Daily Kos

Who's Tricky Now? Krugman Attacks Obama "Cult of Personality"

Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:26:18 PM PDT

Who's Tricky Now? Paul Krugman Says Obama Supporters Are Almost a "Cult of Personality"

Cross-posted at The Daily Demonizer

In his column today in the New York Times the usually prescient economist Paul Krugman stands on the border of the "Nixonland" he so despises: "a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo. . . the land of smash and grab and anything to win."

Calling his column "Hate Springs Eternal," he warns that the Obama campaign is on the brink of becoming a "cult of personality." Sandwiching this broadside between attacks on Nixon, on one side, and against the Bush political machine on the other, he leaves no doubt where the hate comes from: Republicans and the Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

"I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here," Krugman writes, "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. . . What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of "Clinton rules" [by which]— pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent."

Krugman makes a good point. Too often in politics small flaws real or imagined are trumped up into major character defects, signs of deviance, or markers of outright evil. Sometimes this turns into outright demonization. As he claims, that was done to Al Gore and many others, including the Clintons. Is he now doing it to Obama and his supporters?

The key ingredients of unwarranted demonization are these: first, the leveling a very serious charge that someone is immoral, deviant or evil, and second, doing so without care for the consequences or providing the evidence.

"Cult of personality" is, indeed, a very serious charge. It's a claim of deviance, if not evil. Yet there's no evident consideration of the consequences for the people he is lumping together in his attack, really not just the Obama campaign, but its supporters as well. Nor is any evidence provided-- none.

Krugman seems content to use techniques that might make "Tricky Dick" Nixon smile. In saying Obama supporters are "dangerously close" to becoming a "cult of personality"--rather than saying they're already there-- Krugman can pose as issuing a warning rather than engaging in an attack--if only the misguided would come to their senses. Second, he suggests the charge must be true because others are also saying it--but he not only provides no evidence, he doesn't even tell us who said so.

Other assumptions also abound, such as Obama supporters are "happy with the Clinton rules." Or his implication that Obama supporters may not support Clinton if she's the nominee because they only care about "hero worship." Where is the evidence that has Krugman so worked up?

I would even go further to suggest that Krugman also stigmatizes Republicans as a group here, as if only Republicans are capable of demonizing Democrats through character assassination.

To read Krugman’s article in full and judge for yourself please go to: Hate Springs Eternal. To express your views to Mr. Krugman go to: E mail Paul Krugman.

Poll

Did Krugman unfairly characterize the Obama campaign as close to being a "cult of personality?"

71%173 votes
25%63 votes
2%7 votes

| 243 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Paul Krugman, Barack Obama, cult of personality, New York Times, election, 2008, journalism, politics (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 75 comments

  •  Fight on! (4+ / 0-)

    We're so close to realizing this dream.  Fight on Obamans!

    •  What is "this dream"? (5+ / 0-)

      Please articulate it to me.  I ask this in all honesty.

      I support neither Clinton nor Obama at this point.  I read Frank Rich's piece yesterday on Clinton and found myself appalled at his ridiculous characterization of her.

      I wasn't alone.  Ezra Klein also was bothered.  It seems to me that Krugman's piece has at least something to substantiate it.  I'm very perturbed by this cult-like movement around Obama.

      When blind devotion is given a leader, criticism of said leader is never tolerated.  We're reaching that point, here and this is potentially dangerous.

      •  ... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Mojo Jojo

        Krugman is doing a pretty nifty job of damaging his credibility at this point.

        Not only are we to believe he is an economist... but his most recent 2 or 3 Op-Eds have also positioned him as a soothsayer, a sociologist, a psychiatrist, an anthropologist, and a political historian.

        His ego has grown to clownishly cartoonish proportions at this point. Does he truly now imagine himself as The Master of All Fields?

        If so... eesh.  Embarrassing.

        Don't quit your day job, Paul.

        •  I find the Obama Goon Squad embarrassing. (0+ / 0-)

          Their willingness eagerness to attack any reasoned argument against high falutin' rhetoric in place of solid progressive principles to defend their leader is threat to the causes we once espoused.

          If any of Obama's newly revered endorsers had chosen another candidate, they would be called "washed-up," or deluded, or corrupt by these fans.

          Keith Olbermann: If you truly revere Eward R. Murrow, it's time to change your sign off from "Good Night and Good Luck" to Fired Up and Ready to Go!"

          by sgary on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:01:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's the blind devotion to the Clintons (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        meghna, Quicklund

        from the meekest Clinton supporter to the Krugmans of the media that is the most alarming to many Democrats. Frankly it appears more than half of the Democratic electorate is alarmed enough to vote against the Democratic "shoo-in".

        Furthermore, it would appear that a large segment of America wants to put the Bush family and the Clintons behind us: divisive, anti-progressive years all of them.

        Obama just happens to be the candidate who recognizes the dissatisfaction with the past 27 years and is vowing to break the vicious cycle.

        The cultists are the Reagan and the Clinton cults who have controlled the whole shebang for far too long.

        Most Americans understand that, both Democrats and Republicans.

        What I can't understand are those that claim to be independent and don't acknowledge the zeitgeist.

        John McCain is so (Ned) Divine!!

        by Glinda on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:28:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  zeigeist (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          farleftcoast

          What I can't understand are those that claim to be independent and don't acknowledge the zeitgeist.

          I acknowledge the zeitgeist but am honestly not sure what, exactly, Obama is going to do to "break the vicious cycle" when he gets into office.  Can you explain further?

          •  I think the reason he brought up Reagan (0+ / 0-)

            is that Reagan has that marvelous ability to laugh and say "There you go again" while connecting with the visceral concerns of average Americans. He actually got the media and the Democratic congress in such a bind since he was wildly popular with Americans who couldn't stand the type of viscious criticism of him that we've seen of Presidents since.

            I heard a story this weekend that there was some event in Bush's second term where some dissidents where carrying rather pointed anti-Reagan signs at a rather large political event that the media was covering heavily and an observer asked why the cameras were never turned on the protesters. The media's explanation: we can't cover them; Reagan is too popular.

            As alarming as that sounds, it allowed Reagan to move the middle far to the right.

            Obama has picked up on the style of Reagan while being much smarter and far more progressive. If the Clintons are unable to destroy him and if McCain stumbles, and I can't imagine McCain lasting till Novemeber without stumbling badly, I see Obama doing for progressives what Reagan did for conservatives: moving the center. Only he'll move it back to the left.

            I am not an Obama acolyte. I watch him closely and note the times he stumbles. But I have to say that lately he's been very disciplined in his positive message.

            The proof of that for me is my co-workers: I work in the financial industry and most of my co-workers are a die-hard Republican sort who hate all Democrats like Mikey hated everything on those old cereal commercials.  I have been astounded of late to hear them talk positively and, frankly, in a bewildered way about Obams. They are intrigued. They like his message. They hate McCain and they don't as yet know whom to vote for in November.

            I truly believe he's our best bet for major change in the near future. And I'm tired of waiting for change while politicians insist on "their turn".

            John McCain is so (Ned) Divine!!

            by Glinda on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:44:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What can Obama do? Scare incumbants to death (0+ / 0-)

            There is one way to get something done in Washington DC.  Roll into town on the heels of over 60% of the popular vote in an election in which 20 million more American vote than in any election is history.  Roll into town towing 40+ new Representaives and 7-8 new SEnators on your coattails.  

            Want to change Business AS Usual in DC?  Awake American voters out of their apathy.

            Senator McCain is not going to do that.  Senator Clinton is not going to do that.  Those two can't even get their own rallies excited.

            Sen Obama might be able to do break the sense of apathy.  He might be able to win the landslide that brings long coattatils a generational change.  There's no such thing as a sure thing. But there is exactly one candidate who has a chance to pull it off.

      •  What is so damn fucking unusual... (0+ / 0-)

        ...about voters reaching a unambiguous conclusion one candidate has a superior skill set than the other?  

        Since when did I as a voter take an oath to spend 1,000 hours pouring over the fine print in candidate propsals that will - here's the inportant part - that will never ever survive the legislation process intact?  Not one of these plans will be implelemented without modification.  We are not electing a policy portfolio, we are electing a person to react to everyday events and make quality decisions.

        That's the name of that tune.

        Do I trust Sen Obama's decision-making instincs more than Sen Clinton's.  Uh - yeah, I do.  That's is not a cult of personality.  That is just paying attention.

        In conclusion, the passer-by might now understand why reading the NYT OpEd page is not longer part my my day.  Friedman units, MoDo, they hired Kristol, and now Krugman is bouncing around inside his new rubber room. Meh.

  •  No offense intended (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    PoliMorf, phenry, pat208, RickBoston, Ken in MN

    But does this diary add anything the other 15 on Krugman's column failed to say?

  •  20th time this has been diaried. (8+ / 0-)

    It's day-old news now. Which, on the internets, is like last century.

    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:28:20 PM PDT

  •  You're a little late to the party... (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    phenry, pat208

    ...as this horse has already been thoroughly beaten at least 50 times today.  Meh!

    From the dictionary:

    http://encarta.msn.com/...

     
    cult [ kult ] (plural cults)

    noun  

    Definition:
     

    1. religion: a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader
    1. religious group: a group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs, especially beliefs regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false
    1. idolization of somebody or something: an extreme or excessive admiration for a person, philosophy of life, or activity ( often used before a noun )

    the cult of youth
    a cult hero

    1. object of idolization: a person, philosophy, or activity regarded with extreme or excessive admiration
    1. fad: something popular or fashionable among a devoted group of enthusiasts ( often used before a noun )

    has taken on cult status

    1. cultural anthropology system of supernatural beliefs: a body of organized practices and beliefs supposed to involve interaction with and control over supernatural powers
    1. sociology elite group: a self-identified group of people who share a narrowly defined interest or perspective

    [Early 17th century. Directly or via French<Latin cultus "worship" < colere "cultivate"]</p>

    cult·ic adjective
    cult·ish adjective
    cult·ish·ly adverb
    cult·ish·ness noun
    cult·ism noun
    cult·ist noun

    I want my Two Dollars!

    by Ken in MN on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:28:46 PM PDT

  •  Krugman guy must be a lonely man. He has lost all (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Mojo Jojo

    credibility. Is anyone even listening to him?

    The poor guy is just seeking attention. As the saying goes, sometimes the best answer to a fool is silence.

    I just ignore him.

  •  Paul has no idea what winners look like (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    zeke L, Marie, meghna, Velda Morgan, Mojo Jojo

    Having a genuinely popular candidate looks like a "cult of personality".

    Having someone who can win independents and Republicans makes him insufficiently progressive.

    Having someone who can actually make health care reform happen makes him too much of a compromiser.

    I have a feeling Krugman won't see what a talent Obama is until long, long after it's evident to everyone else.  Maybe in 2017 he'll get a clue. (knock wood)

  •  Krugman's column was better than Rich's (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    DrKate, sgary, Archangel M
  •  All who oppose Dear Leader must be destroyed! (6+ / 0-)

    The prolonged tantrum the Obamabots have been throwing here all day about this column certainly goes a lot way toward proving Krugman's point about this "cult of personality" business is, doesn't it? You'd think the guy insulted their mothers.

  •  This Shit Again? (0+ / 0-)

    Don't tell me about the "new politics" if you're an asshole.

    by Ms Johnson on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:36:21 PM PDT

  •  Krugman did not call all Obama supporters... (10+ / 0-)

    cultists.

    But he is right about this:

    What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of "Clinton rules" — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

    I wonder next year, if Obama does not live up to expectations, just how many people here will call him every name in the book.

    Too many at DKos demonize those who disagree, even a great progressive like Krugman, a man who spoke truth to power when most were silent.

  •  I'm going to write an article (0+ / 0-)

    about how many people who believe in ghosts are, in fact, absurd and should be punished by smacks of a ruler on their buttocks.

    John McCain goes to bed every night after servicing by Joe Lieberman.

    by bhagamu on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:38:54 PM PDT

  •  I'd like to see Krugman and Ted Kennedy (0+ / 0-)

    discuss who's the more progressive candidate

    and who's got the personality problem

    sounds like it's Krugman who's gone off the deep end on this one

  •  Thank you for making it easy giving Paul feedback (0+ / 0-)

  •  Can we get a "Hide" button for Paul Krugman? (0+ / 0-)

    Gees, if I see his name one more time on DK, I'm going to buy some kind of Krugman scrubbing software to block it.

  •  It is really phenomenal how Krugman, (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Shahryar

    and Hinessight are jumping on the Obama as "evil" cult leader bandwagon. Add to this the Rich column regarding Clinton yesterday and all I have to ask is;
    "with friend like these, who needs enemies."

    Anyone hwo believes in a liberal bias to the media only has to see how much the media feeds on the minor issues on the Democratic side to pick on, but leaves the rethugs relatively unscathed. At least during an election cycle. Anxiously awaiting the Krugman and Rich attacks on the rethug candidates BEFORE they are elected.

    "The fact which the politician faces is merely that there is less honor among thieves than was supposed, and not the fact that they are thieves." Thoreau

    by shigeru on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:52:22 PM PDT

    •  Krugman leaves the Rethugs unscathed ??? (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      phenry, bruised toes, sgary, LaEscapee

      Where have you been for the last seven years?

      •  I meant the Rethug candidates for President (0+ / 0-)

        Before the election.

        I know that he has been critical of Bush for example for the past seven years. But how about before the 2000 election, when we really needed his help.

        I might be guilty of a bit of hyperbole in using the term unscathed, however, Krugman is guilty of a great deal more hyperbole in calling Obama cult-like. As Rich was in critiquing Clinton.

        My real point is that during an election cycle our erstwhile "liberally biased media friends," seem willing to take pothshots at the democrats all they want. I am just anxiously awaiting either Krugman's or Rich's dissection of the rethug candidates. We could use their help in this regard. As could the American voters.

        "The fact which the politician faces is merely that there is less honor among thieves than was supposed, and not the fact that they are thieves." Thoreau

        by shigeru on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:04:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is so clear from the body of his work... (0+ / 0-)

          that he vehemently opposes the conservative proposals that would be a waste of ink for him to articulate it. He has written in favor of universal health care dozens of times.

          He has railed against the Bush tax cuts, that every Republican wants to make permanent. He, and Rich too, are making legitimate observations about the actions of our candidates on absolute terms.  This does not mean that he prefers the Republicans, not by any stretch of the imagination.

          Krugman, Rich, and even Brooks, at times, are commenting on process without a goal of advancing one candidate over the other.

          Compare this to Bill Christal, who is doing nothing but repackaging the conservative mantras ever since he was given his berth on the Times that he never deserved.

          Just because we support a candidate, he/she is never beyond criticism.  It's what makes us different from the Republicans.  

          •  I understand that you like Krugman, but (0+ / 0-)

            if you had read my original post thoroughly you would have noted that I did not blame Krugman specifically as my statement was exactly:

            Anyone hwo believes in a liberal bias to the media only has to see how much the media feeds on the minor issues on the Democratic side to pick on, but leaves the rethugs relatively unscathed. At least during an election cycle.

            I did not mention Krugman as leaving the rethugs unscathed. However, it is good to note that if we start to hear rethug notions of Obama-cultists where it likely arose. Not necessarily from Krugman, but certainly from Democrats. Just as the vile questions of Gore's honesty apparently arose from democrats and were echoed by rethugs.

            "The fact which the politician faces is merely that there is less honor among thieves than was supposed, and not the fact that they are thieves." Thoreau

            by shigeru on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:22:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  And wonder what he will say when this proud (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Mojo Jojo

    Obama supporter helps turns Texas for Obama not because I'm a blind Obama supporter, but because I see a true President in Obama who can make a better tomorrow for our country.

    Poll worked 7am to 5pm! Ran caucus till 10:30pm! Proud Texas dem!

    by AHiddenSaint on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:52:23 PM PDT

  •  Whatever you think of Krugman or this article (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, Glinda, sgary, LaEscapee

    you'd better get ready for more of this thrown Obama's way.  And better sharpen up the substance of your comments supporting Obama.

    This is just the beginning.

    sign the petition at http://www.impeachbush.org

    by DrKate on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:52:27 PM PDT

  •  Isn't this exactly how the Scientologists pounce (5+ / 0-)

    on anybody that questions anything about L. Ron Hubbard or his acolytes?

    First of all, not all cults are bad, and some Cults of Personality evolve into Movements of Personaliy, such as those associated with Nelson Mandela and Ghandi, bringing about good,

    The problem is with fanatics, of which Obama's got more than his share, and with those who have totally alligned their identity with their hero's fate and demonize the uninitiated.

    Keith Olbermann: If you truly revere Eward R. Murrow, it's time to change your sign off from "Good Night and Good Luck" to Fired Up and Ready to Go!"

    by sgary on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:54:12 PM PDT

  •  "Get Those Damn Kids Off My Lawn!" - Krugman (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Glinda, Mojo Jojo

    "I've been an oilman all my life, but this is one crisis we can't drill our way out of" --T. Boone Pickens

    by bincbom on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:59:31 PM PDT

  •  I will... (6+ / 0-)

    ...be supporting the Democratic candidate fully, whether she be HRC, or he be BHO.  I voted for Obama in our primary, but I was conflicted about it, and still am.

    I do believe that there is an unhealthy zealotry at play in the rivalry of these two candidates, one that too easily demonizes the rival.  It seems clear that this is happening.  I just hope folks are keeping a clear eye on the post-convention situation, when the real campaign begins.

    Everybody knows there is no fineness or accuracy of suppression; if you hold down one thing, you hold down the adjoining. -- Saul Bellow

    by genespleen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:02:38 PM PDT

  •  I think he stole my line (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    sgary

    I was dropping the video by "Living Colour" in threads months ago.

    ;~)

  •  Spare me. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    sgary

    Given the reprehensible, hyper-partisan attacks by Obama supporters that I've witnessed here, I'd say Krugman was right on the money as usual.

  •  Krugman is a pro- (0+ / 0-)

    Krugman should just put out an ad - "pro-Clinton lobbyist."

    •  You must be pretty unfamiliar (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Salo, sgary

      ...with the transition of Krugman's articles since before the campaigns. He is not a supporter of Senator Clinton's and has made that perfectly clear. Unlike his fellow op-ed'er he's attempted to stay fairly neutral and focus on health care reform and the economy. Yet he couldn't hide his respect for John Edwards.

      Unless of course, you have more/better info to back up your claim.

      HR 676 is the best health reform proposal worth my vote.

      by kck on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:35:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Krugman's Dog Whistling a Constituency (0+ / 0-)

    Not talking to most of us.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:21:30 PM PDT

  •  I'd take such a claim seriously and personally... (0+ / 0-)

    ...that 25% in the survey agree with Krugman. Yet again, simple dismissal.

    Krugman's frame of reference is narrow, like mine, healh care reform a la insurance reform and that is the basis of criticism of Obama. Obama, instead is listening to most of the think tanks and health care advocates fights even harder for his position. That seems to have put Krugman off a bit. But really, health care reform is much bigger wrt change to this country and the lives of Americans than which Democrat is elected.

    Yet, the cheer-leading assemblies with the canned speech, now tuned for maximum emotion, can't entertain such questions.  The frustrations of technocratic nonpartisan nerdy types must be understandable on some level deep inside...No?

    For those who have less partisan priorities, it seems that supporters prefer to avoid the subject and the substance to simply defend Obama's position which is following his leadership I suppose.

    But here we have a diary conveying the most astounding claim but even more astounding is that 25% of kossacks in this diary agree! Yet no serious response except to attack the messenger, a classic progressive hero....

    HR 676 is the best health reform proposal worth my vote.

    by kck on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:30:26 PM PDT

  •  Cult of Personality (0+ / 0-)

    Is Krugman channeling Mao Zedong or what?  Where does he come off with the phrase "Cult of Personality" to describe people who support their choice for US President?  Very strange.  

  •  Why didn't Krugman say the same about (0+ / 0-)

    all us "fanatical" Deaniacs? Lots of people thought the Dean campaign was all about the "cult of personality."

    Ironic he didn't express this sentiment then.  In fact, as some of you may remember, he was a solid advocate for Dean.

    Maybe he has a conflict of interest this time around.

    •  Dean (0+ / 0-)

      I was there for the Dean campaign.  People lost their heads, but nobody was going on and on and on about how Dean inexplicably made them FEEL SO GOOD... We were asked to write to Iowa voters, for example, and tell them about Dean's positions - not about our personal conversion stories.

      Yes, the rhetoric about Obama is getting a little messianic on the fringe, in a way Dean's candidacy never did.  But I think that's just the fringe.

      I don't think it's dangerous... just irritating, to some.  I mean, if I hear one more story about how some 18-year-old first time voter is all fired up by Obama's presence, but just how relevant can that be, when rock stars have been known to do that to 18-year-olds?  And the other story is usually about how a 65-year-old woman sees Obama for the first time and her eyes well with tears and her heart feels something she never felt before.  Well, vulnerable elderly women have been known to feel that way in front of grilled cheese sandwiches shaped like the Virgin Mary, too.  Is this supposed to be some kind of ultimate proof of Obama's fitness for office?  Because if it is, I'll vote for the grilled cheese - it's both spiritual AND a good source of protein.

      Stick to the issues and the Obama campaign should do fine well past the stage when the euphoria inevitably fades.  I do think a lot of Obama's non-rock-star support has to do with simple, vague Hillary hatred, but she should have known better and had done more to distinguish herself as a senator.

    •  good question (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      chelle in mo

      I had the same thought.  A lot of hardcore Deaniacs were saying, in Jan. and Feb. of 2004, that they would only vote for Dean and no one else.  This was a very small constituency, though, and I think most of us in the end voted for the Democratic nominee.  I'm pretty sure the supporters Krugman's referring to are an equally small constituency and I would hope that no matter who we're supporting now (Clinton or Obama) we'll vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination.

  •  Krugman is offensive to me (0+ / 0-)

    I am a 56 year old doctor and when I support a candidate it is not because I join a cult.  If Obama happens to have charisma and happens to have a great policy profile, not only do I think he'd be a good president, but I feel an excited response to his leadership ability.  All good leaders excite their followers.  Not always to kool-aid. It's okay to have emotions as long as the thought processes are also realistically in play.  I think it's just wonderful that there is someone on our team who is charismatic and inspiring.  Other candidates may have good policy profiles, but are lackluster or confrontational in their demeanor.  These are not great qualities.  Lacking anyone better, sure they'll be okay.  Don't be so jaded by the depressive times from which I hope we are emerging, so jaded you can't appreciate a total package type candidate:  brains, good policies, good background on the ground, and charisma.  

    I was wise enough to never grow up while fooling most people into believing I had. - Margaret Mead

    by fayea on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:57:26 PM PDT

    •  cults (0+ / 0-)

      Prefacing this by saying that I don't think it's constructive to call Obama or anyone else's campaign a "cult"...

      ...but please.  People always think it's someone "unintelligent" who joins a cult, someone "uneducated" or "not bright" or "not thoughtful."  Folks, those are EXACTLY the sort of people who get recruited.  It has nothing to do with your level of intelligence, your education level, your age, your skepticism toward religion, or your maturity level... and it has everything to do with how vulnerable you feel in your life and how well someone can push your buttons.

      A lot of Americans are feeling really rather vulnerable.  But they always, always think it's the other guy who's going to get taken in.

      Again, I say, I think the worst thing that could happen is that Obama's campaign loses control of its own soaring rhetoric... and hasn't got a Plan B.

  •  assumptions (0+ / 0-)

    I agree--the article is full of unsupported assumptions and no solutions on how to remedy these supposed problems.  Krugman is usually my favorite NYT columnist, but this column reads like one of Maureen Dowd's columns (i.e., "my male friend doesn't like successful women.  therefore, all men don't like successful women!).  Where's the evidence backing up his statement that "obama supporters are happy with the clinton rules"?  I saw nothing in the column to support this contention.  I know many Obama supporters who expressed disgust at Shuster's comment about Chelsea Clinton.  And not only are these accusations unfounded, there are also no remedies suggested.  What exactly does Krugman expect Obama's supporters to do in response to the media's attacks on Hillary?  

  •  I believe (0+ / 0-)

    I was castigated for bringing this up and detailing how Obamarama is not at all a cult with this diary.

    I knew people were thinking it, as I'd seen it in some other diaries around here, but it doesn't stand the cult test very well.

    For a respected scholar in his field, Krugman doesn't understand formal argument very well, and he shows an appalling ignorance of the scientific method.  I get the feeling people listen to him too much.

    Rabid imperialist at the fringe

    by Arculi on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:17:34 PM PDT

  •  So, Krugman thinks we're all stupid (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    tdeluca

    and this he bases on what he's got in his in-box?  

    Dumbass needs to look at the polls.  Obama's supporters have already said they'll support Clinton if she's nominated.  

    I can't believe how stupid that column was.  
    Krugman is just being a whiny little bitch.  No wonder O'Reilly slapped him around on national TV.
    .

    Will "gooks" vote for John McCain? Will "c-nts" vote for John McCain?

    by Grand Moff Texan on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:12:49 AM PDT

Permalink | 75 comments