I'd say I'm fundamentally in agreement with William Julius Wilson's rejoinder to Paul Krugman on the NYT letter page, but of course Professor Wilson is black so he doesn't count.
« A Surge of Podcasts | Main | Superdelegates »
Clash of the Professors
13 Feb 2008 03:22 pm
Comments (71)
Silly me! I thought he didn't count because he once worked at the University of Chicago.
No, Matt, he counts as 3/5 of a person. (Too easy.)
So much venom in those responses! No apologies for supporting Obama or anything!
I see the Obama Cult has commanded its squadrons of rabid lambs to unleash their venom on Paul Krugman.
I'd expect William Julius Wilson doesn't read DailyKos, but I would've thought Matt visited with the great orange Satan occasionally.
The site has lots of diaries and comments lately hating on Clinton and pledging not to vote for her in the general. Of course, there lots of rejoinders too, but there is plenty of venom in evidence.
As for cult of personality ... ALL good politicians have one, so I think that I don't disagree with Krugman on that point so much as find his observation trivial.
No, he doesn't count because he lives in MA, and since he couldn't deliver MA for Obama, he clearly doesn't count.
Is the Jon Landau who wrote in with a pro-Obama letter the Bruce Springsteen manager?
That was a really low moment for Krugman.
I wonder if he still feels the same way, or he just needed to vent after watching his multi-million dollar establishment candidate have an electoral meltdown.
Maybe he feels even further put upon after yesterday's historic trouncing.
Either way, it will go down as a low point in his career.
I really don't understand the Krugman hating that goes on. He calls things the way he sees them and gets attacked by the wingnut tribalists when they don't like what he says about Bush and by the Obamafans when he's insufficiently worshipful of Saint Barack. I'll be pleased if Obama's the nominee, but this idea that he's somehow above criticism is bullshit. The crack by MY about Wilson not counting because he's black is particularly uncalled-for snark that's just beneath him. I thought he was classier than that.
Give me a break.
I think we've heard enough of this "... doesn't count because" meme. I think you've all made the point.
I think it's fair to bring up the point that as long as African-American Democrats cast a near unanimous vote for Obama there's not much chance for Clinton to contest in states like Louisana, Virginia, Maryland and Georgia where that demographic constitutes from a third to half of the primary electorate.
Make no mistake, 80-90% of African Americans are not voting for Obama because of issues. I understand the pride and desire to make history they all must feel, that's a very powerful sentiment. But it's not because Bill and Hillary Clinton made a few remarks about MLK or Jesse Jackson. That notion (which I've read repeatedly)is the silliest political analysis I've ever heard, just about.
Krugman's not above criticism either.
And his op-ed wasn't just a "criticism" of Obama, but a seriously mean-spirited lashing out at anyone who would dare deem him a better candidate than Hillary, where he says that he "won't even fake evenhandedness" and compares Obama to George Bush.
Do you understand the "hating" against this particular article now?
Maybe you should read it.
I really don't understand the Krugman hating that goes on.
Well, he's an economist. He usually writes about economics. And lately he's been wading into troubling waters with his implicit endorsement of Clinton. Attacking Obama's health care plan? Fine by most people. But attacking his supporters for being members of a cult (all 11 million of them so far), providing no examples, then calling for both candidates to express support for the other in a general election (something that both of them have done numerous times) - put it all together and it starts to smell quite a bit like sour grapes. I agree that he was probably venting, but a column in the nation's most read daily paper is probably not a good place to blow off some steam.
this idea that he's somehow above criticism is bullshit
Perhaps you could point us to a bunch of people claiming that Obama is above criticism?
Make no mistake, 80-90% of African Americans are not voting for Obama because of issues. I understand the pride and desire to make history they all must feel, that's a very powerful sentiment. But it's not because Bill and Hillary Clinton made a few remarks about MLK or Jesse Jackson.
If I could venture to make a mistake, Clinton was polling very well among blacks, and was racking up key endorsements among them no more than a month ago. What happened? South Carolina. The confluence of Bob Johnson's comments, MLK/LBJ fracas, Bill's "kid" comment. None of those helped. When Bill said on the day of the race that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in the 80's, he successfully prevented Hillary from attracting any more black voters.
He's not above criticism, he's just Teflon. He is able to attack with impunity, while Clinton is accused of "going negative." If he's not put under serious scrunity now then there's not going to be a chance to make a different choice in the general election.
I think that Krugman was exactly right. Read the comments in HuffPo-hell, read the comments here. Read the comments in the Washington Monthly. There is often a dismissive, insulting attitude toward anyone who doesn't support Obama. To be fair, Hillary supporters are often nasty, too-but I think to a lesser extent.
And I agree with the poster who said that MY's comment about the professor's letter not counting was particularly nasty snark. Somehow, some way, once the Democratic nominee is chosen, democrats are going to have to unite and support him/her. Otherwise, we will be watching President McCain for the next 4 years.
He's not above criticism, he's just Teflon. He is able to attack with impunity, while Clinton is accused of "going negative." If he's not put under serious scrutiny now then there's not going to be a chance to make a different choice in the general election.
More snark, please! Give no one a break! (Sorry to be contrarian, but I like this stuff.)
Kevin:
Look at this thread, dude, and listen to the tone of the comments. Some guy in the Times doesn't like your candidate (you know, the one who talked about the Social Security "crisis," whose health care plan doesn't have a mandate, the one who makes a point of throwing rhetorical bouquest to Ronald Reagan), and let the frothing about mean-spiritedness commence. You may not agree with Krugman about his emphasis on these points, but the meme being pushed by MY and at the Plank that Krugman is going off the deep end by voicing these criticisms is unusually thin-skinned. Based on the OTT reaction to Krugman (he's shrill! HRC is his multi-million dollar establishment candidate!), I find Obama's outraged defenders veering perilously close into fanboy territory.
"Make no mistake, 80-90% of African Americans are not voting for Obama because of issues."
How about: "80-90% of Americans are not voting for their candidate of choice because of issues."
God, I love being a Democrat, but the 10% of the population that loves wonkery and thinks it is the defining characterstic for electing our head of state and government really must all be Democratic activists. Please guys, stop. Please.
Being a wonk is not the same thing as being competent and, as important, IT IS NOT GOING TO MAKE A CANDIDATE ELECTABLE. Jesus. I read economic and political economic journal articles, so I am interested in real policy substance, but when I listen to Hillary give a laundry list of policies, it sounds like a laundry list of policies. Yeah, I'll vote for her over any Republican because of the issues, but, I am not going to vote for her over someone who basically agrees on the issues but knows that politics is something more than a defined set of policies. Obama has that je ne sais quoi--Hillary doesn't.
As I see it, two kinds of people like the litany: one, people mentioned earlier who think the biggest wonk-stud is best qualified for the Presidency, and two, people who really want a policy enacted in the litany. Well, that is Mark Penn's argument isn't it? And Karl Rove's too. Get the base and peel off another 1%. No thanks.
Kevin:
Look at this thread, dude, and listen to the tone of the comments. Some guy in the Times doesn't like your candidate (you know, the one who talked about the Social Security "crisis," whose health care plan doesn't have a mandate, the one who makes a point of throwing rhetorical bouquets to Ronald Reagan), and let the frothing about mean-spiritedness commence. You may not agree with Krugman about his emphasis on these points, but the meme being pushed by MY and at the Plank that Krugman is going off the deep end by voicing these criticisms is unusually thin-skinned. Based on the OTT reaction to Krugman (he's shrill! HRC is his multi-million dollar establishment candidate!), I find Obama's outraged defenders veering perilously close into fanboy territory.
Craig,
Now that's a fairytale.
The Black vote rallied around Obama once it became clear he was a serious, credible candidate.
He won 83% of the Black vote in Nevada.... before the Bob Johnson incident, before the Jesse Jackson comments.
When 9/10 of a group votes one way it's not exactly evidence of a reasoned judgment, especially when there's not much light between two candidates issue stances and ideologies.
I think that Krugman was exactly right. Read the comments in HuffPo-hell, read the comments here. Read the comments in the Washington Monthly. There is often a dismissive, insulting attitude toward anyone who doesn't support Obama.
Oh, come on. So a few hundred bloggers sit around trying to be funny or nasty on internet blogs. That's enough for an article in the New York Times? Really? Krugman can't accuse Obama of being negative, just his supporters? And not provide one piece of evidence?
If he had kept his criticisms to Obama and his policies, as he had been doing, I'm sure people wouldn't have gotten bent out of shape. But what he did was essentially blame Obama for the fact that people on the internet are writing nasty comments about Hillary. Maybe David Brooks should write about all the posters on taylormarsh.com and their uncontrollable venom, and their "Nixonian politics."
Scott,
It was an awful, mean-spirited column. Period. That's what people are reacting to.
You write, I find Obama's outraged defenders veering perilously close into fanboy territory.
As you have more than veered into krugman/clinton fanboy territory, starting with this "this idea that he's somehow above criticism is bullshit" when no one has made that claim.
Referring to him derisively as "Saint Barack" and referring to people that support him and vote for him as worshippers --- seriously sour grapes.
Whatever.
MY writes:
Professor Wilson is black so he doesn't count.
Stellar work. My hat's off to you.
the one who makes a point of throwing rhetorical bouquets to Ronald Reagan
This is the kind of ridiculous nonsense that makes Obama supporters get pissed off at people like Krugman, and, well, you.
The problem here is that a whole lot of the criticism of Obama that has been bandied about, especially on the blogs and elsewhere on the internet, is this kind of superficial bullshit.
When 9/10 of a group votes one way it's not exactly evidence of a reasoned judgment, especially when there's not much light between two candidates issue stances and ideologies.
Let's put aside the fact that Obama has been doing better and better with white voters (MAINE!). I'm dismayed at your notion that black people can't think for themselves or that they won't vote in the general election or whatever it is you're implying. But I'll concede your point. I hate that older white women can't see past the identity of their favorite candidate and just vote for the person who has the best chance of winning in November.
Well, of course you agree with this, Matt. Your'e a card carrying member of the cult. If you want evidence of the Obama cult of personality, the belief that he is above criticism, or the general vile expressec by many (not all) Obamabots, just look at the comments on the posts of bloggers who have not yet drunk the koolaid (such as Kevin Drum, Ezra Klein, even Digby, who had to suspend comments for a while) and post any criticism of him, however mild or constructive. The treatment of Paul Krugman is disgraceful and a case in point (FWIW, I agee with Krugman, so I don't count). After years as a lone voice of shrillness in the MSM, you would think so-called Democrats and progrssives would acknowledge Krugman's work and have the decency to disagree and debate with him without attacking him, and Clinton, in tone and terms indistinquisable from Limbaugh, Coulter, and Malkin. So much for kumbaya.
Temper, temper, boys! Just think - when faced by someone with the awful temerity to disagree with you, What Would Barack Do? I'm sure his example will guide your conduct....:)
First he's a Saint, and now he's Jesus.
Second place doesn't sit well with you, huh scott?
C'est la vie.
"...but of course Professor Wilson is black so he doesn't count."
Fuck you, Matt.
Dear Paul Krugman:
The people of Colorado are not listening to you. I'm sorry you won't be getting a position in an upcoming Clinton administration.
Here's something to cheer up Mr. Krugman and all the sad Hillaryfans out there right now:
Feel better yet?
Note: calling people who don't vote for her "cultists" will not make her President any faster. Or at all.
Craig,
I'm equally dismayed at the thought that black people (or any people) can't think for themselves. But that fact it dismays me doesn't make it any less true.
Whatever one thinks of the Clintons, their record going back decades on issues important to African Americans surely deserves more than 10% support.
Trust me, if white or women were voting 90% for Clinton it would be cited as evidence of America's racism.
Krugman has pulled a partial-Bill Clinton-in South-Carolina on this one: trying to be helpful but... NOT. He embarrasses himself and injures his reputation with this idiocy about cult of personality and comparing Obama to flight-suit Bush. I say this a long time reader and fan of Krugman's liberal economic analyses and critic of the Bush Administration. He needs to stay with economics.
I'm equally dismayed at the thought that black people (or any people) can't think for themselves. But that fact it dismays me doesn't make it any less true.
Wait. It's the Obama people that are spitting venom in a special and unique way? I mean, really, this is one of the ugliest things I've read in any of these Obama/Clinton food fights.
Whatever one thinks of the Clintons, their record going back decades on issues important to African Americans surely deserves more than 10% support.
Well, not everyone thinks that.
By the time the warring factions of Obamabots and Clintonistas in the Democratic Party are done trashing each other's candidate, Republicans won't need to attack either one, and John McCain will sail to victory in November.
To say that black support for Obama is not the result of the campaigns of the two candidates, or that black voters are choosing Obama for fundamentally different (and less rational) reasons than other voters, or that the choices of black voters are irrelevant to predicting the choices of other voters -- any of that is, simply, to say that black votes don't count.
MY is 100% right to keep harping on this. So, no, fuck YOU, Bob McManus.
It's not as if I'm surprised that my remarks were going to be distorted into somehow being racist. That was the Obama campaign's strategy in regard to the Clintons. Distort rather innocuous comments so Obama could play the victim of racial politics. In reality Obama is the beneficiary, not the victim, of racial politics.
As I said before, I totally empathize with the reason most black Democrats have rallied behind Obama. It's not fundamentally different than most veterans backing McCain, except for the sheer extent of it. He's getting nearly 90% of the african-american vote... how do we explain that other than racial solidarity? Do black people just like "hope" and "change" more than other folks?
Krugman's column uses a sleight of hand. He cites some verifiable instances of people like David Shuster saying horrible things about Clinton. Then we're supposed to notice that the Democratic nomination race is between Clinton and Obama. The motivation for saying bad things about Clinton, then, is support for Obama. Therefore, remarks by people like Shuster -- who, as far as I know, have no connection to the Obama campaign -- are classed as venomous remarks by Obama cultists. Actual citations of genuine venomous remarks by verified Obama supporters is unnecessary: if horrible things are being said about Clinton, then they must be being said by Obama cultists.
This is the sort of thing that William Safire did twice a column. If Safire had written this rather than Krugman, it would have been an average, ho-hum column, maybe even a bit above par.
It was written by Krugman, though, so I think I'd classify it as the worst Paul Krugman column I have ever read.
Tim K:
I'm not accusing you of being a racist. I understand that some black people will vote for a black candidate because they're black. Some white women are going to vote for Hillary for the same reason. But you're suggesting that everyone knows that Hillary is the better candidate, and those voting against her are doing so either out of racial solidarity or spite for the Clintons. Is it possible that some black people (who only a few months ago were wondering if Obama was black enough) looked at the two candidates, saw that one fought in the trenches for them in the South Side of Chicago, while the either chose to make the good money as a corporate lawyer, and went with the one who had already shown a commitment to the African-American community through his actions and not just his words?
Trust me, if white or women were voting 90% for Clinton it would be cited as evidence of America's racism.
In 2004, I doubt Carol Moseley-Braun and Al Sharpton combined received 10% of the white vote. Combined, then, white people were voting 90% for a white candidate of one stripe or another. So what? Moseley-Braun and Sharpton didn't have widespread support and weren't major candidates. I don't think either of them were entitled to some fraction of the white vote to prove that whites aren't racist either. To claim that Sharpton and Moseley-Braun performed so poorly exclusively thanks to racism would be to ignore their deficiencies as candidates. If black candidates aren't entitled to 10% of the white vote, why should Hillary Clinton be entitled to more than 10% of the black vote lest blacks be proven racists?
how do we explain that other than racial solidarity
But if Hillary Clinton was getting 90% of the black vote against John McCain, that would just be normal.
Matt,
You sure this is the example you want to cite? You are like 0-2 today.
I think there is ample evidence that the Obama people, particularly on the web just can't get enough digs on the people who throw the spot light of reality onto their icon.
And that's fundamentally the problem.
Letter 1.
>Barack Obama is changing the way we think about race in America. His inclusive message is so refreshing that, in addition to strong backing from blacks, he is drawing unprecedented nationwide support from white voters. It is so upsetting that this remarkable and historic feat is belittled as a “cult of personality.”
Irony: And yet that "inclusive message" relies on a solid spine of hardened support of now nearly 100% of black voters, to make up for the demographics core that he is jsut not reaching. When you start to get approval ratings above 75% from any group you are in cultic territory.
Letter 2:
"Perhaps Paul Krugman is closer to the point in recognizing that we are a nation focused on personality; much of what passes for public discourse is driven by celebrity, hyped-up conflict, and the trend for news and sports coverage to resemble each other."
...
"This is not a result of some irrational spell, and implying that we’re joining a cult of personality really misses the point about our recognizing the qualities our nation needs to effectively move forward to collectively meet our challenges."
Shorter: Even though personality drive politics are bad, the personality I'm most attracted to gets a pass.
Letter 3.
I love it by the time we get to letter three the true spirit comes out.
"I don’t have to give Mr. Krugman or anyone else my strong assurances that I will support the Democratic nominee, and I don’t have to apologize to Mr. Krugman or any Democratic Party apparatchik for passionately opposing Hillary Rodham Clinton."
The first two letters are just loud denial. By letter three we see the anti-Hillary venom that is so well demonstrated by people like Andrew Sullivan among non-black Obama supporers, that is as much a real driver of support for Obama as the "inclusive message" that the Harvard sociologist of Letter 1, finds so refreshing.
Irrational hatred of the external other much?
It's is so ironic to me that Sullivan who helped launder the racist nonsense in the Bell Curve has embraced a candidate who disproves the validity of that whole argument. But then it's not like Sullivan has had a come to Jesus moment on his endorsement, see his 10/21/2007 defence by reader submission of that position. Can't be that Sullivan is backing Obama precisely because he is driven by Hillary hatred, right? I mean that would totally prove Paul Krugman's point.
For what it's worth, Sharpton couldn't even get the majority of black support in 2004.
Craig:
Of course some African-Americans are choosing Obama over Clinton for reasons other than racial solidarity, sentimentality, and the desire to make history. I would never deny that. But that alone certainly doesn't even come close to explaining how 90% are voting for him. It's basically bloc voting... sort of like when white southerners of the "Solid South" of the 1930's voted for FDR it unfortunately wasn't just out of commitment to his policies and we all know it. Whenever 80 or 90% of some group votes one way you have to ask how that comes to happen, and that includes when it's a Democrat vs. a Republican.
Julian:
I'm not suggesting that the "white candidate" in "entitled" to a certain share of the black vote. I'm suggesting that the policy positions and campaigns of the two remaining candidates don't explain why the vote in breaking 90-10 in one direction.
Do black people just like "hope" and "change" more than other folks?
Posted by Tim K | February 13, 2008 5:27 PM
No. We NEED it!
Look: do you think that every candidate of a given party will perform exactly the same in an election?
If you don't think so, then there must be people who would support Democrat A but not Democrat B.
For instance, if you think that Obama, but not Clinton, would beat McCain in the general election, then you must think that, at least one of the following things are true:
1) There are people who would vote for Obama over McCain, but wouldn't vote in a Clinton vs. McCain race.
2) There are people who wouldn't vote in an Obama vs. McCain race, but would vote for Clinton over McCain.
3) There are people who would vote for Obama over McCain, and would vote for McCain over Clinton.
If you think that Clinton but not Obama would beat McCain, then all of the above apply in reverse.
Overall, there are nine groups of varying size:
*Don't vote for either regardless.
*Vote for the Democrat regardless.
*Vote McCain regardless.
*Don't vote for either in Obama vs. McCain, vote Clinton in Clinton vs. McCain
*Don't vote for either in Obama vs McCain, vote McCain in Clinton vs. McCain.
*Vote Obama in Obama vs. McCain, don't vote in Clinton vs. McCain.
*Vote Obama in Obama vs. McCain, vote McCain in Clinton vs. McCain.
*Vote McCain in Obama vs. McCain, don't vote in Clinton vs. McCain.
*Vote McCain in Obama vs. McCain, vote Clinton in Clinton vs. McCain.
I wish that everyone would support the Democrat regardless. However, there are many people who are going to vote for McCain regardless of whether Clinton or Obama is nominated. Outrageous, I know. There are also smaller groups that will vote for one of the two major Democratic contenders, but not the other.
Some Clinton supporters (patience, perhaps, although I don't know whether s/he is actually a Clinton supporter or just regards many Obama supporters as bad) seem to regard it as something of a dirty trick, or perhaps a disingenuous threat, when someone (like Andrew Sullivan) says "I will support Obama in the general election if he wins the nomination, but will not vote for either candidate if Clinton wins the nomination," or "I will support Obama in the general election if he wins the nomination, but will support McCain in the general election if Clinton wins the nomination."
Yet such people must exist. They must exist, or, alternatively, you have to believe that, in election results, the candidate is irrelevant -- votes are entirely driven by the party of the candidate.
bob mcmanus took the words right out of my mouth.
It feels nice to tar everyone who doesn't support your candidate as racist, doesn't it?
Julian Elson, I doubt that Sharpton or Mosley-Braun garnered 10% of the black vote either. Those aren't very useful comparisons.
The fact is, if I were black, all things being equal, I'd be pretty inclined to give the black guy a shot. There is nothing surprising about this sort of behavior and it has been analyzed to death all over the news.
Matt's right. Krugman's screed was racist trash. He needs to go back to criticizing Bush and not waste his time trying to block the true Democrats. He can help (as much as racists can), he can follow (doubtful), or he can get out of the way (that would be nice).
Look: the fraction of white voters who support Clinton and Obama and the fraction of black voters who support Clinton and Obama are different. There are three explanations for this:
1) Demographics, such as age, income, church attendance, education levels, etc, all shake out so that race isn't a factor per se, but because of the demographics, whites are more likely to support Clinton and blacks are more likely to support Obama.
2) Black voters are voting for Obama due to racial concerns, and not paying much attention to the other differences Clinton and Obama present as candidates or the differences in the policies they propose.
3) White voters are voting for Clinton due to racial concerns, and not paying much attention to the other differences Clinton and Obama present as candidates or the differences in the policies they present.
It could be a combination of all three, of course.
#1, I believe, is wrong. You can run regressions and test it, and I think the numbers just don't add up to support #1.
#2 and #3? Well, they're possible. However, some people here seem to just jump immediately to #2.
Now, some might say that the difference is that whites are fairly divided among Clinton and Obama, while blacks are more lopsidedly pro-Obama. This, it is said, is supposed to establish that black voting, not white voting, is what is being influenced by racial factors.
However, if it were Clinton vs. Sharpton, rather than Clinton vs. Obama, and the white vote were 90% for Clinton and 10% for Sharpton, and the black vote were divided 50/50 for Sharpton and Clinton or the like, i don't think anyone would be saying that white people were voting the way they do due to race. They would, once again, say that Al Sharpton, in spite of being a drastically inferior candidate, managed to attact even as much of the black vote as he did thanks to black racial solidarity, while Clinton was simply a superior candidate, explaining her appeal to both blacks and whites with no need for racial explanations.
In short, whatever whites do is the norm, and requires no explanation in racial terms. Whatever blacks do differently from whites is aberrant, and owes its explanation to some peculiar racial issue among blacks.
This is what we talk about when we say "black people don't count."
Perhaps you could point us to a bunch of people claiming that Obama is above criticism?
How about this entire website, TPM, daily kos, msnbc, etc. etc etc. You people are beyond belief.
Ruth, stay on message! Just yesterday you said that people who like Obama really just hated women and were racists. Now we think he's above criticism? Ruth, whatever happened with Down With Men! Down With Blacks! That was your rallying cry, Ruth, and it was working. Oh yeah, it was working.
Julian:
You haven't actually provided any kind of alternative explanation for what reason, other than race, 90% of blacks are voting for Obama.
In respect to option #1, by nearly all demographic categories other than race Clinton should be favored to do well among black voters. African Americans are disproportionately less affluent, and are generally less educated. White voters who share those characteristics have gone for Hillary.
In most of the primaries Whites, Asians, Hispanics and Jews have supported Clinton, while only blacks have consistently supported Obama. In some of the primaries Obama has split the white or latino vote, but has never won them decisively. In the aggregate, however, the pattern holds.
In terms of whites voting by race, there is some evidence of that in southern states like Tennessee, South Carolina, and Alabama, and other states like Missouri. Although it's hard to tell whether it's racial prejudice per se, or an example of a backlash due to black bloc voting. It's impossible to know for sure.
I have read krugman for years and deeply appreciated his sensical, economic defenses of liberal policies and critiques of Republicans. BUT, I stopped taking him as seriously quite awhile ago because his hatred of Bush became so personal it seemed to cloud his judgement and overshadow his more serious points. He became someone who could only convince someone who already agreed and was easy to dismiss if you didn't. I felt this when I agreed with his sentiments and now it's only clearer. Unfortunately, a fantastically smart advocate of progressive policies has undermined his power by harboring a host of weird personal vendettas.
I believe Krugman's comments were entirely accurate. Not sure if any of the readers here live near Atlanta,Ga but all of our black radio stations and the syndicated ones are strong Obama supporters and are very ambivalent if not down right hostile to people who say they prefer Clinton. People who call into the shows call non-Obama supporters racists or sell-outs. It is absolutely disgusting to me. I don't care who you are for, but the viciousness of Obama supporters here is unbelievable.
Tim K, you need to shut up.
You're forgetting that Clinton had huge disproportionate support in the black community UNTIL Bill started playing race cards. You may not think they were race cards, but believe me, black people can tell when a white person is treating them with contempt.
What was the result? They fled to Barack. And once they started listening, they liked him. As most voters do once they start listening to him -- that's why he's killing Hillary.
Your focus on this issue says far more about you than it does about Barack or his supporters.
And Paul Krugman ought to be ashamed of himself.
Jstrick:
+100.
I notice, also, that none of the Times letters seemed to mention dealing with Obama's Fan Base online. Since Obama's basic training emphasizes personal conversion stories to teh awesomeness of Obama (not policy, you notice), in face to face conversation, it makes sense that the more extreme, over the top elements of Obama fandom don't come out in "real life"; so to the letter writers that are not tendentious, the very concept of Obama cultishness seems outre.
But online, the over the top reactions are dealt out in full measure.
Indeed, given a cui bono heuristic, it's entirely plausible that such behavior was a considered strategic decision. Chicago style, and all.
C Michol,
Your comments are a lot like the Obama campaign itself: Emotional arguments backed up by little substance.
Your interpretation of events is highly questionable. A couple of comments in the media don't generally cause huge swings in public opinion. In fact, I think it's insulting to black voters to imply they are so fickle and capricious that a few remarks by the Clintons could drive them en masse to the Obama camp. That's just not how things happen.
It's not a huge surprise that you seem not to understand how the political process works, considering the candidate you supports exaggerates
the king of change that is possible in Washington and raises expectations of impressionable young people.
There is such a thing as false hope, you know.
After decades of white liberals working to ensnare white conservatives by making the definition of "racist statements" ever broader and shallower, it was ironic, but inevitable, that the two premiere white liberals of their generation, Bill and Hill, would eventually be hoist upon their own petard.
Ahh, Mr. Sailer chiming in, in defense of Hillary, no less - proving that yes, Hillary does indeed get the "white" vote.
Ruth K. deserves no less.
I have read krugman for years and deeply appreciated his sensical, economic defenses of liberal policies and critiques of Republicans. BUT, I stopped taking him as seriously quite awhile ago because his hatred of Bush became so personal it seemed to cloud his judgement and overshadow his more serious points.
It's very nice to know that the Obamabots have finally recognized the nature of Krugman's fanatical, totally deranged hatred of Bush and all of Bush's policies.
Obviously, since Bush is leaving office, a hateful lunatic like Krugman must seek out some other target for his "weird vendettas," and stumbled upon the Saintly Barack.
I think we all need to start a lobbying campaign to get Krugman finally thrown off the NYT Ed Page. That way, the Times editors can replace with someone who understands Barack's merits...I think Andrew Sullivan would be an excellent choice!
Yeah, people are not taking this second place thing well at all.
Don't worry RKU, at least you have Steve Sailer on your side.
Lambert,
Online activity is not representative of how supporters behave or think. A Newsweek poll which came out last week showed that 84% of democrats are happy to support either candidate as nominee.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Krugman R'lyeh wagn'nagl fhtagn!
The notion, suggested by some here, that this thread is -itself- proof that Obama supporters are "vicious" -- well, I just don't see the viciousness. Where are the sexist posts here? The accusations that Hillary supporters are "sell outs"? The branding of Hillary as a "racist"? Nobody here is peddling such trash. Those elsewhere who do are mere voices in the wilderness. They will not impact the outcome of this election, and Krugman (along with his colleague Stanley Fish) looks awfully silly fixating upon them.
What I -do- see here, within this thread, is the use of the words "Obamafan" and "Obamabot" over and over again -- and no counterpart for supporters of Hillary Clinton. There's no question, here, which side the sneering negativity is emanating from.
Krugman's been a weak columnist for quite some time. His problem is that his economic theories, such as they are, have been unraveling -- and he knows it. Remember the immigration hoopla last year? Krugman, with his astoundingly outdated brand of nation-scaled Keynesianism, simply didn't know how to respond. He seemed at one point to oh-so-hesitantingly come out in favor of protectionism (ie no amnesty) -- then he muttered "well, it's complicated" and trailed off. This was an issue concerning labor, migration, jobs. It should have been a bread and butter opinion topic for him. But he clearly had absolutely no idea what could really work. It was pathetic.
That was typical Krugman -- politically unimaginative, not in the least bit constructive, overeager to go negative rather than articulate lasting solutions for the nation's economic problems (which are also cultural problems).
As I say, I think Krugman knows all this. He knows that his variety of leftist economics has been obsolete for 25 years. He knows that he doesn't have a thorough enough grasp of cutting edge left-leaning research in cultural economy, economic geography and development theory to report on these discourses. So he is left with little to do. Hence the peculiar column like the one we saw this week.
I, for one, agree with Krugman. But I'm black, so I don't count.
Comments closed February 27, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Word.
Posted by Peter K. | February 13, 2008 3:28 PM