby Boomers and leave this nomination process up to the new generation. You know the ones who really WILL be effected by this election! In summation, STFU jaded liberal commentators!
the democrat tiffs are more in the line of msm reporting habits wherein at the sign of the first flake, every storm reported is the "blizzard of the century" which will dump 10 feet of snow, and have you inviting your kids to dinner like the donner party.
much ado about nothing.
Addendum to my previous post - Obama realizes that wonky details glaze over most people (sadly, yes) and goes for the more visceral, sweeping appeals that seem to work in these momentum plays. It is smart political calculus, and it is par for the course. But the wonky details are there for those who care enough to read on: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/.
can you please endorse obama already, so that we don't have to read your blog and pretend it's "neutral," just like the msm and other establishment blogs are neutral here, here, here, and here?
mo_dem @ 5:
Right. Clinton didn't mention that Al Sharpton only won 14% or 17% in South Carolina in 2004.
Krugman once had my respect. No longer. His desperation to get into the next Clinton admin after Bill dissed him in 1992 is too apparent.
For me, and I think for an awful lot of people, if Hillary's numbers against McCain were stronger than Obama's I'd support her. But they're not - Obama's numbers against McCain are stronger than Hillary's. Somebody correct me if Im wrong.
Until that changes, there is really nothing left to say, IMHO. Hillary v. Obama is pretty insignificant compared with Dem v. GOP in 08. That's my bottom line. We can argue over priorities later - but the GOP elephant needs to be removed from the People's living room FIRST.
the lack of critical thinking regarding the skewed primary election here is seriously disturbing. you've officially joined the msm. congratulations.
mo_dem @ 17:
Oh oh - she sounds almost .... cultist in her devotion to Ms Hillary.
I'm a 56 yo female atheist. I support Obama. I've never been in a cult before. It's very exciting.
Thank all of you for pointing this out to me. You are so very superior. Yes you are.
Senators Obama and Clinton are both excellent candidates. Their supporters are very passionate and that is as it should be. Something like 84% of Dems are happy with both candidates. The acrimony is primarily a construction of media talking heads who are desperate to find a new angle they can publish a viewpoint on. Krugman is a perfect example of this.
The campaign is much more remarkable for the presence of Kucinich, Gravel and Paul in the debates, at least a little. I've never seen any politician speak the truth in public in my lifetime. Gravel especially impresses me. I think, in better moods anyway, we are seeing the beginning of the end of corporate media dominated politics. But then it's too late anyway.
No, there has never been anyone in a presidential debate saying the sort of things they do.
I've been a Krugman fan for a while but his Obama bashing is getting more than a little tiresome. And, to your point, the tome of this particular race has, indeed, been exemplary. I'm not sure how or why Obama turned into Krugman's white whale, but it's really (and unfortunately) beginning to diminish his stature, in my humble opinion.
Billy Bob @ 6:
Krugman was actually a very strong Edwards supporter and that came from Edwards' strong position on the issues and Universal Health Care was the main issue that caught Krugman's attention.
He was avidly enthusiastic about Edwards revival of the issue in this campaign and the way he constructed his plan. Then Clinton basically co-opted Edwards plan which he wasn't happy about, but said what the hell if she gets it right.
Obama's plan was the weakest of the three he felt and you of course are familiar by now with the mandate debate that has ensued.
Given that Krugman has stated specifically that UHC will be the defining fight for the next President and is the key issue, in his opinion, on what will happen on the rest of the issues advanced by the next administration... his support for Clinton is not surprising.
He doesn't like Clinton... he likes her health care plan... He is issues oriented and that is why he has warmed up to Clinton. It is not "inexcusable", it is understandable.
"I’m generally an enthusiastic Krugman fan — though I’ve been a little troubled of late by his apparent pre-occupation with opposing Barack Obama ."
Really, Steve? Hmmm. I've been "preoccupied" with that, too. Maybe it's because Krugman sees that Obama's not the second coming of MLK/JC but an inexperienced fraud and corporate whore that the Brittany Spears/Youtube/Oprah generation has anointed as the next George McGovern/Fritz Mondale/Mike Dukakis.
Though I doubt many (if any) of the "hope and change" believers know who the hell they were...the outcome will likely be the same.
nancy @ 30:
I can smell your desperation all the way through the internets. It was fun while it lasted, Hill; maybe next time.
I think a lot of the stuff that has been considered dirty politics is just the media interpreting it that way, because the media WANTS the fight to be more dirty, and therefore more interesting.
I'll take Krugman’s words long before many other liberal (or "progressives" as they now like to be called). He's been at the baracades longer than most Obama 20-somethings have been alive. He is COMPLETELY correct that Obama's health care plan IS NOT universal and his right wing use of tried, tested and false right wing fear mongering-speak like Hillary's is "government forcing you to buy health insurance" is obscene in the highest degree. That' the point of UNIVERSAL health care. EVERYONE HAS TO BE ENROLL FOR IT TO SUCCEED. Look at ANY OTHER industrial country - that's the law and that's WHY they have UNIVERSAL health care. And let's not forget his republican-speaking notes that scocial security "is broken and needs to be repaired". The man is a republican in democratic clothing. Most of his followers strangely willing members of some deluded cult of personality movement. RFK? Ha. JFK?. Ha. Ha. Not as I remember them. Reagan? Yes, Reagan is much more likely.
SeaMBA: I can't speak for myself, since I did turn into an asshole a few days ago, too, but I imagine we Obama-ites are playing hard, because we want to win. The Edwards supporters just wanted instant gratification about being more "progressive" than the rest of us, while the Clinton supporters wanted to "feel good" about a womun Prezint. But we want a guy who can actually shake things up.
And Hillary doesn't have the influence to get ball rolling towards UHC like Obama.
C'mon, Steve! The meme here is "dog fight". And everybody knows that ain't right!
How DARE anyone question the messiah! haven't you come ta Obama yet!? Just as soon as he's done walkin on this water he'll turn it into koolaide for his cultist...OOPS, followers! Lots of HOPE for some CHANGE! In fact, let's hear from his backup singers now, can I have a BIG hand for the HopeNchangers!!!!! No, no, don't look for any specifics, no, no, don't worry if the messiah appears to LIE in videos from differant times about the same subject, he's the MESSIAH...HOPE...CHANGE....Guiana Grape koolaide being served in the center ring now, be sure and get some before bording the busses for the caucuses!
"I’m generally an enthusiastic Krugman fan ",....
Really?
Please give us at least one example of your enthusiasm for all things Krugman.
And then explain in detail why you suddenly "lament" him.
Could you do that for us?
secularhumanizinevoluter @ 43:
Heh, out trolling tonight?
Yeah, none of the idiotic verbal diahreha from the obamazoids here qualifies at all huh? Troll, troll, troll this blog, flush it down the tuuuuubes....
Forget about the difference between Obama's and Clinton's health care plans. They're both incremental platitudes designed not to piss off the health care industry too much. Can't have a reappearance of Harry and Louise can we? Not that that will matter to the health care and insurance lobbies, they'll come gunning for any Democratic plan. It's all or nothing for the big corporate interests. Neither plan will ever become law. The only thing that matters is that a Democrat appoints the next one or more Supreme Court nominees.
secularhumanizinevoluter @ 46:
Heh, we can tell what you are because you don't understand how Liberals and Leftists think. Even though you pretend to be a Clinton supporter, you can't help acting like a typical bed-wetting Republican. Democrats just don't conduct themselves like that.
I would say the press is a bit biased against Clinton and likes to paint Obama as a saint. That's the narrative they've chosen and are too afarid to move away from. However, that's much better than how they framed the Edward's campaign: DOA. So I'm down to my third choice for president and I am willing to vote for HRC as my fourth if it comes to that. Come November, I'll be behind whoever we nominate, though it'll be like '04: I'll know I'm supporting a rather imperfect candidate but one whose flaws are infinitesimal when compared to the whacko being run by the GOP.
Snowball @ 48:
Oh, paleeze. Give that "we are soooo superior" BS a rest. Even I don't buy that crap.
I was a Krugman fan.
He's lost it.
Margaret @ 3:
Your opinionated reference to Obama supporters as "cultists" is insulting and unnecessary. Go ahead, ask all the hard questions you want. The answer you get won't be what you want to hear, but too bad. Feel free to take it down a notch in the name of civility, please.
And if you support Hillary, read this and realize that your candidate is hardly a scion of virtue:
www.paulloeb.org/articles/HillarySleaze.html
bt @ 7:
I concur as well. What worries me is how the media wants there to be a dirty fight between the Democratic candidates. But I think it's a credit to both the candidates themselves and to Howard Dean (whose fingerprints at least seem to be all over the decorum of the Democratic debates) that the two camps aren't now constantly slinging mud. There have been moments, but it hasn't been as bad as Democrats have been in the past.
To wit, this thread.
Perhaps Mr. Krugman sees his cabinet position slipping away.
Well yes, now that you mention it, we are a breed apart from the Neanderthals on the right.
The Liberal Mind vs the Conservative Mind -- Genetic?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howie-klein/the-liberal-mind-vs-the-c_b_85...
SeaMBA @ 9:
I was going to add that part of Krugman's column but you beat me to it. Strange that Benen left it out, because without it it makes it look like Krugman was saying the campaigns were viscious, when he clearly says it's some of the supporters.
"Blog commenters have been hitting each other pretty hard, but the candidates? Not so much."
Benen closes with that conclusion, making it sound like he and not Krugman thought it up.
No the candidates aren't down to the slime level yet, but obama's supporters are there. Have you noticed the way they follow Bill Clinton, and heckle. And the way they boo Clinton. At least Hillary's supporters have the decency to let obama speak and not boo and heckle him. That's the difference between the two candidates supporters.
And you all know the MSM, the republicans and obama's supporters are constantly flaming and slurring Hillary Clinton. And the MSM is doing this country, a dis-service as they always do, by not reporting on all the negativeness about obama, his lack of direction. His vapid performance in the state senate and the federal senate. Don't you think that the only reason he is winning any state is because he has the presence and Hillary doesn't. He can smile and speak and the young bunch run to him. And then he has the bunch of men who are afraid to support a woman, who are afraid to have a woman in charge, a woman who could really run this country and they to jump on obama's band wagon because he is the almighty MAN.
But Obama's a uniter - not a divider! Guess Furious P didn't get the memo. Oh let me guess - I'm an oldie who should go back to the 1950's where I belong - right? Hate ta tall ya friend - but Senator Obama's pushing 50 the hard way (he was born in 1961). When exactly will he be too old for you?
Johnny2Bad @ 36:
Better think again, Johnny. I worked leafleting in Mc Govern's campaign in 1972. And if you think Mc Cain will bury Obama you must be out of your mind. Mc Cain isn't Nixon and this isn't 1972 any more, either.
Slamming and insulting Obama and his supporters adds nothing meaningful or positive to our political dialogue. Why don't you give it a rest and instead, tell us what you are going to do now that Edwards is out of the race?
bmw 528 @ 52:
obama's supporters are as close to a cult as you can get. Not one of the twisting, thronging mass can tell you what he really stands for, what his postions are and what he plans to do....he is charming and he has a big smile and can give a preacher style speech written for him by someone else, probably a woman. And it fires them up. They have celeb stars in their eyes...why in the devil do you think American Idol is so popular they have a cult following. Now the men who support him because they are afraid of woman that's another story. One thing this has done, is show woman that men are really the weaker sex. MEN WHO ARE NOT MUCH OF A MAN IN THE LONG RUN. And that it is about time that woman took charge. With the mess the men have made of the world, woman can't do worst.
You're imagining things or making them up. What the hell is the matter with you? Are you so wrapped up with your identity politics that you've lost your sense of reason?
Marge @ 60:
The idea of having a woman in charge doesn't bother me in the least, in fact I welcome it. Competence, integrity, and values are the most important things, not gender. Having to listen to your opinionated nonsense about men however, is a bit much.
Has it been so long since we've had a small "d" democracy that we've forgotten what it looks like? To Mr. Krugman: it's called D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y and I prefer honest, honorable debate to the claptrap bullshit we've been forced to endure these past seven years! Disagree and you're not a "patriot;" disagree and and you're "with the terrorists;" disagree and you're a "traitor." Would we even HAVE a United States of America if our Founding Fathers had followed such a philosophy?
I'll vote for a black man, or white woman, or anybody who's not a Republican in the general election. Give it a rest Clinton supporters. Some of you are becoming unhinged.
I thought that Krugman might be referring to Frank Rich's columns.
Still, I completely agree with this post.
That being said, supporters of both Obama and Clinton are beginning to weird me out.
Look: Obama's supporters are not a cult, and Hillary's people are not evil minions of satan.
Maybe all of this emotion stems from the fact that liberals have been on the losing end of things for so long that we just can't handle the feeling that we might win big in '08.
Marge @ 57:
Over the weekend something occurred to me. I have been commenting on various blogs for a while now, but it was only recently that I started getting nasty and viscious responses.
This happened when I either criticized Obama or defended Hillary, and the attacks were from Obama supporters, at least so I thought.
I would say something good about Hillary, and I would get personally insulted, kind of like "Hillary is good" receiving a "You are an asshole" response.
But then it occurred to me that these comments were not necessarily coming from real Obama supporters, but from ratfuckers. Ratfuckers were Nixon's dirty tricks people who covertly tried to sabotage his opponents campaigns. One of those ratfuckers was Karl Rove.
That would be exactly the kind of thing Rove would use as a tactic - pay people to pose as Obama fans intentionally picking fights with Hillary supporters, and vice-versa.
If that sounds farfetched, consider that when the madrassa smear against Obama first surfaced, they tried to frame Hillary for it. Rove would consider that a two-fer.
Marge @ 60:
what in god's name are you talking about?
http://townhall.hillaryclinton.com/ great video. really interesting and spontaneous too.
this is the first time in history where the internet has truly come into play
dean touched on it during 2004, but the blog itself was just coming into its own
this is also the first time in dem history where we have had 2 strong candidates, whose supporters feel this strong about their respective candidates
so it makes sense that the discourse would be heated amongst the denizens of the internets
the candidates themselves havent really been that heated, they have left that to their handlers
i think the whole thing is rather cool
myiq2xu @ 66:
Indeed. Karl would approve of the divisive politics of confrontation and division that they think has worked so well for them. Think about it--do we want this ratfucker to poison our party too?
I'm a big Krugman fan too and was more than a bit confused by this column. HOWEVER, please don't confuse "Obama bashing" with "criticism". Just because he is critical of certain aspects of Obama's platform does not mean he is "bashing"
You folks are hilarious. Have a little self-confidence in your choice and it won't matter to you that someone else disagrees, so you won't feel compelled to peek around corners, suss out hidden motives, and play rhetorical games. Can't you see that? Or are you all just in too deep? Damn, go run around the block or something, and look forward to a Democratic presidency and congressional super-majority in 2009.
Time to bring back Joe Friday -- "Just the facts."
myiq2xu @ 66 points out that perhaps the nastiness is a result of the vast right-wing conspiracy. myiq2xu might well be right.
A good way to weed out the ratfuckers and to honor the values of progressives would be to give up the personal blog post attacks (feeding the trolls?) and only respond with facts (preferably with links). Remember we are supposed to be part of the fact based reality. Facts matter to progressives.
Too bad Obama supporters don't know the difference between effect and affect. One is a noun, the other is a verb. I guess that most of them just want their parents and all other baby boomers to move over and die. I know respect is a thing of the past. Paul Krugman is right. All that you have to do is read the blogs now to see who attacks the most and understands the least.
Have you seen the new Clinton ad, just out tonight? It shows Paul Krugman in a parachute, falling, falling, falling towards earth until finally the screen goes dark.
The "Obama supporters are cultists" meme has been really picking up lately. It started in the Corporate Media with this:
Slate editor calls Obama speech style 'fascistic'
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Slate_editor_calls_Obama_speech_style_0204...
I highly suspect that the people employing this silly, nonsensical and outrageous smear, are Republican operatives engaged in a tactic used against antiwar activists in the 60's by the government called Triple D: Distract, Divide and Discredit. They would infiltrate activist groups, attack organizers and float untenable conspiracy theories to disrupt meetings and divide the group.
As for me, my favorites have all been shunted aside due to our unfair primary system. I'll vote in the general election for either nominee. I think Obama has the best chance of winning, but I don't really care that much which candidate wins. By hook, or by crook, I'm voting Democratic.
...waiting for the troll attacks...123
go ahead, call me a conspiracy theorist.
cleo @ 73:
Nice. Now take your own advice.
It seems to me, a former Edwards supporter, that there is plenty of blame to go around for both Clinton and Obama supporters. I am beginning to think that all of you are nothing but Republican trolls trying to disgust the rest of us.
Instead of insulting each other, how about stating your reasons for supporting your candidate of choice. I would rather hear what Clinton or Obama can do to fix the mess that George W. Bush has left us. All of the backbiting and sniping will do nothing but usher in four years of President McCain. Let's keep our eyes on the prize, people.
Maybe if we all take our medication, and ask really, really nicely, Gore will agree to be the nominee.
But seriously folks. I don't think this political season is uglier than the ones that came before. But it is definitely more wired than any of the national elections that preceded it. It used to be that if you wanted to vent your spleen about a candidate, you had to stand out on the sidewalk and rant, or pass out leaflets. Or get your friends drunk. Now, it's all too easy. And amplified, distributed and preserved.
It's not uglier than what came before: The internet just makes it easier to get to the ugliness.
cleo:
No, I just want them to stop ripping off our children and grand-children.
SeaMBA @ 72:
One thing I noticed is that the really vicious "Obama supporters" don't ever say much about him at all, they just attack Hillary and anyone who supports her.
They also regurgitate standard wingnut meme's about Hillary, often word for word. What caught my notice was the attacks on Chelsea, calling her ugly. They also call Hillary a bitch, whore and make fun of her laugh (cackle) and similar things.
Since when do liberals and progressives talk like that about women? Obama sure doesn't.
krugman's getting funnier as the times goes bye bye. he's so into the idea that he's right on everything, that he can't see when he's wrong on anything. that must be why he's at the times in the first place.
myiq2xu @ 80:
Um, that would be John McCain who made the Chelsea joke. I haven't visited any blogs where real Democrats are saying anything like that about either side either for or against Obama or Clinton. This is all manufactured huff and puff by the Rovian attack machine.
Both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters are headed out to the polls in the general election to elect a Democrat. No amount of divisive clowning by Republican trolls can stop that. Get used to it.
Snowball @ 82:
Go read the comments on the Saturday thread regarding the joke McCain told about Chelsea.
Some of the comments there were really putrid. "So what- she is ugly" was fairly mild compared to the worst ones. Much worse than the typical troll.
“a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. "
I hardly think that this is a recent phenomenon. Certainly any student of American history would know that much worse things were done long before the phone was invented.
cleo @ 73:
Actually both can be nouns and both can be verbs, though "affect" is pronounced differently when it is a noun.
Billy Bob @ 6:
hareli @ 28:
What absurd comments! Just look at C&L comments over the last couple of weeks and you will find loads of anti-Hillary rants from the Obama groupies. I remember responding to one that called here a bitch. And another than called her a witch. Then there is all Hillary bashing, hate filled KOS and nasty Huffinstuff sites. What is inexcusable is that Krugman is quite right and Tom says to you silly posters: "When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon."
Yes, please ignore the content of what Krugman said completely. I think he is saying that Obama supporters are not helping elect someone so much as they are using the same GOP talking points and tactics to pull the other candidate down. It appears that the cult of Obama does not want to support the work everyone has done to oppose Bush and the GOP. They only want what they want, and they will cry and go home if they do not get it. 'Cause this primary has devolved into a sorry personality contest of surface meaning. No thinking anywhere.
Tom reminds the Obama supporters about a certain shoe and another foot, and says: "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself."
Of course this campaign hasn't seemed so bad to you! You're an Obama fan. Obama has received ZERO scrutiny. Hillary Clinton on the other hand was gang assaulted from day one. From Tim Russerts' moderator (ha ha)role in that bias NBC debate where one half of all the questions were regarding Hillary Clinton, to Chris Matthews calling Hillary a "she devil" and accusing her of trying to smother poor baby Obama in his crib, to pile ons by the liberal blogger a-holes (same people who voted for Nader and gave us 8 years of hell cuz Al Gore was just as bad as Bush), and Obamas' own wife isn't sure she could vote for Hillary if she won the nomination... not to mention the Republican pricks like Hannity and Limbaugh and all the rest of hate radio. Obamas' just been having his fur stroked from day one by the media. They're just setting him up like a golf tee and frankly I can't wait for them to tear into him like they have Hillary.
58 The Fat Lady Sings Says:
23 Furious P Says:
When people say Obama supporters are a cult, what they really mean is they are old and don’t get it. And what do old people do when they don’t get something? Call it something EVIL!
But Obama’s a uniter - not a divider! Guess Furious P didn’t get the memo. Oh let me guess - I’m an oldie who should go back to the 1950’s where I belong - right? Hate ta tall ya friend - but Senator Obama’s pushing 50 the hard way (he was born in 1961). When exactly will he be too old for you?
Hey! I respect my elders but come on now! I can't wait to turn on Hardball tomorrow and see Chris Matthews turning to Paul Krugman, "So, the Cult of Obama. What is with the crazy kids?" Honestly, did you ever think you'd be in a position to argue against a youth movement in politics? I mean Baby Boomers should know better! Womens rights, civil rights, I fully understand these things would not be around without the Boomers.
But c'mon! Cult? Seriously? What benefit does calling enthusiastic young Democratic voters "a cult" simply because they're involved the process! It's madness and you know it!!
Snowball @ 82:
Just out of curiosity snowball... how old are you? Its not a loaded question, but I am curious.
I don't get the sense that Krugman is angling for a job in a Clinton administration. He wrote this a few days ago:
There's a bit more detail in the article.
Krugman has been falling off the rails for the past couple months. He started going left a while ago but now he seems to have drunk the socialist kool-aide among other things..
bmw 528 @ 69:
Piling on. Something does seem a little off in the comments re HC vs BO, and it smells like a ratfucker to me too...
Not a dead-rat fucker, though - that's Delay's stink.
To be fair, ratfucker-Rove could just as well be working both sides of this fence. I've seen unbalanced Rethuglitard style meme laden crap coming from both directions. Then again, I have a passion for dispassionate discourse. And funny shit...
snoozer @ 90:
Actually I found the intro very interesting...
It seems that you've found the motivation for the current article which is the subject of this post. He's a Harvard economist and looks at the candidates proposals, crunches the numbers, consults with experts in the various fields in question at other universities and gives an opinion.
When the opinion based on the facts about an issue don't support a candidates proposal he says so and then he gets jumped on...
His skid works for Clinton's campaign...
He was Clinton's advisor in 92...
He is angling for an administration post...
and the full range of ad hominem attacks... he's off his rail, I used to like him but this is inexcusable yada yada yada.
All this whining on this thread is nothing more than... You don't like my favorite.... Waaaahhhh!
Billy Bob @ 6:
I totally agree. He has lost all objectivity and it has hurt his credibility. I started out undecided, but the Clinton camp has really turned me off to the point I now support Obama. And the more I see Bill and Hillary, the more I am sure I don't want to see her face and hear her voice on TV for the next four years. Obama is inspiring, thoughtful and the most intelligent candidate we have seen in a very long time. It takes someone with remarkable ability not to need to go the low road.
Furious P @ 88:
No that isn't what they mean at all, sorry. You seem to want to divide us by age. Perhaps younger people fall for this more often than older people. Haven't seen any studies on that. Yet you, talking on behalf of your candidate, claim to be the only uniter. How curious. Of course the red light went on for me when Obama wanted to unite with the right-wing to praise Reagan as the only source of ideas over the last generation. You would have to be young and not know any history to fall for that one.
This isn't quite calling you the same as Scientology. Here is what Wikipedia says about the commonly used political term: "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."
Krugman is comparing the last guy who got a free pass from the press (Bush) with the guy who right now is getting a free pass from the press. And that seems to have nothing to do with your age or trying to insult babyboomers.
I am beginning to think that Krugman is very intelligent in his mind, but not in his emotions! He just does not seem to "get" the dynamics of human relationships! That is certainly ok for an economist, but I wish he would quit with trying to comment on human (i.e.,campaign) dynamics!
Kate Madison, LCSW
Depoe Bay, Oregon
i agree with the poster on this one, i don't think it's really been all that bad. I wonder how much fear is driving this democratic split. In the Blog world with all of us political junkies it seems we're all afraid that we're gonna lose the presidency (as unbelievably difficult as that would be to accomplish) so people are getting really really fired up, with the MUP worshippers on one side and Hillary's guerilla force on the other. Really too, i think the most heinous things on both sides have kind of cancelled each other out, Bill's Jesse Jackson comparison and Obama's universal health care attack (what is that couple's name again?).
I think the most dick-headed comments come from the trolls on either side, a lot of people are perfectly willing to make nice normal arguments (or at the low end, repeat HELLA talking points) without being so pissed and angry all the time. Along with the pundits/bloggers, using big words to say the same BS that the trolls shoot.
Obama 08
(If you wanna read a reasonable supporter of Obama, read balloon juice)
hey look at that, i can't use html for shit!
Some have noted that Krugman's big issue is health care. His reasoning is that Clinton's plan is better than Obama's. On one level I agree, but it isn't hard to come up with a plan that is superior to either candidate's plan -- it's called s i n g l e--p a y e r. The only flaw in that plan is that it has zero chance of becoming law under the next president (no matter who wins).
Unfortunately, Clinton's plan also has zero chance of becoming law. And what is the one feature above all others that the Republicans will use to stop Clinton's plan -- surprise, it just happens to be mandates, the part of Clinton's plan that Krugman prefers to Obama's.
The Right is already screaming about mandates and how Hillary is going to go after everyone's paycheck. Does anyone doubt how that will be received by the majority of Americans after the inevitable ads hit television? As long as there are 41 Republican senators, mandates will never pass. (I'd bet your life on that, but maybe not my own. I only bet my own life on outcomes I can control, which, the last time I checked, is an empty set.)
Which candidate is more likely to have coat tails that could significantly increase the number of Democratic senators? It's hard to imagine that being Clinton. Neither candidate is likely to have 60 Democratic senators to work with, which actually means having 63, 64, or even 65 after you subtract Ben "The High Plains Socialist" Nelson and other conservative Democrats. Obama is better positioned to provide coat tails, but even he on his best day doesn't stand much chance of getting a Senate with anywhere near the 60+ he'll need.
Obama has the weaker plan, because it lacks the one feature that is the absolute show stopper in Clinton's plan. That means there is at least some possibility (though I think small) that it will get through the Senate. If that's true, then the weakness in Obama's plan is actually its strength and Krugman has completely missed this little detail.
I think the chances of meaningful health care reform in the first two years of a Democratic presidency are near zero. Of course, they are less than zero for a McCain presidency; meaning that he and his ilk could make things worse than they already are. One should never forget that most Republican politicians aren't interested in universal health care. They see it as a negative thing.
Since Clinton's mandates are a non-starter, that means her plan is too. Krugman's analysis is superficial and unrealistic. It's hard to believe that someone as smart as he is can't see the problem with his reasoning. Or maybe he can, but since it's the only policy difference of significance that he can find between the two candidates he's latched onto it for all it's worth, which I think is absolutely nothing.
For reasons that I don't understand, I'm afraid Krugman's living in his "Anybody But Obama" period. Maybe he's afraid of change.
nancy @ 21:
You're an idiot. C&L has remained remarkably neutral during this whole affair. Register that complaint at Huffpo, that's where the real Obama bias is. And then go over to Taylor Marsh and get a whiff of the Clinton worship.
Also, learn to read.
Obama 08
Furious P - First of all - I am not a Boomer. I fall into the generation that came after. And I didn't use the word cult. I'm just sick and tired of all the ageist bullshit. Boomer’s and those who came after are all still involved in the life of this country. I'm as active politically now as I was at 18. The first time I marched in support of anything I was in elementary school marching with my friend’s ‘Boomer’ mother in support of farm workers. Been there, my friend. I was also a HUGE supporter of Obama. I was writing about him long before he even declared his candidacy.
What has turned me off is the mans divisive politics. Your anti-age comment is an example of that. Almost every Obama supporter I've run into has spoken derisively of women or anyone they consider 'too old'. That kind of casual dismissal comes from the top. Senator Obama should be asking those who support him to do so in the spirit of unity. He doesn't - and that bothers me a great deal.
Should he be the nominee - I will vote for him. Not out of enthusiasm, unfortunately – but because McCain's a nightmare. If you want to persuade people that Senator Obama’s a wonderful candidate – denigrating people is not the way. Far too many Obama supporters seem to relish insulting women or anyone they label ‘old’. Well Obama’s a Boomer. Doesn’t that disqualify him in your eyes? If not – then the odor of your mendacity fairly permeates the room.
And Tom the Patriot @ 96:
I didn't say this:
When people say Obama supporters are a cult, what they really mean is they are old and don’t get it. And what do old people do when they don’t get something? Call it something EVIL! But Obama’s a uniter - not a divider! …But c’mon! Cult? Seriously? What benefit does calling enthusiastic young Democratic voters “a cult” simply because they’re involved the process! It’s madness and you know it!!
Furious P did. My comments are above.
Thank you,
The Fat Lady Sings
Oh really...
HR 676 is the "single payer" health care plan proposal in the House and it has only gotten 70 co-sponsor and isn't going anywhere.
However, if you really study the issue of health care you'll find that the only real way to cost reduce health care effectively is to institute a single payer system, so the challenge then is how to move the country to such a plan gradually in a manner that is acceptable to all parties over time. (excluding the insurance companies because they are the problem).
The plan that Edwards drafted and Hillary copied places a government "not for profit" plan in direct competition with the "for profit" plans. If people like their private plans they can keep them, or they can opt for the government plan if they choose to do so. That places the choice in the hands of the American people as to what they want... its is the consumers choice.
If enough people choose the government plan it can evolve into a full single payer system. In short it offers a pathway to it.
Would you explain to me if there is a pathway for such development in the Obama plan. I've read it on his site and I and other health care policy authors like Ezra Klein haven't been able to see how it does.
Please enlighten me if you will.
Thanks.
I hate to say this, but Obama reminds of me of a not so long ago president (still is btw) that also started out his presidency with a lot of Hope. He is loved by many when he became president, and he vowed to restore the trust and credibility and decency when he became president. His administration too, is full of young people, brash, idealistic, and single-minded (to the point of exclusivity) people who are bent on pushing Hope (agenda) to the rest of the USA and the world. He vows to institutionalized his Hope (which he did). He too has a vision, and he and his army are ready and so very eager to ridicule all those who dare defy and pokes reality into His Vision. Guess where he is now.
Friends tell me that Obama will be different, Obama is eloquent, can write, and most importantly he is black. But if history is any indication, that alone is not enough. He is one and the same as that president, albeit with a different skin color, different kind of Hope/Vision (i.e. agenda), and the same corrupt brash idealistic naive and destructive zeal to government.
All I want is pragmatism and be at the center, not swing too far in either direction. Maybe I am too old, but heck I am in the 30s.
I'm an academic economist who managed an insurgent Congressional campaign last year. I had supported Krugman since I first met him 14 years ago. He was the first to predict the 1998 Far East economic meltdown and famously said that every South Korean could earn a PhD and they'd still not catch up with the U.S. in per capita income. He was attacked relentlessly by the right after he began his quite moderate, DLC-ish column for the NYTimes. However, he has really gone off the deep end in his relentless assaults on Obama this election cycle. His economics are at best shakey when he says Social Security is totally sound and Obama is giving aid and comfort to the enemy (i.e., the GOP) by suggesting it isn't. And his claims that Obama's lack of a total mandate in his health care plan disqualifies him as a credible presidential candidate is, to put it charitably, overstated. The economics of Clinton and Obama are exceedingly similar, and the medical care plans that pass will most likely be the result of Democratically-dominated Congressional committee work. So why is Krugman making such a fuss? His latest column reveals the answer. The professor has left his area of expertise and gone over to the dark side of partisan see-no-evil supporter. He now has swallowed the Hillary spin doctors lines that Obama and the press and bloggers are the ones responsible for playing the race card in addition to their hate for everything Clinton. We economists sometimes are so politically naive, and Paul seems to be one of them. Perhaps Maureen's over the end columns drove him to temporary madness. Please come home Prof. Krugman. "We want you back." We miss your rational, economics-based analyses of sane, regional and global public policy and defense of free trade combined with education, training, R&D and infrastructure against the special-interest and simplistic (suicidal) protectionists from the right and left. Leave the non-economic politics to Frank Rich and others.
The odd thing about this personality cult idea is that on 60 minutes Senator Obama explains that he was criticized early on for talking too much about issues so he went to the inspiring speeches. That is what a cult of personality is built on, and the way it is built. I just hope there is some substance behind it. I am a bit freaked that he used the "Harry & Louise" style ads. A little more freaked that he considers the Republicans the party of ideas. But, the thing that scares me most is that he seems to think that Republicans will respond positively to his message of hope. You can't eat hope, and if we don't get the Republican obstructionists out of congress, hope is all that there will be to sustain many of our citizens.
Hard times are coming people. Every year more people are slipping into poverty, while corporate swines gobble at the public trough, and plans are made for how to control the mobs when martial law is declared.
I am an old boomer, sitting here in my "hermetic order of the shrill" Tshirt, wondering what kind of person would claim that an entire generation of citizens should die off because they are inconveniencing him by going around acting like they're people. Power to the correct people, I guess.
EconProf @ 106:
EconProf @ 106:
Since you are an academic economist could you answer a question for me about Obama's health care plan?
HR 676 is the “single payer” health care plan proposal in the House and it has only gotten 70 co-sponsor and isn’t going anywhere.
However, if you really study the issue of health care you’ll find that the only real way to cost reduce health care effectively is to institute a single payer system, so the challenge then is how to move the country to such a plan gradually in a manner that is acceptable to all parties over time. (excluding the insurance companies because they are the problem).
The plan that Edwards drafted and Hillary copied places a government “not for profit” plan in direct competition with the “for profit” plans. If people like their private plans they can keep them, or they can opt for the government plan if they choose to do so. That places the choice in the hands of the American people as to what they want… its is the consumers choice.
If enough people choose the government plan it can evolve into a full single payer system. In short it offers a pathway to it.
Would you explain to me if there is a pathway for such development in the Obama plan. I’ve read it on his site and I and other health care policy authors like Ezra Klein haven’t been able to see how it does.
Please enlighten me if you will.
Thanks.
I read the Krugman column, and I was happy to see that he and a few others are finally beginning to question this campaign. I grew up in the Bible Belt, and I've seen enough politicians align themselves with Hope, or Justice, or Freedom, etc. This is a manipulative trick right out of the gate. I guess if I support a different candidate, I must not like hope, is that it? It also appears to me that a lot of people are not questioning Obama because they (never having met him) think he's such a wonderful guy. This is exactly how we let the Bush disaster happen. From Obama, I hope to hear a few less platitudes, and a little more policy. He's running for President, not Preacher. And we all know Chicago city politics is not exactly known for giving nice guys a pass.
Here's a good example of how I think America doesn't really pay attention: Clinton says she will start bringing troops home within 60 days, and Obama says he will do it immediately. Immediately? Has this guy ever transported a troop brigade before? Does he know that some of those troops are the only thing holding their areas together? If our hasty disappearance begets more ethnic cleansing, is that something we are thinking about? He's not just telling us what we want to hear, is he? I think he may well be. Does he think international diplomacy is also going to happen "immediately"? In getting out of Iraq, we need to be careful not to be as reckless as we were getting in. If one mechanic can fix my transmission in two days, and another one comes along and says he can do it in five minutes, I'm not sure I trust the second guy to do a good job.
Remember: When Bush said he was a war president, nobody asked him if he'd ever been in a war before.
Also in defense of Krugnman's column, when walking around San Francisco the weekend before Super Tuesday wearing a Hillary shirt (not proselytizing; just wearing the shirt), Obama supporters were really rude to me. One guy behind the counter of a T-shirt shop on Haight Street started attacking me as soon as I walked in the door, prompting me to crank up my ipod and get the hell out of there. This guy, also, did not have a policy dispute he wanted to talk about. He just wanted to talk about how evil Hillary Clinton is.
Obama himself has also been spending a little more time on the attack, I've noticed. Perhaps we will see a little of Chicago after all.
I don't think he's another Bush, and I will get behind him if he's the nominee. I do however, think America is the same America that elected Bush. Wwe like personality, and we don't want to have to think about the nuts and bolts of government. But America needs to stop trying to believe in Superman,, and start checking resumes.
thebewilderness @ 107:
More troubling to me in that interview was what he said in the whole answer to that question of lack of specifics:
"Remember, early on in the campaign, the complaint about me was that I was too professorial. That I would go through these town hall meetings and, you know, go into great detail about this and that and the other. And you know, wondering what ever happened to that inspiring guy who spoke at the Democratic…convention. Yeah. And now that I'm inspiring people and saying, 'Hey, you know, where is the specifics?'
Did he really say that? "Now that I'm inspiring people"? That is a strange thing for him to say about himself.
"NOW THAT I"M INSPIRING PEOPLE".
Snowball @ 55:
Sure you are....You're a wonderful intellectually superior truth teller and my 80 year old, lifelong moderate Republican grandfather is a satanic idiot.
Gawd. Grow up, will ya?
And by the way...Stuff with that Huffpost Howie Klein BS. This is "proof" of something? Geez. You're disproving your own meme.
Johnny2Bad @ 110:
Did he really say that? "Now that I'm inspiring people"? That is a strange thing for him to say about himself.
"NOW THAT I"M INSPIRING PEOPLE".
He definitely has an ego on him.
Obviously, we are truly a party divided.
Once the primaries are over, and the supporters are no longer squared off, the negatives will be subtracted, multiplying our efforts to root out the squares that have been signing and cosigning away our children's futures. Think about it - it all adds up.
Proud2bHumble @ 114:
Sure, but if this drags out, I'm not so sure. Especially given that that the DNC is slated for later this year than in others, bad feelings may still be resident.
Au contraire. The misogynism has been rampant.
I view Paul Krugman's criticism of Obama as being constructive, one that will serve
to both make Obama get better at campaigning and toughen his "hide" to face the
Republicans if he is the nominee.. So far Krugman has been brilliant in his efforts at making sure Obama stays on track by maintaining a clean campaign....he is definitely not anti-Obama in my opinion.
Johnny2Bad @ 110:
You betcha he said it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/60minutes/main3804268_page2.shtml
The man is inspiring to so many people on so many levels, not because he's leading some kind of "feel good" cult of personality, but because he isn't afraid to speak the truth. Case in point right here, he admits that any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq would be conditional. That's not a sign of weakness, it's just plain ol' common sense.
I find Hillary very moving, too, 'cause every time she's on the TV box I'm inspired to grab the clicker and knock down the volume a couple of notches to take some of the bite out of that shrill voice. (Ducks and waits for the faux progressives to hurl false accusations of misogyny.)
senator clinton promised that she would be ready to govern on DAY 1 as president. well...given what she's experiencing now, i'm not too sure about that. maybe she means she'll be ready by day 101-when she can cop another honeymoon period from the media to hide extensive missteps in her administration that she can't admit to because it would be perceived as weak-hey, we see evidence of that right now.when all else fails....even with paul krugman(whom i respect).
I don't know about you being in the minority, but I am with Krugman. The slightest criticisms of Obama that I have made on the progressive blogs have brought vicious personal attacks.
I am a Clinton supporter now, and was previously for Dodd. If Obama is the nominee, I will vote for him. But now it will be grudgingly. Also, I have taken sites like HuffPo off my favorites. I won't go on them anymore, they are so scathingly slanted. I would have hoped the progressive bloggers had been more generous to the opposition within the party who may be after the same general goals but with a different approach. The campaign has become ugly, in my view.
Proud2bHumble @ 112:
Such a conclusion isn't so definite when the Obama quote is read in context.
Snowball @ 48:
Ma GAWD you do live down ta yer screen name doncha! Actually, I kinda take that as a compliment! Though as most of your drivel tends to be, you're 180% from reality. I know EXACTLY how a "liberal and a leftist think" I'm what ya might call a Constitutional pragmatist. I know what the Con. says and that it applies to EVERYONE in these United States. But I'm also pragmatic enough to see what needs to be done to accomplish the goals I think are worth shooting for. Unlike the glassy eyed mindlessness of the koolaide besotted obamazoids and their nonsense babble about "HOPE" and CHANGE" You my son have OBVIOUSLY never spent any time watching the Talibangelicals. The first ten seconds into obamalamadingdongs convention speech I pegged him as a talibangelical huckster. He lies through his teeth with abandon and NONE of the braindead who shuffle along behind him have enough braincells still functioning to notice, or if they DO, the messiah says it gon be FINE and they sink back under the fog of koolaide induce euphoria. Pathetic is a word that IMMEDIATELY comes to mind. "bed wetting republican" OOOOW, I am so like...PUT DOWN. You showed ME huh? Why don't you sprout some ball buds (a wouldn't say grow some balls, I KNOW that is FAR beyond your capabilities)little man and do a little checking around at your daddy obama. He is a lying empty suit being set up by the MSM or corporate media and the repugnantklan party to be a clay pigeon and easy meat. I mean, are you folks REALLY that head in the clouds stupid? Silly question I know.
It hasn't seemed that ugly to you because you're for Obama and his supporters are wearing blinders. They never see the dirt he's pulling. It will be funny when he is in the GE and he gets the treatment he's giving the Clintons. I'm sure Teddy Kennedy will tell the Republicans to just stop it or they'll look racist.
And the big difference this year that I've never seen before is that the Democratic Party has declared open season on the Clintons, they tell critics of Obama to lay off and stop criticizing him but they encourage people to bash Hillary and never come to her defense.
secularhumanizinevoluter @ 122:
Translation: Obama, as a person of faith, has no relevance outside of the legions of mindless misfits he has managed to deceive.
Pathetic is right.
I read Paul Krugman's article in the NYT. He was right on target! People have dumbed down so much they can't even get the salient points someone like Krugman is trying to make. His point was that the media is taking perfectly rational and reasonable comments and distorting them into mud just to get a sensational story - not to mention their hatred of the Clintons. This has been a very civil primary season, for the most part, between Hillary and Barack. It is the media distortion that won't let it be. Neither Clinton has made any racist remarks or sexist remarks. I have noted the Obamas have gotten a pass on remarks about Hillary's going to other countries as First Lady to have tea (ask Madeline Albright about that) and the comment that if you can't take care of your own house, how can you take care of the White House (very sleazy remark by Michelle O.) Rational people can see that. Frankly, I like both candidates and would vote for a ticket with both of them on it in either order. I have contributed to both campaigns. I would also like to see John Edwards as attorney general. Paul Krugman is a genius. His comments are probably over the heads of many who read his column or just believe what they hear without ever reading his column. There is a lot of bias showing in these comments too.
myiq2xu @ 83:
Do people really think Chelsea's ugly? Say what you want about her, but she is most certainly not "ugly" - that is totally ridiculous. Add the that the ludicrousness of McCain or Limbaugh calling anyone else "ugly" ... the mind reels.
The Fat Lady Sings @ 103:
Very sorry! I should read more carefully.
Obama doesn't give details. He is going to lose against McCain.
I totally agree with Paul Krugman. He said Obama's serrogates, meaning the left media, and Frank Rich, who has been piling on Hillary. I don't hear you critisize Frank Rich. You have this very sad blind spot.Just look at the Huffington Post, Buzzflash, and the rest. They HATE Hillary, and keep picking on her no matter what.
Frank Rich's editorial, on Sunday, just made me sick. I used to love his writings, but no more. The following day, Paul Krugman writes one that doesn't suit the left, and see what happens?
Compare Krugman's column with Frank Rich's. Krugman is critical of some of Obama's supporters and has been critical of some of Obama's policy positions (most notably health care and Social Security). He does not "bash" Senator Obama. Rich's column is character assassination, pure and simple. He said Clinton was race-bating because there were few African-American faces, but lots of hispanics (how he knew they were Hispanic is a mystery) in her Town Hall meeting. Basically, he's saying that she's playing one group off against the other. The coup de grace was complaining that she used the moderator, Carole Simpson, a black woman in a servile way. Huh? Are Tim Russert, Brian Williams, et al servile? This is exactly the type of invective that Krugman is talking about. The NY Times has Brooks, Herbert, Dowd and Rich, who are all Clinton-loathers. Can't the Times have one columnist who (mildly, mind you) doesn't join in the fun.
I don't know that I would say "misfits" children, heads in the sand, up their wazoos, clouds THOSE are more what I had in mind. As for the "person of fith" Well, it took a "person of faith" and a whole buncha other "people of faith" to get us in the totally fucked position we're in now. So how bout dealing with things and people based on the reality based universe huh? And yeah, pathetic is INDEED the right word to discribe the deluded masses of obamazoids.
"though I’ve been a little troubled of late by his apparent pre-occupation with opposing Barack Obama"
As opposed to the Obama-ites pre-occupation with opposing Hillary.
Jeez. Obama supporters are the worst.
did anyone see the closing of yesterday's SITUATION ROOM? it was a fluff piece aobut the candidates pointing and waving into the crowd . . . at the end the commentator says: "well... we'll never get to see who they are actually pointing at but we can use our imaginations." then than ran a series of what was supposed to be "satirical" splices.
the first was hillary pinting -CUT TO: monica lewinsky --- then. obama pointing -CUT TO: osama bin laden -- then mccain... etc etc
personally, i thought the obama/osama thing was WAY out of line. why? because it was subliminal... twenty minutes later the images kept looping in my mind and i could not even remember who the others had been.
::shrugg::
now i se why they're calling it: CNN: The CLinton News Network. --they also count the superdelegates, FL and MI in their charts and graphics making certain clinton always appears to be in the lead.
Watch the polls going into November. If the polls are close between McCain and Obama, McCain wins. Obama is not a fighter. The Republicans are not going to just go away. They will fight like they always do. Many folks will say they are for Obama and then they will vote for McCain. See if you can figure out why.
I don't think the campaign has gotten that ugly either. Candidates should be hard-hitting on their way to the nomination. If they can't fight for themselves, how on earth are they going to fight for the issues, if elected. Democrats are so incredibly fortunate that there were half a dozen experienced, competent, qualified candidates. As for McCain, while I have a great deal of respect for him and believe he would put the country above all else generally, I just can't get a handle on his support for the Iraq war. How can one support a war based on lies and misinformation? Also how much will he owe the religious right in terms of appointments of judges, etc.?
Yes, I can finally verbally attack Paul Krugman! No, but seriously, it's delusional to suggest the Hillary Clinton has no one to protect her. First, that plays into the victim complex which was mastered by...that's right, Republicans...for the last several decades. The media is unfair. The Democratic Party is unfair. Everyone is unfair. Bill Clinton went out, maneuvered on race, and cost his wife some primaries, because he was acting like a lite-version of his own political opponents of 16 years ago. But no, you're right, it's a conspiracy and a cult. First off, if it's considered a 'cult', it should be considered a 'cult of personality' which was the sort that led JFK into office and keeps him ridiculously high in the minds of folks who don't enjoy things like facts. Second off, what's the conspiracy? That Barack Obama is a better campaigner than Hillary Clinton! I'll get the presses right on that. I can't believe the 4th estate hasn't investigated. Clinton supporters are seriously getting absolutely furious because some random fellow and his speeches have essentially trumped her as the assumed establishment candidate. You're mad because Barack Obama out-campaigned Hillary Clinton. That's wild.
I think Paul Krugman has spent too much time associating with the lunatics on the NYT op/ed board. His thinking isn't as clear as it used to be. For example, the opening of his recent book uses the word "paradise" to describe the era of the New Deal.
EconProf @ 106:
Since you are an academic economist could you answer a question for me about Obama's health care plan?
HR 676 is the “single payer” health care plan proposal in the House and it has only gotten 70 co-sponsor and isn’t going anywhere.
However, if you really study the issue of health care you’ll find that the only real way to cost reduce health care effectively is to institute a single payer system, so the challenge then is how to move the country to such a plan gradually in a manner that is acceptable to all parties over time. (excluding the insurance companies because they are the problem). The plan that Edwards drafted and Hillary copied places a government “not for profit” plan in direct competition with the “for profit” plans. If people like their private plans they can keep them, or they can opt for the government plan if they choose to do so. That places the choice in the hands of the American people as to what they want… its is the consumers choice.
Sure. All the candidates are clueless about the broader economic issues of health care. The Democrats are still addressing health care problems of 1993. A heck of a lot has changed since then. Pharmaceutical companies have doubled their share of all medical costs. Hospitals became increasingly economically inefficient because of diseconomies of scale and an outdated business model of in-patient and surgery focus. Doctors' incomes, while declining for the time ever are still twice that of the next highest profession, thus preventing our best and brightest from choosing medical research careers. Meanwhile, inefficient nursing schools are closing due to high training costs, resulting in rising salaries and shortages as far as the eye can see. University research has shifted from important things like alternative energy, new production technologies and replaced by almost exclusive attention to their sole research profit center: medical (primarily pharmaceutical development and testing), while risk exposure and low-profits have stopped vaccine research and virtually assures us of global pandemics. Health care solutions are not only more palatable -- but absolutely essential -- for U.S. business to be globally competitive and for private unions to bargain for health care. We won't make it out of the current recesssion with all 3 auto companies (check the dire news this week from GM, Chrysler, and Ford). So any reforms also need to address these broader, underlying issues.
But what about the most immediate issue of bringing down cost and universal coverage. People forget that holding down health care costs to single-digit inflation was one of (Bill) Clinton's greatest achievements. Unfortunately, that was achieved by the blunt instrument gatekeeper HMOs which broke the back of the hospital cost-plus and cost-shifting-to-the-deepest-pockets. What a few pundits have at last noticed is what we economists have always known: It's not just insurance firms, HMOs, and hospitals responsible for the high medical costs here. Costs will remain well above the the rest of the developed world until physicians and other health care professionals are compensated much less and require more efficient and far shorter training. Physicians are glorified auto mechanics who should not require 8 years of college and med school followed by internship plus residency to write prescriptions and listen to your heart. As surgical solutions and length hospital stays are replaced by preventative medicine, less invasive procedures, and medications, we can finally move to a health care system that dedicates most of its resources on the living -- including those with lower incomes and pre-natal care -- rather than devoting half our resources for the very final stages of life.
I've always take Paul Krugman's observations to heart. He's been right more times than wrong on many issues both economic and political. His attacks on Obama's shallow presentations of policy has been based on his implied sense that true change is in the air. Krugman just doesn't want that opportunity to be wasted. Progressive ideas are hard for many voters to swallow after decades of conservative propaganda and a compliant media. Krugman has voiced many times that the golden ring for all progressives is a true universal health care system. Deliver that and many more progressive values will follow for decades to come.
Personally, I'll be holding my nose a bit when I vote for Obama or Clinton. Mainly due to their lame positions on true health care for all Americans and their ever mysterious positions on the Iraq Occupation. But make no mistake, I will be voting Demo in November.
That said, I agree with Krugman that the jackals in the media are playing Demo voters to get their ratings up. I also think that Krugman is warning Obama supporters that there is always a Honeymoon period with charismatic leaders. Krugman seems to be throwing cold water on us, trying to wake us up.
Let's hope that after the honeymoon, the Demos don't disappoint us, either in Congress or the Presidency. Given the Demo's past track record, I'll most certainly be keeping my eye on them.
So waddya want, a thithy thlap-fight?
The Fat Lady Sings @ 103:
Oprah Winfrey sings?
I wonder if Paul is swayed by media coverage. The MSM takes every little remark, often twists it to make it more negative, and flogs it to death -- if it's one of the Democrats. They're not as obsessed with the Repubs (even before Romney dropped out). They noted that no one seemed to like Mitt, but didn't turn it into a smear on the party. Hillary & Barack are so civil and pleasant to each other so much of the time, but the MSM is heck-bent on beating them down that they manufacture what doesn't seem to be there in fact.
"Maybe I’m in the minority, but this primary fight hasn’t seemed that ugly to me at all. "
Actually, Steve, I've got to disagree with you. I think this has been the ugliest primary/election season in American history. Not because of what the various candidates are or aren't saying to or about each other, but because of the violence that has been done to the entire democratic process by the media.
The media's total control of mass-consumed information has been complete, and it is they who have decided what the national dialog would be, they who have decided what the permissible debate would be and they who have decided who would be acceptable candidates and who would not. Anybody who has had a message that has been unfavorable to big corporate interests in this country or who have questioned the ongoing assault upon the Constitution or who have questioned the ongoing transformation of America into a de facto totalitarian police state have been censored through the simple expedient of being aggressively ignored. The televised debates were a sham and a travesty. The "news" coverage is little other than broadcast spectrum-wide and print-wide propaganda, active disinformation, manipulative lies, ommissions, ad nauseaum. They have attempted to steer and control the public perceptions from start to finish. and given the crop of surviving candidates, it looks like they have succeeded. By controlling and shaping the perception, they are controlling and shaping the reality. Lies become truth.
Democracy cannot survive when the overwhelming majority of People are un- or ill-informed, because they become incapable of exercising informed judgment. We were already running out of time to get things right (including the ongoing work at subverting and corrupting the democratic process), and the media has been working overtime to make sure that we blow it.
I'm wondering if future historians will consider this election to be the time that democracy officially failed in America, due in very great part to the media's ability to exercise total mass-consumed information control.
peaceful easy feeling @ 121:
Unless such a context isn't excluding observation and analysis of other appearances and quotes that could lead to such a conclusion without automatically inferring that the two edged sword of ego is only a bad thing given the confidence necessary to successfully run for president.
Keep it up, languid effortless emotive, I can do nuanced condescension all day.
EconProf @ 139:
Sure. All the candidates are clueless about the broader economic issues of health care. The Democrats are still addressing health care problems of 1993. A heck of a lot has changed since then. Pharmaceutical companies have doubled their share of all medical costs. Hospitals became increasingly economically inefficient because of diseconomies of scale and an outdated business model of in-patient and surgery focus. Doctors' incomes, while declining for the time ever are still twice that of the next highest profession, thus preventing our best and brightest from choosing medical research careers. Meanwhile, inefficient nursing schools are closing due to high training costs, resulting in rising salaries and shortages as far as the eye can see. University research has shifted from important things like alternative energy, new production technologies and replaced by almost exclusive attention to their sole research profit center: medical (primarily pharmaceutical development and testing), while risk exposure and low-profits have stopped vaccine research and virtually assures us of global pandemics. Health care solutions are not only more palatable -- but absolutely essential -- for U.S. business to be globally competitive and for private unions to bargain for health care. We won't make it out of the current recesssion with all 3 auto companies (check the dire news this week from GM, Chrysler, and Ford). So any reforms also need to address these broader, underlying issues.
But what about the most immediate issue of bringing down cost and universal coverage. People forget that holding down health care costs to single-digit inflation was one of (Bill) Clinton's greatest achievements. Unfortunately, that was achieved by the blunt instrument gatekeeper HMOs which broke the back of the hospital cost-plus and cost-shifting-to-the-deepest-pockets. What a few pundits have at last noticed is what we economists have always known: It's not just insurance firms, HMOs, and hospitals responsible for the high medical costs here. Costs will remain well above the the rest of the developed world until physicians and other health care professionals are compensated much less and require more efficient and far shorter training. Physicians are glorified auto mechanics who should not require 8 years of college and med school followed by internship plus residency to write prescriptions and listen to your heart. As surgical solutions and length hospital stays are replaced by preventative medicine, less invasive procedures, and medications, we can finally move to a health care system that dedicates most of its resources on the living -- including those with lower incomes and pre-natal care -- rather than devoting half our resources for the very final stages of life.
While you attempt to shift the blame for the soaring healthcare costs off to docs, hospitals, regulations, advanced procedural interventions, and the elderly... all of which are factors... you ignore the role of the "for profit" insurance companies and they are a huge factor in this!
Excerpt from the Physicians for a National Health Care Plan
http://www.pnhp.org/
Now that $350 million dollar figure comes from the recent extensive study by Harvard University. It is supported by independent studies also done by the GAO and CBO.
Sure. All the candidates are clueless about the broader economic issues of health care. The Democrats are still addressing health care problems of 1993.
.
.
So your assertion that both Obama and Hillary's plans are based on outdated 1993 thinking isn't accurate and you ignored my original question about how Obama's plan would lead eventually to a "single payer" system.
I noticed your comments in your appeal to Krugman:
If you are a "Free trader" and believe in "free market forces", then I would think that you would support the plan that was drafted by Edwards and adopted by Clinton as that it puts the government "not for profit" plan in direct competition with the private insurers and allow "market forces" to determine if we will evolve into a single payer system or not.
That was the basis of my question regarding does Obama's plan have a pathway that would lead possibly to a "single payer" system as the Edwards/Clinton plan does?
Your response also raises another issue and that being free trade vs fair trade and Obama's position on this.
You raised the GM announcements but you need to address:
1. That a major part of the costs in their autos is due to the health care benefits.
American companies must compete with goods manufactured in countries where health benefits are supplied by government health care plans.
2. The US has not sought to enforce WTO rules on China or Japan and China maintains a 25 % tariff on US autos and Japan maintains an equally high tariff on US manufactured auto parts. So we are the only one practicing free trade and our deficit is out of control.
3. You cite GM, Ford, and Chrysler's woes, but industry insiders are saying that Toyota will have some surprisingly bad news down the road as well... so are you suggesting that American made autos are a thing of the past by any manufacturer?
GM after all has manufacturing in China and they are doing quite well from their reports and that raises another broad question...
4. Can any US manufacturing sector compete with Chinese or Indian based manufacturing concerns when it will mean our workforces will be competing against a workforce where the salary differential is "pennies on the dollar"?
That might be good for the companies but terrible for the American middle class
5. Recession impacts... If the UAW accepts GM's buy out proposal it could mean potentially 74,000 employees could be laid off or hired at vastly reduced salaries. How will that help the recession recovery?
Do you support deregulation and if so... what about the underlying causes of the sub-prime disaster and the role of the financial institutions?
yeah, um...
At one point I was a rather horrid partisan and the gotcha horse race (a la Ben Hur) consumed, at times, more of my attentions than the policies said parties were supposedly championing. I have to say that this election season seems remarkable to me for its almost complete LACK of internecine fighting on the Democrat side. Most especially with the Republican campaigns available for contrast. I wonder if Krugman has his head stuck too deeply inside the D.C. echo chamber.
Seems to me a bad year to be a pearl, unless one enjoys being clutched rather frequently.
Krugman's article was poorly argued. He claims that Obama's supporters are happy with the media being tough on clinton, but then provides no evidence of that happiness. he can do better than that.
Login or Register to post comments.