Krugman Claims Obama Supporters Are Cult-Like

Over the weekend, at his eponymous blog at The Atlantic, Matthew Yglesias warned of "the anti-Obama backlash brewing in the press" that was poised to hit "full stride." I remember wondering how that was going to take shape. It should have occurred to me: Paul Krugman was going to manufacture it!

In a long screed in this morning's New York Times, Krugman fulminates far and wide on the sins of the Obama camp. "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." He believes that the Obama campaign is "dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. (Oh, really?) He finds it "saddening" how "many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of 'Clinton rules'" which is, "the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent."

Well, it's a good thing he's not faking evenhandedness here! Krugman makes a lot of bold claims, and then fails to substantiate every single one of them. As to his claim that "most of the venom" is emanating from the Obama camp, he provides not a single shred of evidence. He provides no example of the Obama supporters, evincing the behavior that "saddens" him. Frankly, he fails to pull off the whole "cult of personality" charge as well, but my wife, having earned a deep dislike of chanted mantras from her work at elementary school, finds the constant "Yes we can!" refrain deeply grating, so I'm happy to sympathize with Krugman on that point.

The only thing that passes for evidence in Krugman's piece is "the way the press covered Whitewater" back in the 1990s, and the recent remarks of David Shuster - who a) is not a member of the Obama camp, b) was punished swiftly for his remarks, and c) hardly represents the tip of the iceberg of unfair Clinton commentary on MSNBC, which d) has not escaped the attention of the press or similarly aggrieved protesters. Clinton has, admittedly, more than her fair share of nemeses among those who cover the news - Chris Matthews and Bill Kristol come most clearest to the mind. But by and large, their enmity was in place long before Barack Obama arrived on the scene and emerges independently of the Obama campaign's actions. What's more, should Obama quit the scene today, those who bare their anti-Clinton bias are not likely to ease up.

In short, a strong case can be made that Clinton's been roughly treated by the press. The case that cannot be made is that the Obama campaign is culpable for this treatment. The fact of the matter is, the Obama campaign has already been famously cited for the extent to which they avoid courting the press. Writing for the Washington Post, media critic Howard Kurtz complained only weeks ago that the Obama campaign "makes only spotty attempts to drive its preferred story lines in the press," and that is "aloof," "not obsessed with winning the news cycle," and not given to launching campaign "charm offensives." Ironically, the reason the Obama campaign gives for their tactics was the hard lesson they were dealt when an example of the "venom" Krugman describes leached into the press:

But ever since Obama was embarrassed by a staff memo that assailed Hillary Clinton as the senator from "Punjab" (over her contributions from Indian Americans), he has ordered his team to steer clear of pejorative attacks not based on public actions.

Kurtz, by the way, notes a point of comparison between the Obama and the Clinton campaigns. The Clinton camp "aggressively lobbies journalists around the clock." And this is how kindergarten essays make it into the news cycle. This is how questionnaires and false concerns over a candidate's liberalism fuel fervor one week while neutral observations of Ronald Reagan's presidency inflame false concerns over the same candidate's conservatism the next. This is how an A-list columnist - typically zealous about leaving no claim unsupported by evidence - very breezily and comfortably abandons those standards one morning to write a hit piece on those who've hit not. But none dare call this venom.

Comments

[FogBelter]

Maybe the issue is Krugman can't take the heat from the blogosphere and is suffering from "Joe Klein Syndrome".

[HeyFella]

What is "Joe Klein Syndrome"?

[FogBelter]

An irrational response by an established journalist to criticism from the Blogosphere ...


To wit:


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1630004,00.html


Krugman has moved from attacking Obama to attacking Obama's defenders ... it is highly unlikely Krugman is refering to Obama Fanatics rampaging with torches passed his office ... so the heat he feels is from criticism directed at him from the Blogosphere ...


and YES ... I think he IS aware of his online critics.

[Kane]

I lost all respect for Krugman a long time ago when he went out of his way to bash certain unions that opposed NAFTA. He went on to argue that no American jobs would be lost because of NAFTA, and that the unions didn't know what they were talking about. I'm still waiting for him to admit he was wrong.

Throughout this campaign Krugman has lost all credibility. He offers no objectivity, and his rants against Obama have become nothing more than personal attacks. Who would have guessed that when Krugman would make Kristol sound moderate?

[BrooklynLager]

I remember that - Krugman even used the press refrain of "muscle" and "strong-arm tactics" to malign unions that were opposed to NAFTA. Umm, you mean lobbying?

Yikes, that brings back memories - the entire MSM was beside themselves trying to force NAFTA down the throats of a public that clearly wanted nothing to do with it. I've never seen such unanimity over a single issue in my life; probably never will again.

[Serfie]

This is an outrageous lie.

I remember the debate around NAFTA. It was extremely controversial. It was fully debated in the media. It was a hot topic in my congressional district.

I guess you don't remember the famous Ross Perot-Al Gore debate on Larry King.

[Dani77]

I'm sorry, I know you don't want to hear this, but Obama fans ARE the most aggressive and fawning. It's pretty much a fact, and proof is scattered all over this exact website for god's sake. If you haven't bothered to read any comments then that's one thing, but don't go denying that which is blatantly obvious. I voted for Obama and I must say that his fans came dangerously close to changing my mind.

[Kane]

In every movement there will be those that get a little over-excited, a little loud, a little aggressive, and somewhat enthusiastic. But it's that energy that fuels the movement. And oftentimes that is what it takes to bring about change.

The Civil Rights movement wasn't a quite walk down the street, and the fight against apartheid wasn't won by being meek. And taking back our democracy from the status quo will require a movement of loud, aggressive, and dedicated individuals willing to work for a common cause. Put in your earplugs; the roar of the crowd will only grow stronger and louder.

[BrooklynLager]

If you need an antidote to that, check you taylor marsh's site:

http://www.taylormarsh.com

[MarkieBee]

NOW that is a cult Web site...Taylor Marsh is a hack.

[LeftLeaner]

I agree

He's Obama the Meshiah to them.

That's why they chant with his silly phrases like: Yes we can

This seems all too bizarre to me.

[LeftLeaner]

I meant Messiah

[brueso]

funny, the Clintons were content when people saw Bill as the Messiah, but now that he's the past, they resent anyone taking his place.

[BrooklynLager]

It's a campaign slogan. You know, like "four-more-years" or whatever.

Is this the first time you've seen a political campaign? Seriously.

[democraticjack]

It's the chanting and the drum beat and that video in black and white which looks like a trailer for a zombie movie. It's the dumb look you get from the 17 year olds in Virginia who get to vote tomorrow when you ask them specifics about Obama. Of course there are serious thoughtful Obama supporters, but then there are those Others.....

[supadindi]

Perhaps it would be better if we all mindlessly repeated: "Ready on Day 1," Ready on Day 1," that makes it all better. . .

[democraticjack]

Teddy Kennedy already comshawed that one.

[MarkieBee]

Yup, every slogan Obama and hiscult chant has been ripped off by Hillary...

[antaeus]

Perhaps it's only on stylistic grounds, but the Hillary-hating responses on this site do come across like the narcissistic rage of a Scientologist who's just had his beliefs questioned.

[independentrepublicrat]

On the other hand, the Hillary sycophants come across like legions of Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Oprah's couch while professing blind but eerily disturbing love for Billary instead of Katie.

[antaeus]

Actually we're partly motivated by a sense of gratitude for the 1992 election, having lived through the Republican triumphs of the 1980s, and a fear that Sen. Obama's support is so strong among what used derisively to be called the "brie and chablis crowd." For those of us who actually remember what happens when Hollywood and intellectual elite can do when they push a too-rarefied candidate on a less-sophisticated American electorate.

[bccity]

I think you are trying very hard to provide evidence of the accuracy of Krugman's article. Lots of venom from Obama supporters.

[MarkieBee]

I will debate any and all Hillary sock puppets any time any where.I am not a cult member. I took the time to actually listen to his policy forums. I read Obama's 64-page Blueprint For America and I took the time to read Hillary's one page summation of her issues. And people think Obama is the shallow one. I'm still waiting for Hillary's explanation of what the penalty is for her mandated health care coverage. Without those specifics she DOESN'T have a plan. She gets an incomplete.

[Spinsterina]

OK, MarkieBee. Here's a link to Hillary's 16 page review of her Health Plan. Took me 20 seconds to find it for you:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf
Here's more links on her other health care :
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/
Come back for a debate when you've done your homework.

[naijaman]

Another day, another anti-Obama tirade from that sad little man, Paul Krugman.

[democraticjack]

And, as recounted in a refreshingly ungushing biography by David Mendell, Obama was seriously short of cash. When he went to the Democratic Party convention in Los Angeles in 2000 he couldn't hire a car to get around because his credit card was maxed out. Obama bought a new home, a big Edwardian-era detached house in fashionable Kenwood, soon after he won his Senate seat in 2004. The former owner apparently wasn't willing to sell the house without a large chunk of land next to it, which Obama seemingly couldn't afford. The house cost $1.65 million and the land $625,000.
Rezko's wife Rita bought the vacant land. Six months later, she sold Obama a slice of it for $104,500 so that he could extend his garden.

[bccity]

If only it was not so true.

[argeec]

Well, I'm sitting here listening to Billie Holiday and fantasizing.
But now I've stepped out of my reverie just long enough to post some snide remarks.
I have noticed, as no doubt others have, that there exists a peculiar subculture of liberal/pr­ogressive. I choose to call them the "The ends justify the means" or "TEJM" branch.
Now for these people, if your cause is just, then a little corner-cutting is acceptable. For example, the feminists that got Larry Summers fired as president of Harvard for suggesting that the possibility of mental differences between men and women was worthy of investigation. Screw intellectual honesty or the quest for knowledge. They were afraid of what the answer might be so they screamed rape until he was canned.
Or Margaret Mead. She so wanted those Samoans to be free of sexual inhibitions that she wrote it that way.
The modernists were that way too, as well as Boaz and Skinner.
This tendency has had the effect of impeding progressive aims. And has sometimes led to bad consequences -- as Ted Kennedy's challenge to Jimmy Carter in the 1980 primaries was a major factor in Reagan's election.
So just a word for the wise: Force yourself to question your own motives. And remember: the means are important too!
Well, the buzz is wearing off - so I must close and go find that roach.

[Lemeritus]

argeec, you lost me after TEJM, but I love Billie Holiday, so I hope we agreed somewhere in your musings.

[zull2]

Obama's supporters are no less or more "cultish" than Edwards's supporters that, to this day, make a point of telling people "I was for Edwards" everytime you bring up the primaries. The media always seems to interview the Obama supporters that are drawn in by his personality, but when I talk to other supporters, I hear a totally different message.

I decided to support Obama back in early 07 because I sat down and did full background research on all the candidates. I looked at legislation that each sponsored on every level, and I found that Obama sponsored a considerable amount of progressive legislation...and not just that, but some of it was pretty ballsy from a political point of view. Combining that with the fact that the Senate made him the point man on ethics, and the fact that he's young and hasn't gotten Washington's talons of cynicism dug into him yet, he'd be the best choice. I talk to a lot of other supporters and I hear the same story. It isn't any more of a cult than any other progressive movement. It's no more of a cult than "New Democrat" was, either. Basically, this is all because Krugman took a stand behind a candidate that doesn't have the momentum, and it pisses him off. This is a personal thing with Krugman.

[SharedHumanity]

Yep, as a 52 year old business executive with a healthy six figure income and a wife with a six figure income of her own, I must be a member of a cult. Two adult children as recent Ivy League graduates and my youngest set to head for Earlham college next year is just further proof. What a bunch of fuckwits!

[antaeus]

So cultists can't eat well? You seem to represent what Phil Donahue used to call, in genuinely funny moments of self parody, the "brie and chablis crowd." They were the same ones who gave us Gov. Dukakis.

[bccity]

I am really happy for and your children and that you have a six figure income. However that does not negate Krugman's point. If you read the responses of the majority of Obama supporters, not all but the majority, you will find an inordinate amount of venom. Their vicious attacks on Senator Clinton are baseless rants filled with pointless name calling and false claims of racism. I find it disturbing and unnerving at how quickly the colored community have turned on the Clinton's after fifteen years of apparent support for them.

[antaeus]

Thank you for one of the first reasoned responses I've read from an Obama supporter. I am still holding on to my dream to see the first woman president, but if it doesn't happen, then I hope more there will be more Obama supporters like you coming forward with measured and cogent rhetoric.

[ikkytito]

I don't think they are cultish-just enthusiastic. It's wonderful to see actually. Idealistic yes. What bothers me is we dunno jackshit about Obama. He makes great speaches-true. But Hillary knows the territory. She is still alive after repeated attempts to destroy her. What happens when the repubs take aim on Obama? The Trinity union church-google it. Dr wright-This looks like the repubs are letting democrats do the dirty work. Race is a nogothere subject now. Wait till the fall. If Obama gets the nomination-they will use everything in the media - Black Messiah- Liberal activist-drug use- Kenyen Father- Muslim middle name -trust me -it's not gonna be pretty.

[antaeus]

Obama supporters will turn blue before acknowledging the threat you outline. The problem is that most of them seem too young to remember the 1980s: Ted Kennedy's challenge to a sitting president, the Dukakis debacle. When what used to be called the "brie and chablis" crowd think they know better than the rest of us, then they're going to press ahead.

[detwob]

A very progressive friend of many years and I were on a long drive and I started to state my concerns that Obama - much as his election might show the rest of the world we're not all crazy empire-sucking racists here - is just too slick, that this 'change' platform is simply David Axelrod's shtick.

The conversation got hot. Had to drop it. Rolled a doobie and went back to safer ground.

Sometime later I forwarded an article from counterpunch.org that slammed all four remaining candidates.

Got back a venomous email praising Obama for environmentalism and slamming me for crying over spilled Kucinich.

Cult. My friend, who protested nukes thirty years ago, ignored Obama's endorsement of the coal and nuclear industries in his praise. He's too bright & experienced to have lost his skepticism of politicians generally. But he seems to be drinking the baRockStar kool-aid.

I'll vote for Obama. But, yeah, I think this feels like a cult.

[bccity]

Kudos.

[AnotherIADem]

Krugman should take a nice long vacation, and just CHILL before he writes another word about Obama or Clinton. He is clearly overwrought. I bet the "venom" he describes is mostly in his email.... perhaps from Obama supporters, but directed at him, personally, not at the Clinton camp. Can't stand the heat Paul??

[bccity]

Lets get real here, no one can read the Obama supporters posts on HuffPo and not realize there is something wrong. Obama said that he thought Clinton supporters would probably vote for him were he the nominee but he was not sure his supporters would vote for Clinton. Does this mean they would rather support Bush politics than Clinton Democratic policies? Sounds like a group that I as a Democrat would rather not be associated with. I dread the thought of another four years of Republican destruction to our country, but we need to be a people of principles not pandering to anyone that will give us their vote.

[YouThinkAndTalk]

The way I see it, it was Hillary and Bill who started being nasty with their soft racist remarks. Like, watch out people, Obama is black, real black. Hillary will do anything to get elected, even sink the Democratic party. All she claims has is experience, but what experience: dumping health care reform? voting for war? taking Bush to his word (so naive)? signing NAFTA, that even her wants to review? signing the telecom act that gave the telecoms monopolies? You may think that some of what I said were her husband's doings, but she claims that they are her own experiences, too. The Clintons used to be nice (perhaps) but they have become disgusting.

[ikkytito]

the Clintons are realists. Global trade is a reality. The power of the Military -industrial complex is a reality. The Establishment is a reality. Hillary Clinton is hated because they fear her-and they have created Hillaryhate. Simple as that. Events in the next few months will decide. I'd still love to see a black family in the White House.

[ChimpmasterDJ]

Krugman should try talking to Hillary supporters about her war vote, her astoundingly disingenuous (unless she barely has sufficient reading comprehension to get through "My Pet Goat") explanation of why she voted against the Levin Amendment, or her vote against banning the use of criminal and inhumane cluster-bombs on civilians... it's sort of like showing a Scientologist that his "e-meter" (central to his addle-pated "audit" process) is a really ill-conceived potentiometer with about $0.20 of parts, that isn't even properly calibrated.

All you'll get is that stone cold uncomprehending stare that is emblematic of cults of all stripes.

[bccity]

Do you have anything to support your claims and how does Obama stand on the same issues. All your insults do is validate Mr. krugman's point he is making in his article. Thank you.

[drblack]

I think he was mistaken....It is the neoCON republican, xtian extremists who are the cult.
Listening to Limpdog, OReally? or Coldwhore will show you just how irrational and cult like the Right Wing is.

[tbone99]

yes they definitely have a rabid Clinton hating cult, which unfortunately has made people associate the Clintons with extreme negativity, not of their own doing.

[anghiari]

What Krugman and all the other Clinton lite faithful have carefully chosen to ignore is that Hillary spent 2+ years and all of her vaunted experience to build a campaign for the primaries that would have her winning hands dow and showing up as the anointed Democratic nominee. It took one primary/ IOWA to blow her campaign strategy to smithereens...by the time she reached New Hampshire she was micmicking Obama's change message. She found her voice in New Hampshire...Who the hell's voice was she using those 35 years of extraordinary. Hell ready to be President on the first day...what about winning the first primary? experience??? Krugman can say what it wants...the fact that he can't man up and deal with Hillary's lying and distortion is a real problem and the fact that he thinks Obama is too uppity...well, get on board Krugman or get the hell out of the way!

[bccity]

Maybe you should read Hillary's bio on Wikipedia so you would know what you are talking about.
Hillary Clinton Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_clinton

[polcomm]

Obama cannot win a national election. Even on the Sunday talks shows, who push Obama like a Messiah, many agreed that he could get the White House except if there was a national security incident before the election. BINGO! They will wait for Obama to get the nomination, and in October cause a national security incident and Obama will sink like a rock and the Democrats will look at each other (moveon.org, etc.) and say "What happen?" The left is controlling the Democratic party right now and it is not pretty. They have failed every time they have nominated someone. This will be no exception. If Obama gets the nomination, he will not get the White House. The only saving grace may be that the Democrats, by shear accident, will get 60 seats in the Senate. Paul Krugman has written thoughtful articles and the one he wrote about Obama is no exception. He knows because he was around in 1972 for McGovern. Clinton showed the Democrats how to win, but they are not only ungrateful that he was the first one to win the White House for two terms since FDR, they crucify him, Hillary and their daughter. Great! The Republicans are just going to laugh all the way to the White House.

[krissymax]

polcomm is unfortunately probably right. My problem with Obama was revealed last night on 60 Minutes. When we get to the General and the right and msm turns on Obama and they say, hey this guy's achievements are writing two books and speaking at the Democratic Convention and he ran the Harvard Law Review, when he was a law student. That is not enough to be competent to do the job of POTUS given the destruction of the Bush Administration. Being a community organizer is not like being a President. I am very concerned.

[Schnitzel]

Hillary's chances are much more distant when it comes to the prospect of winning a national election IMHO. The GOP dirty tricks machine has been sharpening it's blades for eight years waiting for Hillary to run. She's certainly obliged them with scandals galore and principles that shift with the wind...or opinion polls. In addition she's an extremely devicive individual with way too much baggage to be viable; if she's nominated it will only serve to energize the right wingers and disillusion Obama's supporters - many of them simply won't vote for Hillary - I know I won't - amd without them she'll lose a national race. Truth be told I don't think the democrats chose very wisely this year but the bottom line is that Obama is the best shot the Democrats have.