C'mon Paul...

Krugman makes a good point, which he sabotages by continuing his honker against Obama, which he's been doing for the past few weeks.

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

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

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. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

I don't know who he's been talking to, but we've been hearing it from BOTH sides pretty evenly - and we don't like it coming from anyone. Fortunately, we're hearing 'WAY more unity than venom overall, so again we ask, who the hell is he talking to?

No problem here, Paul. No matter who ends up being the candidate, we'll hoist them on our shoulders and carry them head-first into the White House.

And Kristol is still an ass. Hey, Billy. Tick tick tick tick...

Comments

[Jhdies]

Krugman is correct about venom coming from the Obama camp and media--particularly the candiate's wife who "was not sure if she would support Clinton if she were the nominee" I find that not in the best interest of anyone. No one is "entitled" to the nomination. If Obama can't stand up to the Clintons, how will he ever survive the coming Republican attack machine?

[Ben]

I don't think the question was whether Michelle Obama would support Hillary or not, but rather if she'd be actively campaigning for her. Big difference. Also, I do think Krugman's starting to take this Obama thing a little too far.

[Mike]

Venom? What does Krugman call Hillary Clinton saying Obama hasn't done enough "spade work"? Does she believe any black person is going to miss that, a black man being called a spade who needs to be doing spade work? I almost got sick when I heard that.

To paraphrase Muhammad Ali, no Republican ever called me spade, and there is no way I'm going to vote for a Democratic candidate who with her husband scraped bottom looking for the trailer park vote with racial innuendos. Especially given McCain doesn't have any history of being racist. Call it venom if you want, but I'm voting for Obama, and if he's not the nominee I'm voting Republican, because I'm not voting for a racist witch.

[Kent]

Sorry but the venom being spewed in Hillary's direction by the media is at least a couple of orders of magnitude greater than anything being thrown Obama's way. In fact, does the media ever speak in anything but glowing terms about Obama: Nothing but content-free statements about "excitement", "huge crowds", "energized", "momentum", etc. Overall, absolutely zero discussion of the issues on the dem side (and sorry, but Obama's lack of experience IS a completely valid issue. 1/2 term as a senator? Seriously??). The media has never scrutinized Obama. And when the Clinton's dared to, the cries of "race-card!!!" began immediately, when their statements had absolutely no connection whatsoever with race. Ironic that the people yelling "race-card" were actually the ones playing it to the hilt.

[mustang sally]

I seem to remember Krugman parting ways w/ Obama when Obama began spouting the republican line on Medicare & Medicaid & since then on other economic issues, chief among them being a health care plan that is, um, somwhat lacking. While i haven't made up my mind yet whether i will pull the lever for Obama or Clinton (i'm still in mourning over losing Edwards) i have to admit that i come away from listening to Obama feeling inspired but can't remember any concrete policy stands he took. Leaving Krugman aside & on a more personal note, it makes my head explode every time Obama talks about making nice w/ the republicans. NO! NO! PLEASE NO! We have a right to be angry about what they've done to us.

KRUGMAN shows his crooked republican mentality. The Republican's know that they cannot stand Obama in November GE. That's why they prefer Clinton who is a weak candidate. Remember Bush prefers Clinton over Obama...

[Ed Drone]

"... so again we ask, who the hell is he talking to?"

"I don't know how Nixon got elected. I don't know anyone who voted for him!" (Actual quote)

It really depends on who you talk to, you know? Krugman obviously doesn't hobnob with my friends, and I don't with his, or probably yours, either.

That said, I have seen venom from both sides, incredible 'hot button' responses to more or less innocuous remarks, etc. I am not happy with it, I am not comfortable with it, and I am not sanguine about our chances if it goes on.

Examples abound, from interpreting Clinton's 'fire David Shuster (or don't)' letter (which was carefully phrased for maximum effect on both MSNBC and Obama supporters) to paraphrasing Michelle Obama's remarks about supporting the eventual candidate to pumping up the volume about the difference between elections and caucuses.

And the discord will not help the Democrats in the fall. Not at all. My opinion is that we need to take a slow 10-count before responding to anything either camp says (or for that matter, to anything ANY camp says, Pepublican't or Democrat or Green or Nader/Satan, or whomever). This election is too important, and the venom will only increase once the conventions are held and the candidates anointed. The right-wing talking points are being honed as we speak, and the more invective we throw at each other, the less sharpening the blades will need once they're in Rethuglican hands.

Like the adage, "It's better to be still and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt," we need to lay off the tendency to shout each other down. After all, this isn't "Hardball with Chris Mathews," and none of us are Bill O'Reilly, either. So stop with it, already.

For the record, I favor Obama, because he is creating a movement, not just a campaign. Details about programs can be worked out in the future, but enthusiasm can't be held forever if the public does not hold you in their hearts.

Ed

Krugman is right!

Obama fanciers want a sexy candidate in a Navy flight suit! We all know what happened there. And, I don't buy into this JFK glorification! Obama is no JFK. JFK was Not a one paged resumed candidate! Obama looks pretty, but......
Scottsdale, AZ

[Buckeye]

Check any of the comment sections on CNN's political ticker. The Clinton supporters are the ones with the venom toward Obama.
Hillary's spade comment; Benedixen's comment ratified as "historical truth" by Hillary; Bill's "jesse Jackson won SC in 1984 and 1988"; Hillary's description of Obama the day after the SC debate as "frustrated.
All of these are in my estimation RACE-BAITING.
It blew up in the Clintons' face, and that is why the big momentum is on Obama's side.
And mark my word, Barack Obama will win the Ohio Democratic primary on March 4th.

[Monitor]

Obama's an empty suit who makes rousing, soaring speeches in front of Oprah and her wide-eyed, Up-Up-With-People throngs, repeating the words "change" and "hope" endlessly without ever really saying anything substantive (reminds one of some kind of religious revival) ...and stutters and stammers during debates when confronted in real-time by actual issues and questions.

Are Hillary and Obama (with a whopping 3 year's of experience in govt) the BEST the Dem party could come up with?

[Don]

Krugman is a smuck. Typical of his free riding generation, for Krugman Nixon is the cause of all our contemporary ills, as if Nixon ended the era of good neighbor politics and gracious noblesse oblige. At least Nixon ended the draft, thus certifying the limited nature of elite sacrifice during limited wars for creatures like Krugman. Krugman should be getting down on his knees and praying to the man who, more than anyone else, provided the Krugmans of America the opportunity to posture as revolutionaries with tenure and a state pension.

[Swift Loris]

"Ironic that the people yelling 'race-card' were actually the ones playing it to the hilt."

Exactly.

Krugman's column, BTW, was almost surely aimed at his colleague Frank Rich, whose own column on Sunday attacking the Clintons--bogus "race card" charge and all--was really quite despicable ("a synthetic product leeched of most human qualities"--if that ain't venomous, I don't know what is).

[White woman for Hillary]

All the negative media against Hillary is a great righ-conspiracy. Those republican loving media types don't want Hillary to be nominated because she is a woman and can defeat McCain. Obama is getting a free ride because he is male and black.

[OxyCon]

I not only agree with Krugman, but I actually thought the same thing a couple of weeks ago.
All of this Obamamania is getting really scary.
All you hear these Obama nuts say is "If we don't get our Obama, we ain't voting".
To that I say, go screw yourselves.
I don't like Obama.
The more I see him act like a petty, vindictive snob; the more I hear his wife say she would "have to think" about supporting Hillary; the more I hear him say "it's now or never, I'm not running again"; the more I see Obama's nuts disrespect the Clintons by booing them at public events; the more I see Obama strutting around and showboating; the more I see Obama attacking Hillary with underhanded, smartass remarks (ala Bush) the less and less I like him.

[legadillo]

I do not care who is nominated. I will vote for a sea slug before I'll vote for a republican. I can't believe people are so het up about the minor differences between two dems. Jeebus people! You think maybe corporate media is thrilled with all this wheel-spinning that keeps our noses glued to the endless CNN loop on the teevee?

[Howard]

I wonder how many Clinton fans who decry Obama supporters for not being lockstep Democrats understand how to win in November. I'm a Republican who has been actively campaigning for Obama and donating to his campaign because I think he will be the best president of the current choices. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton for president if she is nominated. That doesn't make me a cult member, it means that I'm not a hack who puts a certain party before everything else.

[mike - LA]

Mr. Krugman totally discounts the fact that it was the Clintons themselves who created this backlash against them.. I would have agreed with his views, and been far more open to supporting Clinton(s) if I was NOT subjected to the thinly veiled racist bile which came spurting out of the mouth of the ex-president. I voted for him in the past, I would have voted for his wife, but the divide and conquer tactic of attempting to brand Obama as the "Black Guy" changed my view of them. I went from a "black guy" who liked the Clintons and turned me into someone who will no longer support them....Period. They took my goodwill and insulted me for even having given it to them to begin with.... Honestly I'd rather vote for McCain than Clinton. Respect me for having a brain!!!!

[JB]

So, Howard, if you really are a Republican, why would you campaign for someone whose positions are polar opposites of those of the party you claim allegiance to (at least in the past?) See, the thing about political parties is they are supposed to be based around ideas, not personalities. You are not born a Republican or Democrat; you become one based on the ideas you hold (generally speaking.) It would be one thing if Obama was campaigning as a sort of centrist. But he's just as far left as Clinton or Ted Kennedy or John Kerry. Would you support them? I doubt it. Why? Because you identify yourself as a Republican. So why are you supporting someone who opposes your ideas?

[Falxius]

I'm tired of the Clinton camps' strategy of painting Obama as an empty rhetoric suit. Talk about venom. Mr. Obama has been very clear on issues including but not limited to his superior health care proposal (as opposed to a mandate that will make you buy even if you can't afford it) and his superior international relations (not talking with a country unless they give you something they want is not a way to go about that... hello Bushies!).

Practically everything that comes out that can be spun IS spun by the Clinton camp to make themselves the victims or as the blameless party (i.e. We didn’t play the race card, they did! Or I’m the one with experience, enough for day one but I’m not responsible for any failings that occurred during my husband’s two terms). They call it Triangulating. I call it lying and intentional hypocrisy.

A very telling point in the campaign and the first hint that race was going to be introduced by *somebody* was when Bill Clinton made his "attack" on Obama's voting record wrt to the war and his lack of experience, using the terms "fairy tale" and "kid". I remember watching the Situation Room on CNN and Donna Brazille commented "As an African American, I'm troubled and hurt by Bill Clinton's remarks." I'm thinking "What the hell did Clinton's remarks have to do with race and you being black?". Apparnetly Wolf Blitzer was thinking the same thing and asked Brazille "Why as an *African America* were you offended?".

Brazille didn't have a response. She was completely busted.

She had pulled the race card out, probably out of sheer habit, and didn't offer a single word as to why she, as a black person, was offended by what Clinton had said.

If she'd been honest, I suspect she would have said something like "I don't like the white guy criticizing the black candidate." That's what 99.99% of all this "Clinton's playing the race card" line of bs is about, and every rational person in the country knows it.

Saw more of the same from blacks and the media in the coming weeks and months ("How dare you demean MLK, you racist bitch", "How dare you have your surrogates allude to Obama's past drug use", "Clintons are using code words", etc ad nauseam.

[Dan]

And Hoff's point is still intact! Out of the above comments:

Pro-Obama 8
Pro-Clinton 7
Neutral 5

Better than Krugman: Hoffmania.

(PS to Mike, LA - Anyone who says they'd vote for McCain over Clinton must have a thing for temperamental hotheads who want to continue Bush's war policy. Rethink that, pal.)

[kelly]

Dan...or they're a paid troll. (Great tally, by the way!)

[Mike in LA]

here's my response -

1. I'm definitely not paid by anyone to post comments - this is the first time I've ever done this. I don't even know why i'm taking the time to respond other than I want all the readers out there to know how it is a reasonable person could have the position of NOT wanting to support HRC. I'm not insane, nor am I getting a thin dime to post this.

2. In all honesty I will probably NOT support McCain, maybe I do need to chill out, but I'd rather vote for someone who I feel has some integrity rather than the Clintons, who in my eyes have none. McCain I can respect on a real basic level he sat in a North Vietnamese prison for as long as he did - he also has made his own calls - he's been against a lot of the uber conservative folks on a lot of my key issues - he seems pragmatic, and honest. I'm sure he's not perfect but compared even to Bush2 he's a big relief. Heck - anyone but that joker would be a relief (including Bush1). Yup, its a pretty extreme position but I just can't vote for Bill or Hillary again.

3. I really was 100% honestly a fan of these folks, I have personally said good things about the Clintons during the last 7 years, like "i wish we could have Bill back, etc." I liked Obama more than HRC, but was lukewarm, I would have happily supported HRC if she won the primaries. For me it all changed with their tactics/antics in South Carolina - they just turned me waaaaay off, really quickly - its not that I really think politicians are anything but what they are, I'm just personally disgusted.

4. I think what makes it worse for HRC is that most of Obama's supporters felt EXACTLY the same about the Clintons up until their recent actions totally disappointed. We are like a relationship that's gone so bad, there's no getting back together again.

5. So - my support is for Obama, he's got pretty much the same positions as HRC, with the bonus of plenty of that intangible vibe which has caused all the hype. He makes me feel good to be an American again, I could get on plane in Peru or France or Timbuktu and walk around with a USA t-shirt and say Yeahhhh.. that's my country, I'm proud of it, we elected someone who is classy, smart, and has good policies for the US and The world. - Foreigh people would smile at me and I'd bet more would jazzed about the USA again. Lets face it - People want to believe in something better - Obama invites you to do this.....Clinton just does not have that sort of appeal. OBAMA is one a heck of a statement in a much more positive direction for the USA.

6. Sure, Clinton has got details for days about her policies, etc - she's great at detail and factual info, and spin. Sure it would be great to have a Woman as president. However, to me, and I would imagine many other Obama people It's pretty evident that these two hold the same positions on 98% of the issues. This election is like buying a car you could get a used toyota corrolla, a great car, it will run forever, is dependable, a good car - OR you could get a newer BMW, a great car pretty dependable, but full of all kinds of engineerng which makes you feel good when you drive it.

I can respect folks who want to vote for Clinton - I was once one of you, but I can completely understand why folks say they would support Obama and not support HRC. Lots of these folks were Clinton supporters, believe you me. It's like night and day, Obama has vision and yes, feel good vibes, Clinton, pissed me off, and has become what the other side always said about them -someone who will do or say whatever, at any cost, to get the votes she needs - including insulting the intelligence of a sizeable chunk of her core long term supporters. It's funny how once you are a target of this kind of politics you wake up to what many folks have said about HRC for a long time. I don't agree with all of what the right wing wacko crowd has to say about HRC, but given the Clinton campaigns' actions during THIS campaign.. they went over my internal line - and lost my support in the process. For me this election comes down to either more of the same or change I can believe in - and I, along with many others, think it's time to turn the page.!!!!!!!!

[Dan]

Well, okay then! Thanks, Mike. Nicely done. I hope we all support whoever our candidate is, AND vote in progressive house members.

[C.P.T.L. (before his morning coffee)]

Of all the absurd... damned high schoolish... inane folderol. Grow up. This is an important election.