The Latest Obama Distortion: Cult Figure
In today's NYT, Paul Krugman writes about the "bitterness" of the Democratic nomination fight, writing that he feels that the most "venom" comes from the pro-Obama voices. He goes on to say that Obama supporters "want their hero or nobody" and that the "Obama campaign is seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality."
Our hero or nobody? A cult of personality? Let's take a moment to deconstruct.
Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly tried to diminish the differences between her and her opponents. This Obama supporter isn't buying it. When it comes to policy proposals, the differences may be small. However, many of us look at these two candidates and see two different people, two different histories, two different approaches to governance. Why do we sense this? Because yes, these two candidates have different personalities. Personality is not just about being the fun guy to have a beer with. It runs deeper. We are not wrong to assess one's personality when assessing a candidate, because one's personality says much about how he or she will do the job.
Obama has an open, humble, flexible sort of brilliance that portends that he will bring amazing knowledge to the Oval Office, but will always remain open to ideas that don't fit in the preconceived framework of what is right and wrong. He does not give the sense that he already knows all there is to know, like she often does. He appears to have a different character--a personality that many of us believe would make him better suited for the presidency. Yet we point this out, and suddenly our concerns are written off as hero worship, the stuff of cults.
Cults. Yes. "Cult of personality" is great phrasing for them, no? If a voter isn't really familiar with the idea, they hear that word "cult" and they're thinking David Koresh. They think: dark, secret, and manipulative. Maybe even sleeper--an above-board way to conjure up all these fears those Muslim-baiting emails did. "Cult of personality" asserts that no *rational* person could rationally choose between Obama and Clinton.
But that's the thing: many of us do. And we first did so when the easy thing would have been to ride the Clinton train. But we chose not to. Not because we think Obama's the messiah--quite the contrary. We think he's a voice of reason, in a time when the presumptive nominee, the one we were told was inevitable, exhibited Bush-lite tendencies, going along with the Iran warmongering, refusing to apologize for her Iraq vote. We watch as every day she changes, constantly micro-calibrating her appeal with only one goal in mind: to win. The changes don't feel like evolution because they feel disconnected from the authentic person inside. There is nothing wrong with fighting hard, or wanting to win. But when it's always tactics above principle, there's a problem.
As Maureen Dowd pointed out last week, I feel that the Clintons and many of their operatives and surrogates have learned the wrong lessons from the 80s and 90s. We can frame issues, and our opponents, without resorting to untruthful distortions. Obama's campaign is not a Jackson campaign. People who criticize Clinton are not automatically Clinton-haters. People who wildly support Obama have not necessarily succumbed to a cult of personality. Many of us support Obama because we trust that he can be competitive without relying on these kinds of distortions. Framing is about focusing the eye. It need not be a lie.
As critical as I've been sometimes of Maureen Dowd's coverage of our presidents and the candidates, I think that she reveals something that is an eternal truth: character matters. How people approach their work, and their life, says something about the outcomes we can expect. We have had a long time now to see Mrs. Clinton in action, and to make our judgments on who would better represent us here and abroad. Don't write off our desires as cultish. Just because Obama's success gives us joy, does not mean our support is not girded by reason.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The Huffington Post's Stacy Parker Aab and I are not the only ones who've noticed NY Times columnist Paul Krugman's stong anti-Obama stance. You can ready my take at Newsdog (http://thenewsdog.blogspot.com/).
Cass R. Sunstein takes him on at The New Republic in Why Is Paul Krugman So Hostile To Barack Obama? Others have concluded that Krugman just likes Clinton better, but Sunstein puts the following hypothesis forward:
"I think that the difference between the two goes deeper, and that it is really one of temperament. This is a speculation, but it is not otherwise easy to explain Krugman's seemingly visceral hostility to Barack Obama."
A very likely conclusion, that leaves the door open to other possibilities. Very reasonable as well, since it is hard to really see why he's concluded that Clinton is the better candidate. His words just don't support his thesis.
You people should hear yourselves. You are only proving the article right! Obama followers are being mesmerized by a velvet voice and the rest of the country is concerned about this lack of investigation by his followers! WOW - GOOD LUCK YOU GUYS!!!!!
people, eventually we've got to learn to ignore the baiting/instigating trolls and come together by november. i doubt the majority of the vitriol is coming from true supporters of either campaign. still, this nonsense is getting ridiculous -- and i thought progressives were supposed to be enlightened thinkers.
Look brothas and sistas, we need to be unified, not divided. Hope will guide us but you need to accept hope for hope to bring us all together ! and to be together we must stop looking at what makes us different from one another but what we have in common. Together we can do it ! No more brining each other down. We need to start raising each other up instead. I have hope for us because, yes we can !! CHANGE!!!! HOPE!!! YES WE CAN!!! AUDACITY OF HOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Look people let's make it perfectly clear. The only cult going on is us the Ron Paul supporters. Ron Paul for President 08.
Critism of Obama supporters as "educated " is the dumbest thing I've ever heard .People who are NOT educated are a large part of the problems this country has. Class warfare based on educational status ..... All you uneducated people vote for me....now thats not uneducated it just DUMB.
As far as the "truck driver vote" goes , are not they the folks that gave us the "Reagan Revolution" Dick Nixon and George Bush.
And Hillary supporters are counting on them to win ?
Krugman, "I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality."
No you're not the first Paul, right wing, hate radio was the first.
Dinner with foreign dignataries is not foreign policy experience. Getting knock around by the press because your husband is unfaithful, and Whitewater is not a test for the presidency.
Obama has more years in office than Ms. Clinton. He is prepared. Obama opposed the war from the biginning, that is why people support him. While others sat by, afraid to challenge the decision to go to war, Obama took a stand against it!
That is why people support him!
Yes, it's not a cult, but Obama has an "open, humble, flexible sort of brilliance that portends that he will bring amazing knowledge to the Oval Office, but will always remain open to ideas that don't fit in the preconceived framework of what is right and wrong." And how do you know this? Why isn't it clear to more people that Obama is a projection. People use him as a symbol for everything they want in a president. Well, not even a president, but a leader figure in general.
You ignore the fact that he spends every day trashing Hillary Clinton and her husband's legacy, while the Clintons can't say one damn thing about him without the talking heads screaming racism (the perfect conversation stopper). You ignore the fact that his campaign is entirely about his oratory skills and not about the future of the country in any meaningful sense. In a very real way he offers himself as a messiah figure, and people eat it up. Of course the more educated and more wealthy eat it up more; they don't have as much to lose from such a flight of fancy. Well, I've yet to be convinced about Senator Obama, who, to me, is just an abnormally precocious and ambitious politician. He probably always wanted to be president and now he may get his wish. Too bad he had to drag the Clinton name through the mud to get his wish.
"You ignore the fact that he spends every day trashing Hillary Clinton and her husband's legacy,"
Give an example.
"You ignore the fact that his campaign is entirely about his oratory skills"
If you don't understand Obama's policy plans by now it's due to your own ignorance and it's your own fault.
I never voted for Bill so why would I vote for Hillary when I never supported a Democrat before in the race for the presidency. Obama is an exception because of the generation issue but if he did not posed that I would not have bitten. I am an independent.
I think Krugman is sincerely biased against the audacity of people supporting Obama as their only choice when I watched my family look at Clinton as if he was Jesus. The way I watch older women behave in reference to the symbolism is cultish.
If Obama does not get the nomination, I will not be supporting Hillary. If Bloomberg does not run, I will support a Green Party candidate. That's the only alternative for me.
Taking care of the health of the Democrat Party is not all citizens' responsibility void of their support for Obama, a Dem, not winning. His presidency offered us a choice. His absence hence opens up another choice to choose any candidate. We are not beholden to support the health and longevity of the Democratic Party when it is no longer the Party of Lincoln --- but the Party of Clinton.
Agree with everything, except that Lincoln was a republican. Shows just how far that once mighty party has fallen.
He's bigger than a cult leader, he's Mabus.
Go ahead Google it.
Multiple opinions!
Mostly based on the quatrains of Nostradamus, themselves subject to multiple interpretations!
None can be named as Mabus with absolute certainty!
It's been over a year now since my disappointment when Barack announced that he was running for President. My reason? It meant, to me, that he was showing himself to be a politician instead of a statesman, a distinction our country needs to recognize and concern itself with much more than it currently does. I was wrong. I believe that Barack has brought to this debate an excitement and inclusion that shows more promise to bring this country together than any candidate in my memory, and that memory includes going door to door for JFK as a young boy. Part of that difference is a change in the dynamics of the country--it was a more unified country in 1960 than it is today (or so my young mind felt at the time); most of the difference is that I feel Barack is in this not for himself but for all of us--as a nation and as occupants of the world. I am excited about the possibilities that Obama presents. If Hillary wins the primaries, I will vote for her. Her policies are in line with mine, as are Barack's; but I don't believe that Hillary can bring this country together the way Obama shows the promise of doing. I would rather take this shot and lose the election (though I don't think we will) than not grab this opportunity. If that makes me a cultist, so be it.
Hmmm ... may be the reason many Obama supporters say they will not automatically support Hillary in the general election is because they are not Democrats. They do not have fond memories of the Clinton years. May be they got tired of defending the Clinton Administration to other people who got caught up in the stupid lie (because Bill didn't tell the truth and thought he could get away with it). Perhaps they've been hoping Hillary will finally admit that her vote to authorize GW Bush to invade Iraq was stupid and she has not. May be they want to believe they can be part of the solution to making this country better, instead of sitting around waiting for someone to save them.
Maybe you are on to something. I am called a Clinton hater for not voting for her, while maintaining that I would vote for him. People do not understand that. As an independent with a right lean, I am wanting something new, not the same old crap. I am in a way against both parties, but I am willing to listen to him with the hope that he can be different. I already know Clinton or McCain would be the same crap.
The LA Times endorsed Obama because he was poetic. They passed on Clinton--the essay--solid and reasoned. Give me solid and reasoned ANY day. Hillary for President--2008!
You made several important and valid points. You just forgot to mention that Krugman is a paid Hill Shill.
...and prone to redundancy - the definition of the word "cult" includes personality as something to be admired or followed.
"Cult" all by itself is enough - no "of personality" needed.
....Obama '08
see...we are not all non-thinking clones after all....
How do you dare trying to distort Krugman's reputation without any kind of prove?
Krugman has lost all credibility IMO with his recent articles. The mistake a lot of Clinton supporters make is to assume everyone is as uninformed and uncritical as they are. You'd think a journalist like Krugman would be more sophisticated and better at detecting spin, yet all he does is echo and promote the talking points of the Clinton campaign. He's become Hillary's parrot.
Well of course he has. Look, we're slow but we're accurate, and we get it now.
All of us that support Sen. Clinton are:
1:) Racists
2:)Proponents of the status quo because of our priviliged position in it. (ha!)
3:)Racists
4:)Too stupid to understand the inspiring rhetoric of the Sen.
5:)Racists
6:)Paid shills for the Clinton campaign
7:)Racists
8:)Warmongers as bad or worse than Bush and the Republicans.
9:)Racists
10:)Sick and tired of being called racist
We get it...................................tm
Since race wasn't mentioned in the post or my comment, why are you saying 'racist' over and over?
Thank you for an excellent response to Krugman.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
