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

[Rossetti]

Is it fair to ask of you to admit that you may be familiar with the hate filled anti Clinton screed of Frank Rich in the Times Sunday. Perhaps Krugman was outraged by Rich's hateful accusation that Hillary is an anti-Hispanic bigot. Now that is venimous. Nixonland indeed!

[jennix]

What I find interesting is that, while you may not agree with Mr. Rich's analysis, his argument was backed up with solid evidence of his points:

For example, if you go to the article again, you'll see all of the links to statements that support his argument. I can't seem to get the links to appear here, but go back and see for yourself. Particularly in this paragraph:

"But the wholesale substitution of Hispanics for blacks on the Hallmark show is tainted by a creepy racial back story. Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against each other by telling The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have “not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates­.” Mrs. Clinton then seconded the motion by telling Tim Russert in a debate that her pollster was “making a historical statement.­”

Mr. Krugman's column had very little, if any, in the way of cited support for his argument. And he confused and conflated much of what he did report.

[Rossetti]

Prima facie, saying something is historically true of a voter group is not making one's self a bigot. Ipso facto, Ed Rendell, the governor of PA is not a bigot because he notes there are white voters who wont vote for a black. This is the sick logic of hate filled minds looking for cheap slanders of decent people they happen to oppose. Nixonland, indeed!

[trevor01]

I don't believe Obama is behind the smear campaign that has been dogging Hillary ever since the beginning of this long long process but it would make Hillary supporters feel a lot better about Obama if he didn't allow this stuff to go on and on without comment. His above the fray posture may satisfy some but it leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth.

[jennix]

What smear campaign and "stuff" are you speaking of specifically? I have heard Sen. Obama make many references to Sen. Clinton being a friend of his "before this campaign, and she'll be one after this campaign." What exactly, and I mean this sincerely, would you have him say and do? Please be specific. Thanks.

[BitJam]

Obama does comment. Here is an example in an interview he did after Hillary's LBJ vs. MLK remarks.

http://cdn.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH7GC.DTL

~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~

On the issue of race, Obama also said key differences in outlook and experience define the two campaigns.

"I actually don't think that the comment that Sen. Clinton made about Dr. King was a racial comment," he said, referring to a recent flareup in which she noted that President Lyndon Johnson had pushed the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress, a comment that some African American leaders took as downplaying contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King.

"I think it was illustrative of how she thinks change happens," he said. "She was arguing that Lyndon Johnson, his skill set was what was critical to getting the Civil Rights Act done - as opposed to a movement on the streets. And that indicates a difference in emphasis on how change occurs. But I don't think the comments were racial."

~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~

The media likes to play up the conflicts and downplay the resolutions and conciliations but I don't think you can fault Obama for that.

[vbond]

Thanks, Jennifer.

Krugman has completely lost it.

Whom, after all, does he think he's helping?

Oh... wait a minute...

Never mind.