This is a new angle for me. I've never diaried something that was initially written without publication in mind. It is an email I wrote to my brother-in-law.
Anyway, at the end of the day, I've re-read this thing, and wonder of wonders, I don't hate it.
More after the jump.
My brother-in-law forwarded me a link to that Krugman article about Obama fans. In short, Krugman thinks that Obama fans are too eager to hate on Hillary. Read it. Even as an Obama supporter, it ain't that bad.
Anyway, my brother-in-law is a lawyer in DC who now counts himself as a reluctant HRC voter (2 months ago he "swore" he wouldn't vote for her).
My sister, his wife, works as a health care policy adviser for a US Senator. She is a not so reluctant HRC supporter.
My brother-in-law, while lukewarm on Hillary, is REALLY skeptical about Obama. "No substance" he says and all that. Actually, he really goes off on Obama. Thinks he's an empty suit.
I'm not trying to convince him otherwise. He's too entrenched. Hell, I suppose I am too at this point. After Edwards dropped out, I went to Obama. I can't imagine changing my mind.
But that's not to say I LOVE Obama.
I don't like the "no mandate" health care thing, and I don't like his offered rememedies, what there are, to the housing market/loan crunch.
But I just can't go to Hillary.
As bad as her war vote was, her refusal to apologize, or even to acknowledge that it was a mistake, is Bush redux. For someone to go to such lengths to avoid saying, "I was wrong" is, to me, indicative of a serious character flaw. I don't like it in Bush. I don't like it in Hillary.
Another reason I won't go to Hillary is my verging-on-the-irrational hatred of the DLC. From, Emmanuel, Ford. Ugh.
But here's the kicker for me. THE SUPREME COURT.
Simply put, Obama beats McCain and HRC might.
If the Repubs win, we're fucked.
We cannot take the chance. I believe Obama can do it.
ANYWAY, so my brother-in-law forwarded me the Krugman/Hate Springs Eternal article and I had to respond. (He just forwarded me the link. He offered no accompanying commentary)
Note I don't totally disagree with Krugman. But I also think that Krugman fails to explore WHY it is that so many people fall behind Obama and "hate" on Hillary.
You can't just say people "are." You need to explore "why."
Certainly I don't think that everyone supports Obama for the same reason. But the following letter wraps up what I think motivates a good number of people. Perhaps, even me.
Somewhat agree.
I think that one of the things that those "cultist/haters" are revealing, is a PERCEPTION that the Clinton campaign was appointed early on, and any amount of skepticism about her candidacy was met with a disproportional level of venom and disrespect.
I, an Edwards supporter, got it from HRC folks on the blogoshere long before Obama was the movement he is now.
Anyone NOT on board with HRC was treated like the enemy, not like a potential supporter.
It was as if you tapped someone on the shoulder and asked them to look at something inconvenient, only to have them launch into you about how "you have no idea what you are talking about and my opinion is an expert one and you are too sexist/jealous/under the spell of the right wing to see the truth."
That NOW NYS press release regarding Ted Kennedy's endorsement is a perfect example.
Like I said, I, and many others who were Edwards supporters at the time received the same treatment, so the nascent backlash wasn't an Obama specific dynamic. Yet.
I think that that sort of scorched earth response, which was available in spades early on, is now coming back to haunt the HRC movement. It pushed too many people away too soon by insulting what at that point, was just an initial, and perhaps merely exploratory preference.
It's harder to switch to HRC and save face.
Sooooo, now it seems to me that the "Obamaniacs" now want to beat the HRC folks for two reasons.
One, they prefer Obama.
Two, they want to prove the HRC attack dogs/methods wrong. They were told to shut up because HRC was unbeatable. You and I both know that there is probably no better motivator than to tell people that they are not allowed to do something.
ANYWAY. Not that I don't see any truth to what Krugman (whose opinion I respect) is saying. I just don't think he's exploring WHY that dynamic has built into the storm that it is now.
What do you think?