Not This Time, Mr. Krugman

Dear Paul Krugman:

You had to know what effect your pot-stirring yesterday would have on the painful Democratic debate going on between Clinton and Obama supporters, over which candidate should be our nominee.

Shame on you for singling out one side's support as nothing more than a cult following. And for likening our Democratic debate -- because let me assure you, sir, that this is a two-sided affair -- to something akin to Nixon-style "politics of slander and scare." This last bit is particularly ironic, as it is your column, Mr. Krugman, which you are wielding to launch the very kind of "slander and scare" of which you accuse Obama supporters.

Various factions on both sides of this Clinton/Obama divide are extremely hopped up about their candidate. Consider this fact, however: You have all but publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton, probably because you prefer her health care plan -- and this is your right, and I respect your efforts to make your views known. But as a columnist for the Times, you no doubt hear from people who disagree with you all the time, and I would venture to say that these responses are not always politely written.

It stands to reason that you cannot be, as you admitted yesterday, "even-handed" about the Clinton/Obama divide at this point, because most the angry mail you get is generated because you have all but endorsed Clinton. It's not like the Clinton loyalists are going to scream about how much they agree with you. So, most of the "venom" you are subjected to may come from Obama supporters. But there is plenty of "venom" coming from Clinton supporters.

Let me tell you about an email list I am on. There are perhaps 500 people on this list, and it's comprised of progressive and Democratic activists, bloggers, journalists, campaign staffers and others who are actively and passionately interested in who the Democratic nominee will be. This list has basically been crippled by vitriol in the past week -- and in particular after your column yesterday -- because of anger on both sides of this divide.

Contrary to your column yesterday, I find that while the anger is real on both sides, it is the Clinton supporters who are practicing the politics of slander and fear. When those of us who support Obama refuse to be won over by their policy-based arguments in favor of Clinton, they slip into the taunts.

According to them, we "follow St. Obama blindly," and we are weak-minded and falling prey to a "cult of personality." I have never once seen an Obama supporter attack a Clinton supporter with such base attacks.

And as for your claim that Obama supporters are "happy" about how "some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons... as proof of evil intent," and that you cast us into the same lot with MSNBC's David Schuster's sexist comment about Chelsea Clinton being "pimped out" is a sorry conflation of issues. One that is beneath your abilities, sir.

First, are you blaming the Obama Campaign, or its supporters, or the media for this "cult of personality"? Your exact words were: "I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." And then the rest of your column proceeds to cite examples of media wrong-doing, and your perception of Obama supporter "venom." You include not one example of the campaign's supposed culpability.

Second, I know of many people who have decided to support Obama who were disgusted with some of the sexist media coverage of Clinton earlier in the primary season. Many of us signed petitions to have MSNBC's Chris Matthews apologize, for example. The great majority of Obama supporters take no joy from seeing either candidate treated unfairly by the media.

Is it true that the great majority of Clinton supporters are gleeful about the success of your "cult of personality" meme against Obama? All Democrats should be fighting against any frames that damage our candidates. This one of yours is quite damaging. It's akin to what was done to Howard Dean in 2004, and to George McGovern in 1972. Is this the kind of blow you were intending?

And, your strange allusion to President Bush's "Operation Flight Suit" is, quite simply, dumb-founding. Please name one example of an action taken by Senator Obama that is anyhow akin to that ridiculous display.

What is your column from yesterday, if not a case-study in the "politics of slander and scare?" You are slandering the candidate, and Obama supporters, suggesting that we have fallen prey to some kind of cult mentality. That is a powerful and scary word, Mr. Krugman, and you knew just what you were doing when you used it.

I can only speak for myself on this last point. But over the past few years, I had a hand in publishing some of the most popular progressive books that made it into the public debate. I have been steeped in the issues and the fight to bring a Democrat to office for a long time now. My support of Obama is based on my studied, measured -- and yes, hopeful -- belief that he is the best candidate for this moment in our nation's history. I resent your suggestion that my informed choice has been made because I am under a cult-like influence.

If Obama does not win the nomination, like the majority of Obama supporters, I will be disappointed, but I will vote for Hillary Clinton. But you're sure not making that decision any easier.

If you would, in fact, like to "see more hopeful moments" in this presidential campaign, please stop using your Times column to contribute your own brand of venom to the debate. Do you want to turn this into another 1968?

I say: Not. This. Time.

Please apologize, and then let's all move on.

Comments

[Dulce]

I think that Hillary and Bill Clinton are surprised by the Obama phenomenon which has been catching them off guard, and understanding it, they do not.

And neither does Paul Krugman…

“You know something is happening, but you don’t know what it is. Do you, Mr. Jones?” asked Bob Dylan on Highway 61 Revisited.

I don’t really think any of this is really about either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. It’s about the Zeitgeist of the time. Don’t blame either candidates for it. They are just actors on the stage of History.

There is an analogy to be made here with a once popular feature on fun-fairs: a barrel that is set in motion by the people inside it - those who manage to preserve their balance and those who fall over. Those who move too fast or too slow in relation to the barrel’s movement are bound to fall.

For Hegel the tragic heroes of history were those who came too late. Their reasons were noble but one-sided. They had been correct in a previous era but their time had come and passed.

[Dulce]

I happen to be among those who still like Hillary Clinton, mind you---I still do despite the fact that she ultimately lost me on her vote on resolution 114---and, deep-down, even though she has not been my candidate of choice in this primary (I could write at long length about this, but this is not really the topic on this thread), I still do feel a strong empathy toward Hillary who has worked so hard to be where she is today – a lot of people do. Think about it: here is a person who has devoted most of her life toward the goal of being one day the next American President… It is hard to run against something one does not understand. Hard to think that one is out of touch with the current Zeitgeist. Hard to come aware that people are tired of the past and want something else, something that you no longer represent. Hard to see people looking at a future that, for all your toted years of experience (or maybe because of all those years of experience AND compromises) you cannot see.

I don’t know that when talking about Senator Obama’s campaign---or for that matter about Senator Clinton’s campaign---“cult of personality” is really the right way to speak about what’s going on, here.

[JakeEasy]

Verily, I say unto you - We must forgive the Krugman. He hast the cast of reality over his eyes. He is weary from the battle against the neocon oppressors. We will await his conversion to the annointed. All Hallow are the Obamai.

[jennix]

Once again, I see the brand of Hillary supporters such as yourself are actually unable to rise to the level of real debate, and fall back on their meaningless taunts. So desperate, friends. I expect more from Democrats. I really do.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Once again, I expect more from commentators than to set straw dogs afire and then expect to be taken seriously.

[zstroud]

I took a break from this blog and I can see why. For Obama supporters to think he hasn't gotten a free favorable ride from the media is disengenuous at best, dishonest at the worst. But I've got a few questions:

Why did he keep funding the war he is soooo against.?

Why didn't he introduce legislation to end it?

Why did he vote FOR the Bush-Cheney energy bill?

How did he afford a 1.6 million dollar property on a State Senators salary?

How come he doesn't propose a withdrawal timeline?

If his judgement is soooo good, why wasn't it good when he was using Cocaine?

Why did he say he only worked for Rezko for 5 hours when it was more then that?

[trinity29]

I remember a speech given by Bill Clinton after Kerry was the nominee stating that the Republicans are playing to your fears and we are playing to your aspirations, dreams and how we can work together to make them come true. A loud applause approved that statement. In this election, I see the Clintons and many of their supporters continue to play to the exact same fear out of the Republican strategy book.

Yes, Hillary Clinton might have been around longer and understands how politics work in Washington. However, Obama has more years of experience as elected official than Hillary. Being married to Bill when he was elected cannot count nearly the same way as being the official herself because the voting never went on her record.

Hillary's voting record is conservative. She has supported Bush more consistently than not. She has also supported the Kyl-Lieberman bill. She has authored or co-sponsored unsubstantial bills in her role as a senator compared to Obama.

I don't care about the speeches of hope and change or any other rhetoric. I have purposely avoided watching speeches and focused more on the written plans of the both candidates and their previous record in and outside Washington.

If my informed decision to support Obama is akin to following a cult, then I think the accuser of that statement is reductive in his thinking and is trying to see if he could make this narrative stick.

[Rescisco]

Hey, lets respect both candidates and their supporters here. A far greater concern to me is winning in November, and frankly that will be much tougher than eiher the untested Obamacrats or the weary and worn Hillacrats are able to see right now. Nominate a new hope or an old story, both are facing an unhill battle in the general election. I see more ways to lose than to win right now. The general election will not be decided by the "primary" voters.

[Petey]

On the other hand... I'm feeling much more optimistic. I've seen both candidates grow tremendously this past year -- precisely because it turned into a real battle. Hillary was forced to get out from behind her safe wall of defenses, and Barack was forced to adapt his lofty sensibilities to the boxing ring. It's been fantastic for Democrats! And whoever gets the nod will have a much better chance of winning in November as a result. Despite all the bickering among supporters, we're getting a great chance to see how these two candidates think and function and strategize when the stakes and pressure are quite high.

[MrJoyboy]

My guess is Krugman is anti-Obama because he perceives Obama as being less friendly to Israel than is Clinton.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Nice "guess". *eye roll*

Any proof of this assertion that Krugman has a secret, militant pro-Israel bias that gets in the way of other issues? After years of following him, I've certainly never read any.

[gba]

Oh no, do not induce antisemitism too. Krugman is less friendly to Obama because of healtcare

[MrJoyboy]

I don't think the health care issue would engender the kind of emotional bias against Obama that Krugman shows.

[mamacat]

There is too much uncritical backing of all the candidates, in both parties.
There is no sure-fire way to know how a man or woman will perform the job of president, although the more debates we and they are exposed to, the more chances that they will discuss important issues.

[robeson]

Thank you Jennifer. What is so surprising is that Mr. Krugman used a slander that comes directly from right wing hate radio.

[ProudLiberalDan]

What is so surprising is that a supposed progressive, liberal Democrat like Obama uses right-wing talking points on social security and health care.

[supadindi]

Thank you, Jennifer!

[AnninCA]

Apologize? *cough*

This is a funny response piece to what many of us have been saying all along.

It's ole-timey religion!

And McCain is already on the move to attack the obvious.

Klugman said the obvious. McCain will beat it to death, no doubt.

But Hillary isn't allowed, of course. That would be racist.

[Ajita]

There we go with the race card again

[boomboom73]

All of this collectivist crap coming from the Obama followers makes me want to re-read some Ayn Rand.

(And to the poster who said that highly educated people can't be cult-like followers, plenty of college graduates still lack critical thinking skills.)

[Ajita]

Ayn Rand was a major influence in neo-con ideology. She endorsed a convoluted individualist mindset that falsely equates freedom with selfishness (in fact one of her books is titles "selfishness is a vritue")
College graduates may still lack in critical thinking skills (although my guess is that they're better than the general population), but when the alternative is blind adherence to the status-quo, I think I'm in a better place.

[boomboom73]

um, yeah, honey. the ayn rand thing was kind of a joke.

[StephenDedalus82]

Yeah, college students are the ones always involved in movements and revolutions. It's an adolescent chemical thing, I think. The problem is, if you're in college now then you probably don't remember the Clinton years very well. You don't remember the stark difference between a Republican administration and a Democratic one. It's all "the past" to them. That's not critical thinking, it's adolescent thinking.

[TheWesternBreed]

I don't prefer her, but I'll vote for Senator Mrs. Bill Clinton (as she slipped back into being, after Iowa) if she's the Democratic candidate in November. Even her election means letting her foul husband back into the White House where he will instantly begin to throw his weight around, no matter what is promised now. Are you Clinton-backers prepared to say the same thing about Barack Obama? No if, ands, or buts?

[Lemeritus]

Here's what I'm prepared to say and work for with every ounce of energy:

DEMOCRATIC '08

[ProudLiberalDan]

Well, I don't back either one and I'm sorry the Democratic Party contest degenerated into a battle between these two DLC candidates, neither or whom will change the corporate stranglehold on our politics and society.

However, I will hold my nose and vote for whichever one is the nominee because four more years of conservative militarism, even a more rational, sane version on John McCain, would be disastrous.

I would hope and expect that both Clinton and Obama supporters would do the same. Sometimes there is no difference between the two major party candidates in a race and a third party vote has justification.

This time the differences between Clinton v. McCain and Obama v. McCain are stark indeed.

I will hold my nose and vote for whichever of these DLC candidates is nominated.

[alkamm]

This sort of veiled loyalty oath sure has lots of advocates. I'm against Hillary for all sorts of reasons (temperament, experience, Iraq)but I'd probably vote for her.

My declaration of loyalty, however, is irrelevent. Why anybody would want it is beyond me. What is relevent is that many people see a phenomenon in Barack Obama that we can't afford to deny.

Some want to put him on the bench for 8 years and give the Clinton's a chance, but their assumption that she could win is a strange form of wish fulfillment masquerading as realism. With Hillary we might/could win a narrow victory, but we are more likely to lose because her character is the soul of triangulation, fear, and caution rather than strongly positioned, fearless and bold.

Obama's inspiration is stirring young and old alike to come together and remake our politics rather than divide and conquer us. The effect of her taking the nomination would be to turn off an entire generation, and whole groups of ethnicities who are used to being turned off.

You can't demand that these underenfranchised people vote for anybody if you give them the weak sister candidate Hillary has shown herself to be.

[Lemeritus]

What 'veiled' loyalty oath? There's nothing veiled about my commitment, alkamm. The only thing 'veiled' is your threat to vote only for Obama. I celebrate your reasons, but since we are all on the same sinking ship, I suggest you use the slurpy cup that came with your bib and booty set to help the rest of us bail. The alternative is more war and 100 years in Iraq.

And, while I'm at it, would you mind explaining to me how a victory for McCain (or Huckabee) would make the dis- or under-enfranchised people in our country MORE franchised?

[ClaudiaJean]

Hell Yes. 100%.

the single most important thing is to get a Democrat into that White House. anyone who loses sight of that is a lost cause and part of the problem.

as far as Mr. Krugman, by no means does it suggest that ALL Obama supporters are cult-like followers.... but, given even a 10 minute glance at the representation on THIS website by the overzealous, borderline evangelical ObamaLoonies (and yes, an overwhelming abundance of whom are of the 'Vote for Obama or Nobody' variety) shows you that the backlash has begun against an ever growing element within the population of Obama supporters that isn't doing anything positive for his campaign or for their candidate.

[rayo]

It is a cult following. Watch the defection of white democrat to McCain in November. Expect another four years of Republicanism. Racism will prevail. I know as a Hispanic, I see it every day. It will come back to haunt the Democratic party. The defections will be sufficient to lose the White House.

[citizenxyz]

There is a huge difference between being inspired/remembering how to imagine and entertain possibility and being caught in the dogma of a cult. Krugman is unable to see this difference, maybe because he gets caught in the details of a specific policy. I really appreciate the above column- it reflects much of how I feel

[alkamm]

citizensyz, my sympathies exactly. Such crude name-calling doesn't even fit in an editorial page, and it's certainly not a sign of disinterested journalism.

We used to expect politicians like the Clintons would take positions that compromised their true convictions on subjects so that they could get elected. Once they are in an election they are likely to lose, they and their supporters demand complete orthodoxy from Obama.

Obama can be trusted to change our policies as well as our politics, and his positions shouldn't be judged as if they were carved in granite. Such honesty usually leads to defeat, so we have to give the man a little latitude and watch his positions evolve once he's in office.

[Lemeritus]

Oh, heaven forbid, we should allow this issue to slip from our forum! Immunity for the telecoms... pfft! ho-hum, one headline, yesterday's news! But Paul Krugman? Let's keep that furnace stoked! Let's take another stick to the bee hive! Gee, thanks, Jennifer (and, by extension, Arianna and her happy staff) -- there's nothing like keeping the regulars here at each other's throats.

I don't know you, Jennifer. I've read your bio and you seem to have a lovely resume. But I have watched Paul Krugman over the years as he spoke out against this administration and I admire and respect him for it. I don't have to agree with everything he says, but I don't have any trouble standing up for him.

For those of you who were spared the pile-up a couple of days ago, Mr. Krugman had the temerity to write:

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

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

Scandalous!

And then he sealed his doom and earned the slings and arrows of outrageous calumny by saying, "I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." Cult of personality is a stand alone term -- as you should know, Jennifer -- which means something similar to general hero worship specifically regarding political leaders.

What treachery!

Two days ago, this topic created endless ill-will among people who are trying to work in their ways toward a common good. Names were called, egos bruised, and too much damage done. It's a shame to see it back again.

[TurnThePageGA]

Yeah I wish it would go away but there are people in this blog still asserting that it a cult following. And Mr. Krugman helped put into the discussion. I totally recent it as Obama supporter. And like she says we will all have to come together however this works out. Fairy -tale, Smoke and Mirror, Cult of Personality, and other dismissive rhetoric from the other side is not gonna help.

[ProudLiberalDan]

I look at behavior. Underneath all of Obama's lofty speeches and windy rhetoric have been right-wing talking points and framing of the issues as exemplified in those disgusting and disingenuous "Harry and Louise revisited" ads.

In the same way it is a straw dog the Obama supporters set up to say that people are accusing them of being in a cult. No one has said that everyone who supports Obama is in a cult. Resent the straw dog if you like, but it doesn't make it true.

There ARE Obamaniacs on these boards who ACT like they belong to a cult-of-personality.

Fortunately, I don't hold these Obamaniacs against Obama, and I don't believe that they are representative of Obama's supporters as a whole.

But the bonfire from that straw dog is pretty warm and I was feeling chilly, so thanks.

[SeekerOne]

So all of this ill-will, are saying that Krugman had no hand in fostering it?

[Lemeritus]

I'm going to borrow a riff from Obama -- we're the problem we need to avoid. I read Krugman's article; I didn't find it to be the invitation to civil war that it's become on this site. He used the word cult, but not in the way it's been decried here. Krugman wrote an article; The Huffington Post has been FOSTERING discord

Look, I've cast my vote and I assume you either have as well or soon will. I will support the Democratic nominee for president because I believe that our party's agenda is vastly superior to the 100 more years of war promised by the Republican frontrunner. I'd like to see an end to this internecine blood-letting and I would like to see this site (which I have grown very fond of) stop encouraging it.

[MGhamma]

Well said Lemeritus.

[elayneriggs]

You know, "cult of personality" doesn't imply an actual cult. JFK had a cult of personality and he was a very popular president. Bill Clinton also had a cult of personality. Unfortunately, GWB did as well. It involves people thinking with their hearts oftimes before they think with their heads. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but people who do that ought to be aware that's what they're doing.