Why We Need Krugman

By Big Tent Democrat

I always envisioned the progressive blogs and the progressive base as the Left flank of the Democratic Party, holding both our pols AND the Media accountable. The blogs have certainly held Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on issues, and I applaud them for that. But the blogs generally have not held Barack Obama's feet to the fire. Worse than that, they have not only NOT held the Media to account, too often they have echoed what Paul Krugman labels the Clinton Rules:

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.

If folks wonder why I rail about the Media and the progressive blogs on this, I think Krugman offers an explanation:

I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.

For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.

For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.

But more important even than that for me is that we are not engaged in politics to see particular candidates triumph. We are engaged in politics to see particular ideas and issues triumph. When we accept, even echo, the biases of the Media, in order to serve a candidate we prefer, we debase our commitment to the issues we claim to care about.

Paul Krugman understands this and has spoken faithfully to his views on the issues and to basic fairness. He is wrong on many things. But he is not shading his views to support the candidate of his preference. He argues for his issues and supports candidates based on how he perceives the issues he argues for will be effected by particular candidates.

I repeat my mantra:

As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.

And this is true in every context I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for President. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.

In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.

Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

NOTE: Comments are now closed.

< Monday Open Thread | Matthew Dowd: Obama Will Win the Nomination >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Amen (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:43:01 PM EST
    Personalities are drowning the issues.

    Bob Somerby elaborates (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:47:11 PM EST
    Frank Rich (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:45:33 PM EST
    Just before I came to Talk Left, I read Frank Rich's rancid article. I sent an e-mail to the NYTimes publisher and told him he should look at the real story, "The Clinton Rules."

    Actually, what bothers me more than the media slant against Hillary, is the fact that her own party stands back and lets anyone and everyone tell whatever outrageous lies about her and Bill and their campaign they want and says nothing, does nothing to defend her.  The Party might as well come right out an say "We don't want you." It's very disheartening. I'm really starting to believe the Democrats are too fractious to ever be a power in American politics.

    I'm waiting to see the effects on the Party when they destroy Hillary, push Obama to the nomination, and then he's eaten up by the Republicans and we have four more years.


    Slate (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:51:37 PM EST
    is repeating the bogus claim that Clinton is calling for Shuster to be fired.  The XX Factor column seems to have denigrated into a Chelsea as robot story alongside the "Clinton is using this for political gain" crap.  One less blog I check out now.  This is so depressing.

    I wish Krugman's voice was not the minority.  Of course, I wish I was ten years younger and ten pounds lighter, so what do I know?

    The First Step Toward Recovery, Josh (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by xjt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:52:11 PM EST
    Is admitting you have a problem.

    Hillary's a pol (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:57:39 PM EST
    and she doesn't deny it. That's why supporting her IS supporting the issues I care about.

    Don't miss the Vanity Fair article on Gore in 2000 and how the press vilified him. Many of the same people are vilifying Hillary for the same reasons.

    Plus the article in the NYT by Stanley Fish: A Calumny a Day To Keep Hillary Away.

    Yes, indeed... (5.00 / 1) (#254)
    by Camorrista on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:43:35 PM EST
    What's odd--and worrisome--is that so many Obama supporters seem to detest her for exactly that - for being a politician.  As if only non-politicians (and/or visionaries) should be allowed to run for the presidency.  

    Some of us whose first vote was for John Kennedy love politicians, and are pretty skeptical of non-pols (and/or visionaries).  Nor we do we hang a nostalgic scrim over certain pols of the past--Robert Kennedy, for instance, who made his bones by helping Joe McCarthy and savaging Jimmy Hoffa (not to mention using some pretty ugly methods to get his brother elected).  In other words, a pol to his fingertips.  

    In fact, despite the poignant fantasies of some of his admirers, Obama is indeed a politician, and a good one.  He is not a one-note amateur--a Perot, or a Ventura, or a Wendell Wilkie, or even a Gene McCarthy.  He has policies, he has proposals, he has positions (though it helps to search his website to discover them).  

    Nobody gets as far as Obama has in politics solely because of his inspiring rhetoric.  If inspiring rhetoric could do the trick, William Jennings Bryan would have been elected president three times, and Alan Keyes would be serving his second term.

    The question is, is Obama enough of a politician to govern?  Part of governing is sweet-talking people; another part is knee-capping them, friends and enemies alike, when something crucial is at stake--i.e.,LBJ, and the Civil Rights Act.

    Obama's good at the first, but what about the second?

    I know he's a charmer.  But can he be a thug?  Every great pol (and great statesman) has been both.  


    Bravo (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by mexboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    I'm so discouraged by all the Hillary bashing. It's just NOT progressive and utterly suicidal to progressive issues.

    Clinton Rules (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by marirebel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:05:26 PM EST
    Part of the problem is that Obama himself consistently applies Clinton rules.  He often refers to Hillary as "divisive," even though she won her Senate seat with the support of traditionally Republican counties in New York.  More, she has effectively worked in the Senate across the aisle, even with notoriously conservative Senators like Orin Hatch.  Hillary has a proven record of being able to facilitate alliances across significant differences.  So whay is she divisive?  Because some right-wing hatemongers hate her?  Well, one particularly vociferous and hateful member of this group, Coulter, has said she will campaign for Hillary.  And, should we have backed-off civil rights because many right wingers hated King?  Obama also refers to Hillary as the "status quo."  Isn't Bush the status quo?  And didn't part of the Clinton hate arise in the context of the Arkansas country bumpkins disturbing the Washington elite, i.e., being outside the status quo?  Then of course there is the dastardly "Clinton machine."  Obama did not get this far without a well-organized cadre of experts, strategists and workers working on his behalf.  I guess he has the Obama machine (though he doesn't speak of it)--and from what I've seen in the blogosphere, it's pretty damn mean!

    Yes, let's hear the candidates talk about issues and stop with the false characterizations.  And, yes, more debates are good. I have only seen one debate where these two candidates alone are able to articulate their positions and their differences.  

    Obama tactic (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:20:09 PM EST
    What Obama, his surrogates and his supporters have done is lash out. They have defined change to mean from Democrats and Republicans. In his effort to brand himself as different, even though he is a politician with a machine, he has demonized his fellow Democrat. In order for Obama to win, he had to demonize Hillary. The demonization of Hillary, was easy, he picked up the Republican Clinton hate book and added some distortions like the "he was against the war", the alleged better judgement, the anti dynastic mantra aided by the self proclaimed progressive blogs. In the Obama and blogosphere ego orgy, we have wounded the Democratic Agenda. Frankly, this is not how you build a party or movement.

    Stellaaa (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:51:53 PM EST
    This is exactly what I told a friend this weekend who is supporting Obama. He just couldn't believe I'm still supporting Hillary and had to know why and why didn't I like Obama? It reminds me of evangelicals who are trying to convert you.

    I told him that what bothers me is Obama's strategy to get the nomination is to destroy Clinton and to do that he has to destroy the Clinton legacy. He is perfectly willing to do that, even though millions of Democrats love the Clintons, so in essence he is demonizing his fellow Democrats.

    Of course, my friend denied that Obama is trying to destroy Clinton (!!), that there is any unfair bias against Clinton and that Obama is using any dirty tricks. I said I think it's possible that Obama will pick up some Republicans but lose half the Democrats.


    Why Hillary appeals to conservatives (none / 0) (#226)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:28:03 PM EST
    Because she's a safe bet.

    I'm a conservative, but I'm crossing the line because of not only gender, my own side's candidate is m-a-d (he's ready to push Russia out of the G-8 and mess with their internal affairs...WWIV anyone?).

    Obama I don't know -- little voting history; no political experience other than local; and yes, his age. And he screams the word "CHANGE" too much.

    Hillary is the only stable candidate in the mix that isn't preaching extremism. The radical left is touting Obama, and for me that's fine. I want a president that can be presidential and not have to waste time learning how to be presidential (as he sure doesn't have the experience).


    Krugman and Healthcare (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:16:05 PM EST
    Watching so many "liberal" and "progressive" blogs go after Krugman on his criticisms of Obama's healthcare plan or ignore the criticisms of Obama's plan has been incredibly depressing.  I can remember a time when universal healthcare was one of the top progressive/liberal causes.

    And it's not that I think holding Obama accountable for his weaker healthcare plan and his abysmal healthcare rhetoric means necessarily not endorsing him in the primary.  I think Obama supporters could do both - point out his policy weaknesses and still argue why he's the best choice.   And a few of them do this, but not nearly enough.

    The last eight years have been a disaster due in large part because of the lack of accountability - in government, in politics, and in the media.  The most worrisome thing about Obama's campaign is that it seems to continue this trend.  Whenever Obama does anything that should worry people who care about UHC or other liberal causes, the apologists come out in force.

    And what message does that send Obama?  That he can Harry&Louise UHC and that's okay.  That he can refuse to stand up for MoveON and that's okay.  That his campaign can push distortions about Clinton's comments about MLK and that's okay.  

    When he gets to the White House and starts cutting deals progressives dislike, we really have no one to blame but ourselves.   Politicians are only as good as they're made to be.  Obama could be very good, but we're letting him get by with way too much.

    I second this wholeheartedly-- (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jawbone on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:12:11 PM EST
    I've noticed blogs that don't want to have flame wars seem to be avoiding mentioning Krugman this primary cycle.

    Which is so sad--he was one of the few voices in the MCM (maintstream corporate media) who articulated what was wrong with GWBush's campaign lies, wrong with his economic programs, tax plan, etc.  Krugman kept me sane during the 2000 campaign, which was before there was a large liberal blog presence and before I used the Internet for anything except business (no home PC at the time and folks got fired at my corporation for using the company's computers for private business).

    Recently, I seldom see front page links to Krugman--too controversial bcz it might upset the True Believers? Yikes!

    The reality-based community, alas, is as subject to sweeping rhetoric and unthinking reactions as anyone else, it seems.

    The NYTimes article about Obama's handling of his proposed legislation to require nuke power plant operators to inform the public of leaks was watered down to the point it was BushLite has not been featured on many blogs. Now is it much discussed if posted by a commenter.  Scary.  Where is the blogosphere reporting of how Obama legislatates, negotiates, manages differences?  

    Are we going to wake up to some big surprises if he is the nominee?

    And, yes, I have not yet "seen the light."


    Where's the evidence? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by AF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    Of Obama supporters who are public figures applying the Clinton rules to Hillary?  

    (Bloggers, commenters, and letters to the editor writers don't count. Obviously, there's plenty of mud being slung on both sides there.)

    I could start with Barack and Michelle Obama (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:18:50 PM EST
    Please do (none / 0) (#35)
    by AF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:25:53 PM EST
    Sorry about the double posting.  But please do supply some examples of Barack and Michelle applying the Clinton Rules to Hillary.

    Michelle (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:28:04 PM EST
    Talking about Hillary's tone as something that she would have to consider if she were to support her candidacy.

    And why (none / 0) (#64)
    by AF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:37:17 PM EST
    is that an example of the Clinton Rules?

    Figure it out (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:40:57 PM EST
    I find this demi Socratic sophistry rather banal.

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:43:20 PM EST
    Look (none / 0) (#77)
    by AF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:44:27 PM EST
    It's the blogosphere, so I can understand why you wouldn't assume that I am asking in good faith.  But in fact, I am.  I came to this blog because it seemed like the premier outpost on the web for informed Clinton supporters.  I didn't come to bait people, I came to understand the arguments.  But instead of answers, I am being told to stop asking Socratic questions, or to go read the rest of the blog before I can participate in a conversation.

    There's a reason for that (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by rebecca on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:52:45 PM EST
    Try getting the same questions every time you make a statement over and over and over.  After awhile you stop having patience with answering them.  You stop feeling gracious enough to look up the same answers again and again.  It becomes harassment that involves making you go through hoops on questions that have been asked and answered so many times that you really don't care anymore if the person is asking them in good faith.  It's all part of the what Obama really meant game.  You make a statement.  So an Obama supporter makes you back that statement up.  Then the Obama supporter goes into the 2nd part of the game explaining why what Obama clearly said isn't what he really said.  It gets old really fast.

    You'll have to forgive us (3.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:47:57 PM EST
    This argument did not begin today.

    Perhaps someone else is in the mood to bring you up to speed on this debate. I am not.


    AF pardon me for saying so (none / 0) (#83)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:47:19 PM EST
    but I think you would argue with a stop sign...

    That's basically what I've been doing! (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by AF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:24:27 PM EST
    If you are looking for answers (none / 0) (#88)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:48:57 PM EST
    Here's a boatload, if you can read fast (which I think you can; most of us 'internetters' can read almost as fast as we type, heheh.)

    To be clear (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by AF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:02:21 PM EST
    I have been following the campaign and am not asking to be brought up to speed on everything that has happened, all the arguments for and against the candidates, or even all the negative comments that have been made by the campaigns or surrogates against each other.  I am trying to understand how Obama and his supporters are applying the "Clinton Rules," defined by Paul Krugman as "treat[ing] any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent."  This is a specific accusation, which Krugman did not support, and I am trying to understand it.

    The only arguable evidence I can think of by Obama supporters who are public figures is the MLK/race card saga.  I agree that Hillary's comment was not meant in a racial way.  But I don't believe that the offense this caused in the African American community was insincere or nonexistent, or that it can plausibly be considered an example of the Clinton Rules.  I mean really:  It's African Americans who are out for the Clintons?

    So I really am trying to understand what this particular accusation, which as far as I know has not been made before, is about.  But apparently this has caused offense and annoyance, so I will stop.  


    One more point (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by AF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:13:30 PM EST
    I agree that the media is often unfair to Hillary.  That is indeed rather obvious.  I was asking about the Obama campaign as opposed to the media.  And now I'll really get of your hair!  

    According to Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:28:51 PM EST
    that is all I do.

    And then I am treated to many comments explaining "What Obama Meant" and What Michell Obama Meant" and "What David Axelrod Meant" and so on.

    No, I think you know EXACTLY what I am talking about.


    Actually, I don't (none / 0) (#56)
    by AF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:34:08 PM EST
    I'm new to this blog.  But I have been following the campaign pretty closely, and haven't noticed this alleged phenomenon, which is the topic of this thread, but for which no evidence has been supplied.

    Well (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:37:44 PM EST
    then read the archives of this blog to catch up with what we are talking about.

    I do not think it should be required of me to do your research for you.


    For starters (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:45:55 PM EST
    Barack Obama:

    Hillary Clinton is divisive and polarizing.
    She is calculating.
    The Clintons hurt the Democrats.
    UHC mandates will bankrupt you.
    Republicans had all the good ideas in the past 15 years.
    Clinton is shameless.
    She does not respect our people.
    She is willing to say anything to get elected.
    She lies.

    Michelle Obama:
    If you can't run your own house, how can you run the WH. (She's to blame for all the false scandals of the Clinton years, and also for her husband's infidelity)
    I'd "have to think" about supporting Hillary.

    More here.


    Barack statement on Hillary's healt care fight (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by peon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:00:36 PM EST
    "When I hear her say it was a lonely fight, I have to disagree. Eighty percent of the American people wanted universal health care at that time. It wasn't that lonely," Obama said, greeted with applause from over 700 attendees at the Cedar Rapids community college where he spoke. "The reason that it became lonely was that she made a decision to close the door and to work just with her people."

    Reality check:

    March 1994 - Democrat John Dingell approaches Carlos Moorhead of California -the senior Republican on his committee -- to raise the possibility of working out a health bill together. According to Dingell, Moorhead responds: "There's no way you're going to get a single vote on this [Republican] side of the aisle. You will not only not get a vote here, but we've been instructed that if we participate in that undertaking at all, those of us who do will lose Our seniority and will not be ranking minority members within the Republican Party." Thwarted on the Republican side of the aisle, Dingell turns back to his Democrats -- and once again finds Jim Cooper standing in his way.

    March 4-5, 1994 - Senate Republicans caucus privately in Annapolis, Maryland, in a retreat organized by Republican John Chafee, whose bill nominally has more support than any other from the Senate GOP. Going into Annapolis, Dole and Chafee still hold the view that public opinion and political prudence require Republicans to come up with an alternative to the Clinton plan. They view the erosion of public support as an opportunity for the Republicans to steal Clinton's thunder, not to block any change.

    At Dole's invitation, Newt Gingrich comes to the meeting. He implicitly warns GOP senators that any Republican concessions will be met with more Democratic demands. Phill Gramm also weighs in against any Republican compromise on health reform. The original list of speakers expands to include business lobbyists and consultants suggested by conservatives. Chafee -- who had hoped to discuss areas of agreement -- finds himself listening to speeches of opposition. This meeting becomes a crucial step, not in forming a Republican alternative to the Clinton plan but in demonstrating to Dole how dangerous it will be for him to be part of any compromise.

    If you want to follow all the sordid details go to PBS  at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page1.html


    OMG (none / 0) (#92)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:50:40 PM EST
    That is a HUGE resource. How long has THAT been around?

    MichelleO doesn't have to control her husband! (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by Ellie on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:26:03 PM EST
    Responding to the 'Can Hillary control Bill?' cupcake (handed to her by ABC's Deborah Roberts) Michelle Obama said, "Barack and I don't relate to each other that way."

    Granted, her job isn't to make the Clintons look good, but it was borderline sleazy to pile on the ridiculously distorted coverage of their marriage to fuel the Obama strategy of blaming HRC for her unremitting persecution by bigots. (She's "divisive"!)

    A more genuine spokesperson for change would have commented on the treatment of candidates' families on the trail, or about misogyny towards women in office or who wield power at the workplace.

    She had another weasel moment pretending that Bill Clinton's comment about Jesse Jackson's campaigns for office was racist  -- it wasn't -- then when asked  if it upset or enraged her, sadly shaking her head and saying that the comment "didn't surprise" her. (I think I actually gaped at the screen.)

    I initially liked her straightforward style, so this obliqueness to intentionally create damage was not only disappointing but dismaying. As an experienced PR flack, she clearly, consciously chose to propagate the lie to diminish the other campaign AND play victim. She could easily have made her response to a corrected version of the question or brushed aside the poorly based question to make a general statement about racist coverage (and scored more points.)

    My yardstick in these things, since I've known a lot of people who work in media or deal with being in the public eye, is: how many, even in intensely competitive fields like politics, would INTENTIONALLY propagate what they know to be a serious, personally damaging falsehood about someone? Even the slickest operators from shark infested feeding grounds stay away from stuff like that.

    Lamentably, she even gilded her cynical moment (and herself) by adding that she knows this is how politics works. Were this the case, then doing the worse thing when the campaign's main promise is to change how things work is double-douche.

    A real "forgive them cause they know not what they do when they stone those slut Clintons in the marketplace" kind of moment. (And please, don't anyone tell me that propagating a lie is the same as spinning the truth in one's favor and at someone else's expense, which is par for the course. The former, however, is straight out of the Rove cookbook.)


    Um (none / 0) (#53)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:32:39 PM EST
    Read: Every speech where he claims he is above politics, and not beholden to corporate interests. He is very much on the take from corporate interests, as much as Hillary.

    As for Michelle, I don't have that info. I just think it's divisive, as Barack says Hillary is, to not be immediately ready to support the Dem candidate whether it is your husband or not.


    Obama in SC (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:27:08 PM EST
    He kept talking about the Oke Doke, and it was directed at the Clintons, not the Republicans. The wink and the nudge that the Clinton's tricked the AA in the past.

    I believe (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by AF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:31:22 PM EST
    supplying an example, in a the blogosphere, means a link, or at least a specific reference.  To be clear, though, the question isn't whether Obama supporters have criticized the Clintons, it's whether they have applied the so-called "Clinton Rules."

    Do you doubt I have provided examples (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:35:03 PM EST

    So in order to understand your point (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by AF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    I am supposed to go back and read the entire blog up to now?  You can't supply an example for the point you are presently making?  I don't mean to be rude.  But I don't think I'm asking too much for someone to link, on this thread, to a couple of specific examples of what the thread is supposed to be about.

    Not the entire blog (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:42:46 PM EST
    But I do not plan on rehashing an argument that has carried forth for 3 years.

    Indeed, you have to go to daily kos and read my work there as well.

    If you do not want to, then that is your choice.


    I am so annoyed (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    by these folks that come onto TL and try to make their own rules.  We all agree when we post to the terms.  To not lurk for a while before jumping in, then on top of that to come out firing against people, is just wrong.

    sorry bucko (none / 0) (#76)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:43:53 PM EST
    that's not his job to do your research. He's provided examples, numerous and easy to find, and you sit there on your thumbs complaining about how he's not spoon-feeding you examples which you will likely ignore or reply with a typical 'What Obama Really Meant' response.

    It isn't worth his time. (apologies for using masculine pronoun - I don't remember if BTD is gender-neutral or otherwise).


    Oke Doke (none / 0) (#231)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:45:18 PM EST
    As a member of the Krugman cult ... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Mimir on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:30:05 PM EST
    Could we get some more specifics on why Krugman "is wrong on many things?"  

    I've been reading him since 2000, and I have to say his track record in being RIGHT is fairly impressive.  A Cassandra for our times, as he tried in vain to warn against the Bush (s)election, the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq invasion, the housing bubble, etc.

    In the column (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:36:24 PM EST
    I think he is wrong to think Obama will not get good Media treatment in a GE.

    And as a general matter, when you opine as much as Krugman, you get a lot fo things wrong. He gets most of them right.


    Both of you are just guessing (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:47:46 PM EST
    as are we all, concerning possible media treatment of Obama by the media in a GE.  We'll never know for sure until and unless it is tested.

    For me, the question is, why wouldn't Obama get the same treatment from the media that every Democrat has since JFK?  Every single one in my memory...

    Two media darlings...Obama and McCain...who would be favord?  History says McCain, wouldn't you say?  

    Add to that, it's McCain's last hurrah...Obama's first.  Will the media play on that theme as well?  I think they will, accenting the war hero status for all it's worth.  Remains to be seen what that value is for a candidate who talks about being in Iraq 100 years.


    Both of us are (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:50:13 PM EST
    offering our opinions. All we can do on that really.

    Yup. I agree. (none / 0) (#116)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:59:57 PM EST
    I haven't been reading and blogging full time this past week so I probably missed any discussion re your assessment of why the media will not turn on Obama in the GE.

    Have 'we' covered that?


    frankly, (none / 0) (#124)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:02:59 PM EST
    i'll be much more concerned if the DON'T turn on him  if he gets the nomination.  

    Exactly! (none / 0) (#175)
    by magisterludi on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:28:39 PM EST
    Krugman (none / 0) (#108)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:57:46 PM EST
     As I stated earlier, the Republicans I know are licking their chops for Obama to be the candidate because the Republicans already have a media campaign to destroy him. They claim they have tons of dirt on Obama--he hasn't had to be confronted with any of that so far.  Add that in to the punditry, I don't think he'll have an easy time of it.

    Democrats forget too, it's possible to guilt liberals into voting for an AA because we're so sensitive about racism. Republicans are not. They're proud of it and they don't want a black president. The majority of them truly believe Obama's a Muslim and they fear that he is a terrorist. One can only imagine how that will get played up.

    I already saw a tabloid cover this morning at the grocery store claiming Barack Obama is having an affair with Oprah Winfrey.


    They can't hold Obama's feet to the fire (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:37:20 PM EST
    Sadly, because it'll be turned into a race issue. I'm from the South, and my whole street voted for Obama based solely on race (it's openly discussed). If Hillary fights him too aggressively, Blacks will consider it an attack on him and by extension them (Bill's defense in SC really alienated them).

    Hillary walks a fine line between 2 worlds. One that's accepted as "fair game" to attack (gender); the other (race) can't be touched with a ten foot pole. It's become that polarized and PCed. This is a disadvantage for her, and one I wish I knew had an answer to fix, as it is unfair. It's so bad that if I get a Hillary sign and place it on my lawn, I'm afraid those very same Obama voters will take it as an attack on them, when it's a preference for another reason, gender.

    Personally, believe that Obama is getting a free ride. Not only due to race, but gender, and that to me is the insulting part. The media and beyond still wants a man first (no matter the race), it's trumps gender.

    Really need to brainstorm this, to find a workaround without alienating the very votes Clinton needs.

    Keep your head up (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by talkingpoint on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:45:14 PM EST
     i'm being call an uncle tom because I support hillary. Most people just don't undersand how hard it s for African Americans to make it known to fellow Blacks tht they suport Hillary, because we simply believe her to be the best qualiied. This thing as become more aout race in the black community tha most would admit and want to realize. How can we talk aganst White racism when most of us have turned from hillary because she is running against a Black man. are we any better? No.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:13:00 PM EST
    But the media won't report it.

    And the worst thing they did was report about it in SC. Turned the White vote against Hillary, and the Black vote didn't want a part of it. It was insulting all over.

    Whites are voting for Obama due to guilt and believe it will attone for 200 years of injustice. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Money and gifts don't do the attonement, it's daily action.

    Only a little over 3,000 voted for Hillary in my county (I'm on the border between GA/SC) and one of the few Democrat strong holds here left, where quad-triple that voted for Obama. Sis and I did our part to vote for Hillary, but we're stuck in trying to promote the vote. Sis is sick of the Obama talk at work, and any effort to counter it gets the, "oh, she's upperity" look.

    How do you counter this divide? It's like a 10 foot high wall, and there's no latter tall enough to get over it.

    Wished Hillary campaigned more in this locale. I would've walked 10 miles to see her if she showed up. But didn't even get that opportunity. She really needs to visit these cities, as it can and does energize the votes. It's not Atlanta, but 20,000+ votes can decide things now.

    Come on Hillary, start stumping hard. Break down the barriers and let votes see who you really are -- not some soundbite on TV.


    There are three Hillary signs in my yard (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:58:30 PM EST
    (I have a big yard on a corner lot).

    I have three backups in case they are stolen, defaced, or if anyone else wants one.

    After I put my signs out, others appeared. Did my signs influence that? I don't know.

    All I know is that it is ridiculous and frightening that supporters of one Dem candidate are afraid to put out signs for fear of what another Dem candidate's followers will do. In America?


    It IS that bad (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:27:46 PM EST
    There's some truce going on, since the normally very active Democrat campaigner at the corner has no signs in his yard. I was more than a little surprised, because during the 2000 election, there were signs all over his yard and up the street. There are no signs period in this whole area -- and I mean for miles -- no Hillary and no Obama. It's a covert situation.

    If I place a Hillary sign in my yard and upset this status quo, I'm afraid of more than sign defacement -- like a rock through a window.

    I'm going to get those signs, and I'll travel all the way on the bus back home with them in hand. But folks that's a lot of courage. Not only going against the local favorite, against the good ol' boys who are still staunachly Republican. I'll do it because my sisters faced worse to vote, but most won't and that's the problem. And because I'm so angry because of this, I'm going to make an ERA banner and place it there, too. Careless what anyone thinks, I want a woman president -- this doesn't come everyday.


    It really is too bad (none / 0) (#71)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:41:07 PM EST
    Hillary isn't black, too. Then all of that silliness would go away.

    But then, nobody would vote for her, because 'she's a clinton'. wink.

    You have to ask yourself, what if Obama had been a Clinton? Would the media be able to get away with blatantly racist rhetoric because of that?


    Exactly... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:44:39 PM EST
    Axelrod was looking to turn AA community on the Clintons. The whole Jessie Jackson charade of racism, was the most cynical use of race card ever contrived. This will go down in history as one of the most brilliant or devilish manipulations of a throw away comment by Bill Clinton. Now, any Obama criticism can and will be manipulated. Hillary and Bill can never mention the anointed one.

    I will (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:02:13 PM EST
    always believe this is why Dick Durbin pushed Obama to run. What other way to defeat Hillary than run a black man and split the Party? The Clintons can't use their traditional hard-hitting defense against smears, because then they're accused of racism. As Krugman said, they haven't even said anything racist, and yet, Bill Clinton had to apologize for something he never said. That's just too surreal for me. I'm done with the Democrats over this debacle.

    Edwards cancelled (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by talkingpoint on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:39:32 PM EST
    his meeting with obama. The best thng that can happen is that after Obama big wins tomorrow (due to the African American populaion in those states)is for Edwards to come out abd enorse Hillary. That will stop all of Obama's momentum for Wisconsin (Hillary best chance until March 4th).

    I would be shocked... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by doordiedem0crat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:53:09 PM EST
    if Edwards used his influence specifically to minimize Obama's momentum. Especially when there is a 50% chance of shooting himself in the foot.

    I believe he will remain neutral until after the March primaries.


    I think the same (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by lisadawn82 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:55:45 PM EST
    I'm hoping, but I really don't know, that Edwards does not endorse anyone.  

    Where did you read this? I'd like to see it for (none / 0) (#113)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:59:12 PM EST
    myself and get a feel for what it says.  Thanks!

    This thread lacks all perspective (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:50:02 PM EST
    Really folks, the target ought to be McCain and the perpetual war machine that's draining the economy, destroying our rights, and pulling the US ever backward among nations.

    HIllary isn't inevitable and Obama isn't the golden boy. His change and unity message is pretty boringly anodyne. Her experience message isn't a great deal better.

    The media is unfair--wow, there's a colossal insight.

    Do the people on this thread want to win in November, or stand around and peck each other to death?

    Winning in November is a means (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:51:20 PM EST
    not an end.

    You miss the point of my post and Krugman's column entirely.


    no I haven't missed the point (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:54:47 PM EST
    I'm not impressed by whining.

    You are missing the point of the primary season apparently.


    Whining? Since when is telling the truth (none / 0) (#119)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:01:27 PM EST
    "whining?"  The discussion here is the fact that the media hold different standards when reporting about HRC and any other Clinton family member.  Obama is given a pass.  We are not whining, just discussing this hideous phenomenon.

    Since you do not address the point (none / 0) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:06:48 PM EST
    I can only assume you missed it.

    "Whining" is what you call it. You still focus on the means and not the end.

    I think you prove conclusively you do not get it at all.


    oh brother (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:14:38 PM EST
    the self-satisfied tone of your post simply documents my point

    this isn't a conversation

    you don't seem to able to have one


    I am not satisfied at all (none / 0) (#158)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:16:50 PM EST
    That you miss the point.
    It is a failing in me that you continue to avoid my point.

    The key words - "means" and "ends."


    Reputation (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:52:15 PM EST
    ..."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.

    How is this different from reputation?  When your attack dogs describe complaining women as trailer trash it tends to set your reputation.

    You have no problem with Krugman (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:56:14 PM EST
    advancing the "Obama fans are a cult" line, but then Rich is eviscerated for pointing out Hillary's ridiculous tactics, and their failings.

    Way to be fair about it all, you guys.

    Krugman at least does tell these truths, which you all don't apparently believe or want highlighted:

    "Both have broad support among the party's grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters."

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

    I really think Krugman would have you focus on those lines. That seems to be his actual thesis.

    I did not write a post about Rich's column (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:02:08 PM EST
    But I must ask, do you support that column?

    Please answer.


    I think Rich was wrong for the personal attacks (none / 0) (#207)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    like accusing her of intentionally avoiding having black voters ask her a question. That was way unfair.

    I support his assertion that making this process about race and sex is bad for the party, which is essentially how he ends his column.

    I also support him calling her campaign out for its blatant lies about Latinos and black politicians. She shouldn't be allowed to get away with that.

    Finally, I would just like to say that I wish both sides would drop the demographic fighting they both engage in. It is bad for Democrats, and if they both really care about the people, the party, and the country, they'll stop it.

    I also think you should stop promoting the cult line. You and Jeralyn are both really smart people, and I don't think you need to use tactics like that to advance your arguments.

    Wouldn't you agree that an election based on logos would enter the fall stronger than one based on pathos? Especially if that pathos-based argument leaves people angry and divided?

    At least that is how it should be.


    Fran k Rich played by the Clinton Rules.

    That is why I was surprised you brought it up.


    I guess you missed this (none / 0) (#224)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:26:15 PM EST
    Read it here and then look at Sergio Bendixen's comments here

    Then note back in Rich's column that Hillary claimed Bendixen was citing a historical reality, but then Rodriguez called her on it.

    But you already know all this, I'm sure. You just don't want to admit it.

    You also didn't address my questions to you about the rhetoric and focus of the campaigns. Care to answer?


    Being wrong is not lying (none / 0) (#234)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:53:58 PM EST
    Bendixen was wrong.

    As for the campaign rhetoric, are you really arguing that Clinton has focused on race? You are a fool if you say that.  A compelte fool.

    The Obama campaign focused on race, under the radar as much as possible of course.


    You are completely off the reservation (none / 0) (#237)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:00:48 PM EST
    It was a mistake? It has been Obama pumping race below the radar??

    Did Obama bring Jesse Jackson into the discussion? Did Obama's supporter say that Latinos don't support blacks?

    I did think you were a fair person, but now I see you're just a shill for the Clintons.


    If you're going to complain (none / 0) (#242)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:10:54 PM EST
    Don't use rhetoric that's completely racist to begin with. "Off the reservation", is NOT pleasant. Next thing from you will be black face and watermelon jokes, huh? >:(

    you probably know more of those jokes than me (none / 0) (#251)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:29:47 PM EST
    Favorite tactic (none / 0) (#250)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:28:57 PM EST
    Of Obamafans who don't like to face the truth: If you disagree with me, Hillary made you say it.

    Here is a timeline of what happened in SC, with all the racial crap that Obama's camp started:

    Following the South Carolina primary, both Mitchell and Tim Russert claimed on Nightly News and Today that the leadership of the Democratic Party is "mad as hell" at Bill Clinton for "attacking" Obama, and are lining up to back the Illinois senator. No sources were offered to substantiate the accusation.


    Unlike Florida, Clinton's New Hampshire win was not blacked out on television, but accusations of racism surfaced in the days that followed. On-air pundits and Obama surrogates suggested white voters had defied their publicly declared support of the African American candidate in the secrecy of the polling booth. During the same week, Clinton made a speech in South Carolina tying Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech to President Johnson's signing of the 1964 Cvil Rights Act, highlighting the role of Johnson. A senior advisor to Obama circulated a 4-page memorandum urging surrogates to slam Clinton for being disrespectful to King.

    If you tracked the coverage of the ensuing feud between the two campaigns, you would never know that this it was this memo that sparked the race-card accusations. Before the smoking gun showed up on the internet, Obama claimed in a television interview thea neither he nor anyone on his staff had accused Senator Clinton of insensivity. He added that he was "baffled" by her suggestion that they were involved. When the dust cleared, the media downplayed both the Obama memo and subsequent denial. Former President Clinton, however, continues to be barbecued over several angry comments uttered on the campaign trail in defense of his wife. (He also, incidentally, blasted the media's role in disseminating the racism talking points of Obama staffers.)

    Intelligent and astute, Hillary herself has historically shied away from personal attacks, whether it comes from sexist New York firefighters or Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball. (Her campaign recently cut off relations with the network when another MSNBC reporter declared that the Clintons had "pimped-out" daughter Chelsea in order to win superdelegates.)

    I forgot (none / 0) (#252)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:30:56 PM EST
    replace nouns (none / 0) (#123)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:02:56 PM EST
    where it says Obama, replace it with anyone else. Observe your feelings changing from Anger to Alarm.

    I'd advise against it (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:01:04 PM EST
    It will just give them another reason to not vote for Hillary in November.

    Well.. (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by ajain on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:15:20 PM EST
    I'm not going to argue with you there, but I hate how Hillary fans can't go negative on him but he and his fans can keep doing just that. I mean if calling her divisive is not a right wing political tactic then I don't know what is.

    Totally (4.00 / 2) (#166)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:23:03 PM EST
    I just think we should bring his supporters back to earth in other ways... just not sure what those are. :-P

    I have a hard time (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:07:54 PM EST
    Taking Mr. Krugman seriously when he says something like this.

    . 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.

    Comparing either candidate to George Bush should be clearly beyond acceptable bounds.  

    But I guess that's ok because it doesn't violate the "Clinton Rules".

    I, myself, heard Obama (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:12:32 PM EST
    talk about not wanting "Bush-Cheney lite" ... more than once.

    You missed that theme?


    A very fair rejoinder (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:13:36 PM EST
    That's a fair point (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:13:07 PM EST
    He should not have written that.

    If the shoe fits (none / 0) (#146)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:12:01 PM EST
    Cults of Personality don't abide by 'the rules'. People loved Bush DESPITE the facts on hand. Same with Obama. It's not Krugman's fault he's calling it like it is.

    I like Krugman (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:15:29 PM EST
    Find him one of the most credible out there. Not willing to let him off so easily for that analogy though.  One was a publicity stunt calling a war won, and the other is a campaign following coming on the heels of surviving president codpiece.  Very different men and very different circumstances.

    I can accept your reasoning (none / 0) (#163)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:21:00 PM EST
    I just don't like it when something, which, in my opinion, is a reasonable thing to say (similarities with regards to unquestioning support in a election setting, vitriolic defensiveness, and unwavering loyalty in the face of undeniable facts) is immediately condemned because it 'goes over the line'. I don't believe in sacred cows, or the opposite either, that some things just shouldn't be said.

    That said, I can see where you're coming from. Peace. :-)


    Ditto and Peace :-) (none / 0) (#179)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:29:59 PM EST
    Flight suit reference (none / 0) (#197)
    by magisterludi on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:47:29 PM EST
    was a bad analogy, but there are similarities to the GWB and BHO campaigns. Both claim to be "uniters, not dividers!". I think that was his broader point. I'd say that's a skeptical observation as opposed to cynical one.

    That may be so (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:22:13 PM EST
    But it's not like George Bush invented the unity theme.  And making that comparison, especially when Obama supporters are suspicious of intent already, certainly isn't helping.

    Personally I think that all mainstream legitimate candidates try to play the "uniter, not divider" card.  It is a winning theme.  Some are simply better at it than others.

    The vast majority of American voters don't want a firebrand.  


    Why we are here (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Pacific John on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:00:50 PM EST
    Like BTD, I find it astounding that the fundamental purpose of the blogosphere, countering anti-liberal media bias, has been utterly corrupted.

    MoveOn, MediaWhoresOnline, Media Matters, Atrios. et. al. were founded to combat the Clinton Rules, and their application to Gore, Kerry, and future Democratic leaders.

    More astounding is that Obama was not kicked to the curb over this.

    Instead, the blogosphere has sold its principles out in the name of a single individual who repudiates the proposition that, "According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party."

    True it has become (none / 0) (#225)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:27:15 PM EST
    what it hated even appearing on the very shows that are surrogates against Hillary.  I think no one would have difficulty determining whose the new Rush and Ann Coulter on the left.

    Krugman doing what he has always done (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by peon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:14:12 PM EST
    Krugman has not changed. He stood against voodoo economics when everyone was drinking the kool aid. He defended Social Security and called the "crisis" bunk, when everyone was repeating the Repugs talking points like parrots. Some still are:
    "You know, Senator Clinton says that she's concerned about Social Security but is not willing to say how she would solve the Social Security crisis," Obama told the National Journal. "I think voters aren't going to feel real confident that this is a priority for her."
    Krugman was against the war when many were tepid about their opposition (including Hillary Clinton). What has changed is some in the left who support Obama take issue with any criticism of Obama. I have found Krugman to be a progessive voice in the wilderness. I still feel the same about him.

    His worst column yet (3.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:09:09 PM EST
    talk about substance free.  The man is just bitter because his candidates are loosing.  I love the sweeping broad generalizations of Obama supporters, even though i think it is safe to infer his only contact with Obama supporters is from complaints from his constant attacks.  

    Yeah imagine that, I bet Clinton supporters are super nice, since you are only attacking her opponent and not her.

    As for we should back the nominee, first off creating the narrative that one candidate is a cult leader can be damaging in a general. Two where is his evidence that Obama supporters would never support her.  The only thing he can cite is David Schuster, who has nothing to do with Obama or his supporters. Exit polls are pretty clear that the majority of both their supporters would support each other.  

    As for Obama not having his feet held to the fire.  Yeah because how many posts have their been about mandates, how many times did we hear about McClurkin?  what else do you want?

    Sorry Paul Krugman just insulted half of democrats because he is mad they aren't supporting his candidate.  IMO that makes him irrelevent.

    Of course Obama supporters (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:10:08 PM EST
    will miss the substance.

    yes i know (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:22:09 PM EST
    you think calling Obama's supporters members of a cult is acceptable and substantive, you do it all the time.

    Is that all you read? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:26:16 PM EST
    Krugman wrote more than that one line.

    No.. (none / 0) (#48)
    by doordiedem0crat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    but it comes close to the cut-and-run crap the republicans pull.

    So he's no better in my opinion.


    Krugman as Republican (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:33:02 PM EST
    That comment takes the cake.

    And you wonder why you are thought of as a cult?


    yes (none / 0) (#111)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:58:52 PM EST
    let me summarize.

    you kids organizing volunteering donating money, you have to do that for Hillary too.  Or else you are a cult!  cant you be apathetic, like the kids before you!

    and i said your candidate wasn't a progressive, i based it on nothing, but I'm Paul Krugman, my blog is conscious of a liberal, who cares if i stole that from Paul Wellstone.  I'm relevent!

    Ohh and the media is mean to my candidate, and if you dont support her you a cultest woman hater!

    Oh and the media is going to attack Obama too, and since he doesn't say right wing conspiracy, and have health care mandates, his head is going to implode! ohh and since they are going to attack him I'm such a good democrat I'm going to help create the media narrative that if people volunteer and get involved, and omg show up to vote, they are cult members.


    You can stop now (none / 0) (#164)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:21:04 PM EST
    We already know what you are. No need for further exhibitions.

    right keep the insults coming (none / 0) (#236)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:57:09 PM EST
    makes me work harder.  Ohh and my work matters i live in Texas, in the senate district with the most delegates!

    I don't care (none / 0) (#246)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:17:26 PM EST
    If you work in CA and have the senate district with the most delegates in the USA. Obama is being touted not on credentials or experience, but because of race and celebrity status. That's the ugly truth.

    With Reagan we got an actor for president. Want more of the same?



    Yep (none / 0) (#219)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:20:40 PM EST
    When you see it personally, and how it has changed the dramatics of a community. Shouldn't have gotten to this level of polarization, it has, and telling it like it is, is needed.

    Sorry to say (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:15:26 PM EST
    that a lot of the bloggers that claim to back Obama are the ones that keep saying they would never vote for Clinton.

    A lot of clinton (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:17:31 PM EST
    bloggers say the same.

    I condemn both (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:20:13 PM EST
    but there is no doubt that the phenomenon started with Obama supporters on Clinton.

    The vitriol has been amazing. PERSONAL. Not issues based.


    I agree (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:22:59 PM EST
    it is amazingly personal to hear broad based attacks on another candidates supporters.  

    I understand that (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:26:52 PM EST
    But that is not when the vitriol started.

    wow we are down to (none / 0) (#142)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:10:44 PM EST
    you started it arguments.  will we bring up Baracks Kindergarten essays again?

    Interestingly (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:20:17 PM EST
    Who started it is always important, despite that schoolhouse attempts to pretend otherwise.

    Who started the war? It matters.

    At least that is what Obama supporters tell me. That who will end it is LESS important than who started it.


    And don't fricken ask me who is to blame (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    since this family survived both fricken senators enabling the Iraq War to continue with no end in sight.  After 9/11 I can forgive complete stupidity as an Army wife.........weren't we all just a tad stupid around that time?  It's called shock and trauma and most of the country was suffering from it.  It isn't as if I didn't know we could be in this boat someday as military......but after no WMD's and to just keep on voting that Halliburton money on down that corporate war driven river of blood.  Don't even get me going.  Both of these candidates have blood on their hands where this issue is concerned!  If I had a feasible candidate to choose from that was pure as the driven snow on this issue in this race I'd be right there with em but I don't so whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!  I know who has blood on their hands here.  I see it very clearly!

    I am grateful for what you and your family have (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:49:59 PM EST
    given our country.  Thank you.

    Don't think so...very few... (none / 0) (#44)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:28:05 PM EST
    Hillary supporter are, in the main, Democrats.  We will vote for the nominee as we always do.

    Still...the phrase "a lot of bloggers" leaves me bemused.  At this time in blogohistory, as a percentage of the electorate - no matter which candidate a blogger supports - their numbers are unlikely to be determinative in the fall.


    Hillary supporters aren't Democrats??? (none / 0) (#58)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:35:03 PM EST
    How perfectly Rovian: Attack your opponent's strengths. Accuse them of what you are guilty of.

    Typo (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:38:30 PM EST
    OldPro meant the opposite.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#90)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:50:06 PM EST
    I see it now.

    Mea culpa. Please delete my previous comment.


    Thanks you. (none / 0) (#165)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:22:01 PM EST
    I need a proofreader in the morning...

    Misread (I did it too) (none / 0) (#100)
    by badger on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:55:08 PM EST
    "Hillary" starts a new sentence, doesn't continue the "few" in the title.

    I read it the way you responded the first time too, but I don't think that's what was meant.


    Yup. My bad. Sheesh... (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:19:31 PM EST
    More coffee...

    So by your logic you are irrelevant. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by my opinion on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:16:37 PM EST
    I agree... (none / 0) (#23)
    by doordiedem0crat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:19:52 PM EST
    There comes a point when you really have to take a step back and say...I'm scavenging in the gutters to make a worthwhile arguement.

    Lack of substance...lack of brain matter.


    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:20:56 PM EST
    The Obama supporters have the brain power. Not Krugman.



    Well, I'm just about on the verge (3.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:42:32 PM EST
    of pie war at Dkos today.  Probably a good time to just go find a hobby, grab that handheld sudoku and just calgon myself away.  Has the whole place lost its feminist mind again?  Do they need reminded?  How stupid and blind can people really get while worshipping?  Perhaps if someone set a cross on fire in front of them they could snap out of their reverie and remember where utterly blind disconnected from facts loyalty has led people in the past. Either I snap or I puke or I bathe.....I pick bathe.

    As Black man (3.00 / 2) (#93)
    by talkingpoint on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:51:20 PM EST
    I can honestly tell you that most of my friends are not voting against Hillary because of Bill's comment, they are simply voting against her because she is running against a Black man. I know it might ot sound good, butits the truth. I cannot even talk in public that I support Hillary. I am sad to see how race have taken cntrol of this election.

    I believe (none / 0) (#107)
    by doordiedem0crat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:57:13 PM EST
    Bill's negative comments did go a long ways within the black community.

    Race was more so an issue after Bill's comments than before.


    If it makes (5.00 / 6) (#128)
    by talkingpoint on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    you feel good to believe then go ahead. unless you can live in my world you will never understand. Most of my friends don't even know about Bill's omment. They are voting for Obama because he is a Black man that they believe have a chance t be president. I hate to say this, but if you dont believe racism goes both ways then you are stupid. Where were you when i was being shun, and called a traitor, and uncle tom just because i support Hillary.

    I love this (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:11:16 PM EST
    talkingpoint, thank you for standing up.  I have no idea why this person is insisting you are wrong when you see it with your own eyes and from your own perspective.

    To deny your experience is, to my thinking, galling.


    Calm down brotha...and think (none / 0) (#178)
    by doordiedem0crat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:29:53 PM EST
    Why would you call these people your friends, if they hold on.....

    Where were you when i was being shun, and called a traitor, and uncle tom just because i support Hillary.

    Maybe you should find a different crowd.

    Do keep in mind...that it is somewhat inspiring to see that this country may achieve what blacks thought had been impossible.

    I also don't feel the need to project my race into an arguement for justification. You will find that will most times diminsh the point you intend to make.

    I say this as a minority.....


    You called him a "brotha"? (none / 0) (#195)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:43:17 PM EST
    Do not do it again. Not here.

    Trying to make a point...as a brotha. (none / 0) (#201)
    by doordiedem0crat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:53:39 PM EST
    I will refrain.

    Please do (none / 0) (#205)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:58:58 PM EST
    Whoa (none / 0) (#203)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:54:50 PM EST
    That's a little harsh. I don't blame the Blacks voting for the familiar, and having the pride to do so. That's not even an issue. The issue is how deep the divide is, and the chill factor it can bring. Folks have come so far to become good neighbors and like each other, and an election like this can split it down the center -- over an issue so much each tries to overcome.

    I won't diss my neighbors over it, I just don't like being pushed to vote for the status quo, even without a gun to the head, but subtlely.


    You have no sense (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by talkingpoint on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:10:17 PM EST
    of reality and really don't know whats happening. the media is not talking about the darkness in the democratic primary. Don't read it, don't watch it, but live it, and when you live it, you will see it.

    Which comments? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:05:32 PM EST
    Provide the dates of those comments and what they were please.

    I will provide you one - the fairy tale comment.

    This is an example of the Clnton Rules. Clinton made a statement about Obama's posiiton on Iraq and the Clinton Rules turned it into a racial comment.

    The Obama CAMPAIGN was part of that.


    It breaks both ways. (none / 0) (#112)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:59:05 PM EST
    Women supporting Obama are called traitors.

    No they are not (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:03:43 PM EST
    You are not telling the truth.

    Yes, I am telling the truth. (none / 0) (#183)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:32:24 PM EST
    Read it for yourself.

    And instead of claiming it's only Oprah, you should recognize that Oprah is the most visible, but by no means the only one who would be deemed guilty by the women calling her that.

    So don't call me a liar. Thanks.


    I call all of them untruthful (none / 0) (#191)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:42:20 PM EST
    I do not believe it for a second.

    Oh, well, that makes sense.... (none / 0) (#196)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:45:11 PM EST
    Now Oprah's a lying conspirator.

    At least you put yourself out there, and you are way, way out there on this one.


    It's true (none / 0) (#214)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:13:02 PM EST
    BTD, it's ugly in the trenches. A lot not being siad in the soundbites, but you don't have to imagine much to know what's being said on the street.

    Black women are the ones really being put on the spot. They have 2 heavy choices, one for gender and one for race. Very difficult. Either choice is going to get them flack.


    I am sorry to say (none / 0) (#217)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:16:20 PM EST
    I do not believe what you are asserting.

    Your choice (none / 0) (#230)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:37:41 PM EST
    But it's not what is seen on the street.

    No. They're not. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:06:24 PM EST
    They're called mom or sister or aunt or cousin or neighbor or grandma.

    Only an ignorant fool calls them traitors...unless they are of the Stepford Wife variety and you can't get through to them anyway.


    Oprah is the only person I can recall saying that (none / 0) (#133)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:06:32 PM EST
    she had been deemed a traitor for going with Obama.  

    That makes her the torchbearer (none / 0) (#185)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:34:48 PM EST
    Not a singular case.

    Do you think the women who sent her those emails absolved their mothers, daughters, friends, sisters, for doing what they criticized Oprah for doing.

    Be real.


    I hate to tempt BTD with deleting this comment (none / 0) (#138)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:09:32 PM EST
    but if you were to go to a white woman and call her the 'C' word (which is the most offensive thing, in my opinion, you can call a woman), and compare that with going up to a black man and calling him the 'N' word (again, most offensive thing you can call an AA): Who do you think would be more upset?

    I think the answer would be that the N word would upset the recipient more, because race is a much more sensitive subject here than gender. It is considered much more verboten.

    I think it is easier to be a misogynist in America than it is to be a racist. Hence, more people are likely to get away with openly running 'against' a woman, than running 'against' a black man.

    My 2 cents, FWIW.


    No more of this (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:15:06 PM EST
    Your comment is really borderline. This line of discussion will not take place at THIS BLOG.

    I thought it would (none / 0) (#170)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:25:33 PM EST
    if you want to delete it go ahead. I feel sometimes though that the discussion is brought to the border by, shall we say, other interests, and there really is no place to go for discussion aside from 'the border'.

    Is there a technical debating term for this?

    Anyhow, sorry BTD.


    I think it's sad that (none / 0) (#139)
    by hillaryisbest on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:09:35 PM EST
    the AA community basically deserted two people that have been with them for decades.  Could you imagine throwing a 35 year friendship and relationshipt under the bus like this?

    it hurts me (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by talkingpoint on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:17:27 PM EST
    to see how race have dominated the mindset of my people. We have become what we have been fighting against for decades. Many of us can't see beyond skin color. Martin Luther King wished for a man or a women to be seen as what they represent, not by their skin  color. Many of us have become what our parents feared.

    Why has... (none / 0) (#194)
    by doordiedem0crat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:43:05 PM EST
    God forsaken you. It pisses me off that you encompass the entire race in your statement. As if they don't know any better. You sound terribly similar to Alan Keyes.

    I am a Hillary supporter (none / 0) (#161)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    and I don't think they threw them under a bus.  I firmly believe that, despite what Obama says, these voters would, in general, go back to Hillary.

    Most would love to see a Clinton/Obama ticket.

    It's like having two really good friends who aren't getting along, and you feel caught in the middle.


    Was it the AA community's fault? (none / 0) (#189)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:40:11 PM EST
    Or did the Clintons decide to burn bridges when it became clear that AA's would stand up for one of their own, refusing to pass on the best chance they have to elect an AA in the foreseeable future?

    Just 4 years ago, the idea of electing a black man was ridiculous. Nobody that it was even reasonable to suggest it. When they did debate it, the one possibly viable candidate they pointed to was Colin Powell, a man not interested in carrying that banner.

    Now, here's Obama, the most eloquent, inspirational, black man since Dr. King, and they want to support him. I'm sorry that bothers all the women who really hoped Hillary would break through that ceiling first, but you really shouldn't make it out like the black community owed the Clintons anything over Obama.


    So true (none / 0) (#193)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:43:01 PM EST
    The divide is even on the other side (I'm part Japanese -- I have so many stories to tell about  growing up in the South between the White and Black divide!). Sis has the worst time because she's the only one that's not Black on her shift. She has to remain quiet, while everyone else talks about their candidate. If she does, the eyes roll and they treat her like a leper.

    If only folks really knew how and why Obama is getting these votes. It is ugly out there.

    It used to be that folks talked the politics on the bus (and being a Southern town, yes religion too). Now it's batten down the hatches, no one is talking. The divide is that wide, and I almost dislike getting on the bus when it's not so lively as it used to be.

    Never shouldn't have gotten to be like this, really. Need some neighbor wall patching.


    Krugman (3.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Janet on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:26:53 PM EST
    Krugman is the only breath of fresh air I seen lately. With the media calling Hillary dead and buried I find myself having to defend her. Its not over yet. She is a real fighter and we never know when something may occur to change the whole perspective of the election.

    Exactly BTD! (none / 0) (#6)
    by Josey on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:58:08 PM EST

    Krugman is lost... (none / 0) (#7)
    by doordiedem0crat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:58:36 PM EST
    The blogs have certainly held Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on issues, and I applaud them for that. But the blogs generally have not held Barack Obama's feet to the fire.

    Krugman is a fool. He amongst other pro-Hillary blogs are upset and beset by the fact that every smear, tactic, and dirty trick has been brushed off by Obama as he marches toward the Democratic nomination. Nothing sticks and its frustrating to see their candidate go down in flames.

    Krugman is lost. Krugman is a fool. (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:03:55 PM EST
    Actually addressing the points made? None.

    Sorry, the Obama Cult always determined to look like idiots.


    Obama rules. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:19:46 PM EST
    4. Obama's attacks are always fair and merited. Any suggestion otherwise is, at the least, vaguely racist.

    I think you need one more:

    5. Apply Clinton Rules. Don't forget to include anyone who says anything positive/not negative/objective about a Clinton, too.


    The point soars... (none / 0) (#15)
    by doordiedem0crat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:15:43 PM EST
    above your head. There is a fundamental shift in American politics. Obama offers a fresh perspective that obsoletes Clinton and many pro-Hillary supporters.

    Call it a cult if you want...I call it change.
    Unfortunately, there are democrats that are resistant to it...they'll be dragged along kicking and screaming.


    I have heard the argument (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:24:16 PM EST
    I think it is wrong and I do not see the evidence that supports this supposed "obsolescence."

    This isd the dispute. If you believe Obama is right in his Unity/Post partisian schtick and that it works for the ISSSUES Dems supposedly care about, then of course you support him.

    Some of us, including Krugman, think it is horribly wrong.

    That is the debate.  


    Fresh perspective (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:25:15 PM EST
    How is it fresh that he built his support through the Clinton hate? Demonization of Hillary is the foundation of the Obama base. Take that away and what do you have?

    Change (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:27:11 PM EST
    To what?  From what?  How?

    I don't know if I'm resistant to it since I have no idea what you're talking about.  Change is a meaningless word without talking about what you are changing to and what you are changing from and how you are going to do it.

    "Obama offers a fresh perspective that obsoletes Clinton"

    Aside from the bad grammar, what does that even mean?  What fresh perspective?  The desire to reach across the aisle?  That's hardly new or fresh.  Using right-wing talking points isn't new or fresh.  When it comes to politics, like so many other parts of life, there is nothing new under the sun.

    "There is a fundamental shift in American politics"

    This I agree with, but I don't think Obama sees the shift.  The Republican party and conservative movement are exhausted and collapsing.  It's the perfect time to be arguing for liberal ideas and build a new majority.  But what does Obama do?  Argue for more bipartisanship and unity, which is business as usual.  It's not a challenge of the status quo, it's an acceptance of it.  That's why David Broder and so many conservative pundits love Obama.  


    "dragged kicking and screaming" (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:27:37 PM EST
    It's that kind of language, associated with a campaign that deliberately allows it's supporters to villify and demonize anyone who gets in their way, that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

    You will conform or we will make you. That's it, plain and simple. No thinking involved.


    That Type Of Rhetoric Will Make It Harder (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:29:16 PM EST
    for me to support Obama if he is the nominee. Not making threats, but just saying it will be more difficult than it should be.

    Obama rule #6 (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:28:20 PM EST
    democrats that are resistant to it...they'll be dragged along kicking and screaming.

    6. When all else fails, use threats.


    Obsoletes? (none / 0) (#26)
    by rilkefan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:20:34 PM EST
    Be a cultist if you like, but leave the English language alone.

    May I add (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    The point you try to make was not attempted by the original commenter.

    All that was provided was an empty ad hominem.


    READ (none / 0) (#126)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:03:16 PM EST
    will ya? Otherwise, stay off the posts.

    11 columns on the Democratic race... (none / 0) (#13)
    by mike in dc on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:14:47 PM EST
    ...all of them bashing Obama. Hmm.  Does he have valid criticisms?  Perhaps.  Could he afford to "share the love" a bit at this point?  I think so.  Krugman disagrees with Obama's approach to health care, his framing on social security, and has a mis-impression(as does BTD) of Obama's "unity shtick".  We get it, Paul.

    It just gets a little tiresome after the 9th column or so...

    Why does Krugman do it? (5.00 / 11) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:18:04 PM EST
    Why do I do it?

    Because those 11 columns and my measly posts are the only pieces where these issues will be discussed.

    Do you complain about the 98% of the coverage unfairly slamming Clinton? Of course not.

    You see, Krugman and I have noticed these things and it bothers us.

    We think it is dangerous to take the attitude you and most blogs have taken.

    We will write about it because we believe it is undercovered.

    Of course you do not like it. You care about one thing and one thing only. Obama getting elected.

    We care about more than who is the particualr person being elected.

    Frankly, you make our point.


    We care as well... (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by mike in dc on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:53:38 PM EST
    ...we've just decided, based on a combination of issues, approach and who is the best "vessel" for progressives, liberals and moderates to achieve meaningful political change, that we support Obama.  
    I recognize that no politician is a perfect vessel for the policy objectives of citizens and voters, and I do recognize that it's crucial to hold them accountable for what they do and say.  That said, in my view, this blog has gone berserk on the Obama-bashing.  The man simply does not merit the level of excoriation he's gotten here.

    It seems like there's up to 5-6 main page topics a day that find some reason to "dis" Obama.  

    Sometimes , "less is more".  Ratcheting up the frequency and volume actually tends to turn off people who might be persuadable.  Isn't that a major complaint of Clinton supporters about "Obama cultists"?  It seems like TL would learn from what they loathe, and tone it down a bit.

    If you want to bash Obama on policy or strategy, it makes more sense to me to concentrate that into maybe one substantive topic a day, rather than one substantive post plus 3 devoted to gratuitously petty grievances or needling.

    And maybe, just maybe, if you think the Clinton-bashing in the media is excessive, perhaps you could post a major topic outlining what you feel is "fair game" to criticize her on the issues or the way she's running her campaign?


    Obama bashing? (none / 0) (#212)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:06:26 PM EST
    I had to p-r-y on the search engine for a more pro-Clinton site/blog. And I had to get this link from another link from a blog, that said it's removing it because it's so "pro-Clinton" (that's all I needed. It had to be good!).

    It's a very lopsided situation. Almost every Democrat site is pro-Obama (just like with McCain for the Republicans). Can't go anywhere with something about him, but some cheap shots at Hillary. After awhile it gets old, after a long while it gets you angry to do what I did, and search for something else to read.


    It's a little hard to (none / 0) (#157)
    by hillaryisbest on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:15:48 PM EST
    be tired of something that happens so infrequently - namely an honest analysis of Obama and Clinton.  If the Obama camp didn't have about 90% of the media on their side I might entertain your opinion.

    Please do (none / 0) (#30)
    by AF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:23:36 PM EST

    as it seems that he is most "upset" with BO over the health care issue-
    and in this context, would want to ask PK-
    Does he favor the idea that the government can force (or penalize) so to make that  people "have to purchase" insurance (as per Hillary's health care proposal)

    Since you don't want to have health insurance for (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by my opinion on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:34:15 PM EST
    all because it is mandated, do you want to end mandated social security, mandated Medicaid, mandated police, mandated fire depts., mandated schools, etc.

    haha (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:36:14 PM EST
    beat me to it.

    Do you favor Social Security, Medicare? (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:35:55 PM EST
    Those are 'forced' on people too, and are considered one of the most important contributions to our society in the modern era.

    Not that Obama supports Social Security.


    I'll answer for him (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:48:32 PM EST
    I have not been following all of his writings on this subject, but I am quite sure Krugman would agree to this in some form -- that is what a "mandate" implies. In the same way, we all are mandated to participate in the social security system.  Social security is a great and progressive idea.  So is UHC, enforced by mandates.

    Any good plan will not only have mandates, which will reduce costs, by the way, it will also have assistance for people who still can't afford it.

    In a recent debate, Obama also alluded to a penalty, by making the uninsured pay "some of" the back premiums if they get sick. But if that's the plan, pay later if/when you get sick, and pay only part of the premiums you would have paid, then that is totally unworkable. Anyone with a modicum of sense would not get insurance until they got sick, and even then they would not carry the full cost of the premiums. I hope that he misstated the way his plan would work, because what he articulated in that debate is, from an economic perspective, utter rubbish.


    Are any of you on Social Security? (none / 0) (#229)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:35:55 PM EST
    If you are, you won't claim it's so peachy. I'm disabled, and can attest to it. Worse, I can attest to the problems of "Universal" healthcare from experience with it when it was what it was in the military -- it nearly killed me.

    Experience teaches you differently than the latest soundbite. SS isn't all that peachy, nor this "Universal" healthcare. And each will need to be thorough investigations before expanding it further, especially on it's impact on the "care" aspect of it.

    Just giving folks healthcare isn't the same as getting healthcare that doesn't kill you (which happened to a friend's mom in the US model of "universal" healthcare we have today, that's practiced in the hospitals before Tricare was invented).

    This reminds me so much of charities. So many "throw the money" at the problem thinking it'll help, but it doesn't resolve the issue(s) why the money is thrown out in the first place.


    I would ask you (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:31:14 PM EST
    does Obama?

    Not Sure....does he? I am "new" to (none / 0) (#82)
    by TearDownThisWall on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:45:59 PM EST
    the idea of government run health care.
    (Am in late 40s....)
    So no....i am not sure what/ BO professes.
    Please advise-
    I see this issue though as THE Number one issue for PK.
    (and what sares me about Hillary's idea is that if my kids (in their 20s) don't want to sign up....she will make it so the government can force them.
    is this true?



    See what you can find out (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:48:57 PM EST
    and report back to us.

    Will take that as a "YES"..PK Favors (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by TearDownThisWall on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:56:00 PM EST
    a law/ rule that will force people to pay for something they don't want.
    And that what scares me more than anything else about government

    I do not speak for Krugman (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:10:10 PM EST
    But I do understand Social Security and Medicare are forced upon you as well. Does that scare you?

    Yes....It scares me anytime a Government (none / 0) (#167)
    by TearDownThisWall on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:23:36 PM EST
    forces itself upon a citizen.
    for waht ever reason....what ever program (no matter how well intentioned)-

    who said it...something like:
    "the people should not fear their government.....the government should fear their people"


    and meanwhile (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:31:07 PM EST
    insurance companies keep pillaging, denying coverage, raising rates, and amassing huge profits while people die and suffer from treatable conditions?

    there is no ayn rand wing of the democratic party.

    this is about ending the extortion by insurance companies and the needless suffering that causes.  


    It is scary, admittedly (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:33:33 PM EST
    But it also 'forces' these items too:
    1. You aren't allowed to murder people.
    2. You aren't allowed to steal from people.
    3. You aren't allowed to deny people employment because they belong to X.

    I mean, how far do we take it? It can go both ways. The point is to keep the discussion as to what is a major problem in society and what is the best way to address it. In my opinion, healthcare is a major part of why people are dying of simple, curable reasons. Plagues can spread if hordes of poor people can't afford to reach a doctor, and that is an issue that our government can't ignore.

    In order for everyone who needs healthcare to get healthcare, we need to make sure that it is affordable. The only way to make it affordable is to have everyone pitch in, healthy and sick alike. And you have to play on the fact that everyone, at some time, gets sick. Just because you aren't sick NOW doesn't mean you will always be that way. Same thing as Social Security; just because you're young and employed NOW doesn't mean you will always be. etc etc sorry this isn't a healthcare thread, just illustrating my point.

    I need a beer. Is it noon yet?


    You are forced to get that driver's license (none / 0) (#213)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:11:56 PM EST
    so don't lose it drinking while driving -- or we will be forced to take it away from you. . . .:-)

    When did the verb "mandate" become the verb "force"?  Is this a new addition to What Obama Really Meant, a new attack mantra?  Have you seen it before this, blogtopus?  Are we here on the cutting edge of the coming Obamabomb, the new buzzword to distract us from the issues?

    "Force" ought to be a noun for real Dems, as in we have forces in Iraq who ought to come home.  Or, heck, I'm happy to force our troops home!


    Ah... (none / 0) (#233)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:48:28 PM EST
    If "universal" healthcare is what I recieved in the military, I will go without -- I may live longer, without the complications.

    Don't want it shoved down my throat, optional yes, but not like a tax.

    The best that I can see is like the Medicaid/Medicare/D system provides, with the option of extra insurance for what those programs don't pay for (or pay too little for, limiting care). The important part are options, as everyone sees healthcare differently.


    You like the fines and penalities (none / 0) (#245)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:15:26 PM EST
    after your hospital stay, under Obama's plan?  'Cause I'm not paying for it, and neither will he.

    After? (none / 0) (#247)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:23:03 PM EST
    What's being touted -- I won't survive.

    Been there. Got the "universal" healthcare. Have a 4" hole in my leg due to the bone infection. Have heart problems, due to complications. Spent a month in the hospital, with 2 weeks in ICU. For what? ONE broken bone.

    "Fines and penalties" aren't my concern. Just living to even having them, is.

    Like I said, options are needed. As people have different views about healthcare, especially the quality aspect of it.


    IF ALL YOU HEALTHY YOUNG PEOPLE (none / 0) (#249)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:28:16 PM EST
    don't wish to "pay for health care because you dont want it" are Ok with me dying because my cancer in in remission and I have no health care at all after using up the lifetime cap on mine, then go ahead and vote for Obama because I can guarentee that I will die simply because of no affordable universal health care....If Americans dying because we are too sick to have health care or cant afford it doesnt bother you, then ok but at least admit that is what your stand is...

    So-called "Clinton Rules" (none / 0) (#38)
    by doordiedem0crat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:26:44 PM EST
    Another cry-wolf arguement. Clinton was for the longest time the "inevitable nominee" for the democratic party.

    Now, because they ran such a bad campaign in complete opposite of Obama, some democrats need to come up with every reason in the world as to why its everyone else's fault but the Clinton's as to why they're losing it.

    I wonder what other cute names they'll come up with next.

    When the obvious is denied (4.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:30:39 PM EST
    I see no reason to have a substantive discussion.

    If you deny that Obama is a Media Darling and Clinton is The Hated One, then you are not worth paying attention to.

    BTW, Obama's Media Darling status is GOOD for his electability. Why on Earth would you want to deny it?


    I do deny it (none / 0) (#114)
    by Egypt Steve on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:59:14 PM EST
    Why did all the bobble-heads go on and on on Super-Duper Tuesday about how Obama and Hillary were "tied," even though O. had scored far more states and more elected delegates? Given where Obama had been mere weeks before, Hillary was defeated, period. But the MSM would not say that.  

    She was NOT defeated (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:30:43 PM EST
    All the pundits were saying the winner of CA was the winner of the nom. Period. That's when they thought Obama was going to win it, with Oprah, Maria, Teddy and Caroline's endorsememts. They also thought she's lose MA. If Clinton didn't win CA, she was out.

    She won CA (and NJ, and MA). They still said he won Super Tues.


    echninopsia (none / 0) (#211)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:01:00 PM EST
    See the Obama Rules.

    Before the election, it was said that he HAD to win at least one of the big states.  It was said he HAD to win two of the three: MO, NY, and MA.  It was said that he HAD to break out of his narrow demographics.

    The next day...not so much.  "He won more states!  Yay!"

    McCain wins mostly blue states; this is a big problem.
    Obama wins mostly red states: this shows he has cross-appeal.



    My somewhat more nuanced view (none / 0) (#118)
    by Egypt Steve on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:01:17 PM EST
    is that in fact the MSM does not want anyone to run away with this.  Anyone whose head, fingers, or other appendages stick out even a little will feel the hammer.

    Egypt Steve (none / 0) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:08:20 PM EST
    appropriate name.

    inscrutable reply (none / 0) (#174)
    by Egypt Steve on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:28:19 PM EST
    Steve? Egypt? or Egypt Steve????

    Barack Obama (none / 0) (#55)
    by ruthinor on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:33:04 PM EST
    I kept wondering what this election season reminds me of:  with all the Republicans slavering over Obama, does he seem like the modern day Manchurian Candidate?

    BINGO! (none / 0) (#131)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:05:58 PM EST
    Great minds think alike.

    Ok... (none / 0) (#186)
    by doordiedem0crat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:35:53 PM EST
    So whom do you think is pulling the strings?

    Also, do you think 9/11 was an inside job?


    I understand (none / 0) (#74)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:43:17 PM EST
    the context--and certainly I understand that the B-word is used all over the so-called Left Blogosphere, but we can't curse on TL.

    Believe me, if we could, it'd be a lesson in gutter talk.

    Cult? Venom? Hate??? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Egypt Steve on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:55:27 PM EST
    I sent this to the NYT today. Since they never print my letters, I am safe posting it here.  If they do plan to publish it and ask if it has appeared elsewhere, naturally I'll lie.

    I like Paul Krugman.  I like to think that if I knew him, he'd be a friend of mine.  But these days, Paul Krugman seems to be no Paul Krugman. Today's column on Barak Obama's "cult of personality" and the "venom" coming from Obama's supporters is simply absurd. In the entire column, there is not one -- not one! -- "venomous" quote from any Obama supporter, or any quote that appears to laud Obama as some sort of cult figure. The statement that Obama's supporters favor the implementation of the "Clinton" rules is equally baseless, at least as far as one can tell from what Mr. Krugman actually wrote today. I'm sorry to say that Mr. Krugman seems to have simply phoned this one in.

    I see (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:03:04 PM EST
    so you deny their are venomous quotes from Obama supporters about Hillary?

    Is that your final answer?


    I deny that Paul Krugman (none / 0) (#182)
    by Egypt Steve on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:31:31 PM EST
    made his case, or that he even tried to.  And I say that what we "need" are pundits who do something other than publish random jottings of unsubstantiated conventional wisdom.  Krugman is usually pretty good at this. Today he wasn't.  

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:40:59 PM EST
    De Nile indeed.

    So I guess I'm just imagining things (none / 0) (#198)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:49:01 PM EST
    when I feel like I'm being courageous to put out Hillary yard signs for fear of what my Obama-supporting neighbors would do?

    And because on the online forum I've been participating in for ten years, I am now a pariah who can't write anything positive about my candidate except in her own campaign thread, and I can't post at all in the Obama thread without being attacked.

    Because there are no venomous attacks on Hillary by Obama supporters. Right? I'm just imagining all that.

    Do a little experiment. Go to one of the many blogs that are for Obama, get a new login, and pose as a Hillary supporter. Say something positive about Hillary or just slightly negative about Obama.


    I don't know about your imagination. (none / 0) (#220)
    by Egypt Steve on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:22:07 PM EST
    All I know is, Krugman wrote a feeble column today. For Krugman's column to be led off with a headline "Hate springs eternal," go on and on about "Nixonland" and "Clinton rules" and venom and cults and all the rest of it, and then provide exactly zip corroboration, was irresponsible and lazy.  

    This comment reminds me of (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:47:33 PM EST
    a very common thing that white men do when confronted with sexism and racism. They say it doesn't exist because they have not experienced it.

    Well of course not, you're a white man.

    You're not a Clinton supporter. Therefore you don't see it and you would deny all evidence to the contrary even when it is right in front of you.

    I am a Clinton supporter. I am not making this stuff up. The vitriol is real, it is constant, it is unfair, and a lot of it is generated by, tolerated by, and reinforced by Obama, his campaign, his surrogates, and his supporters, not just the media. Krugman is a Clinton supporter, so he sees it too.


    fine, where's the beef (none / 0) (#253)
    by Egypt Steve on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:33:57 PM EST
    In Krugman's column????

    That is what my comments have been about.


    Read the comments (none / 0) (#255)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:45:24 PM EST
    on any blog that covers the campaign.

    So true, so true. (none / 0) (#109)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:57:49 PM EST
    Thanks for standing up for the truth, Steve.

    Please sign the petition! (none / 0) (#106)
    by hillaryisbest on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:56:59 PM EST
    Sign the petition to demand that the next Presidential debate focus on women's issues and sexism in the media:

    I have just read and signed the petition: "Presidential Debate - Women's issues and sexism in the media coverage of the 2008 election".

    Please take a moment to read about this important issue, and join me in signing the petition. It takes just 30 seconds, but can truly make a difference. We are trying to reach 1000 signatures - please sign here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/5/presidential-debate---womens-issues-and-sexism-in-the-media-coverag e-of-the-2008-election

    Once you have signed, you can help even more by asking your friends and family to sign as well.

    Thank you!

    I like it but... (none / 0) (#238)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:01:31 PM EST
    The media IS the reason sexism lives on. They sell the images for money, then complain about the prostitution afterwards.

    To watch such a spectacle would be like watching Pat Robertson preach that homosexuality exists, but he wasn't the problem for the hate against them. The hypocrisy would be eyebrow deep.

    I try not to watch too much TV and block many ads online because too much selling women like whores.


    Edwards cancelled meeting with Obama! (none / 0) (#115)
    by Prabhata on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:59:50 PM EST
    Maybe I read more than it deserves, but I think Edwards may have made a decision.  I hope he will endorse Hillary.  I believe that Edwards recognizes Obama is fluff and that Hillary will get more done for the people Edwards has championed.

    Or...the opposite. (none / 0) (#143)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:10:53 PM EST
    He may have decided for Obama and doesn't need a meeting taking Obama off the campaign trail.

    Or...he may have decided to go all the way to the convention with his delegates (my bet) for one last media moment for his issues and his delegates, get the lay of the land, then decide where he can make the best deal.


    what on earth are you talking about (none / 0) (#135)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:07:07 PM EST
    who ever said beat the b word, that was the mccain supporter.  infact who in this post about Paul Krugman is even talking about Hillary.

    one cable news network (none / 0) (#144)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:11:09 PM EST
    does not represent all coverage of Obama.  Look, we all know MSNBC has had non-neutral coverage.  But the MSNBC incidents are being used by Krugman and BTD as an excuse to rail exclusively on Obama.  MSNBC being wrong doesn't make them right in their biased coverage either.

    Moreover, I am growing increasingly concerned about the "cult" language regarding Obama supporters as well.  The implication that we haven't thought about why we support Obama, weighed the pros and cons of each candidate, and come to conclusions based on our best judgments is insulting.  I'm sure there are some Obama supporters that don't effectively communicate their reasons for supporting him as well as they could - but this holds true for supporters of all candidates.

    Simply because one does not agree with another's interests/motivations/judgments does not make them a "cult"

    NBC is the worst (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:24:04 PM EST
    but by no means the only offender.

    I agree that it is unfair to paint ALL Obama supporters in such pejorative fashion. Buuut, the Obama camapign is NOT based on its substance, it is very much based on the personality of Obama.

    And he draws much support that is not based on substance. On some level, the cult of personality charge is quite accurate.


    Well sure (none / 0) (#187)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:37:32 PM EST
    the cult charge is accurate for some supporters, but only in the same way that Hillary has some support simply because she's a woman.  It would of course be inaccurate to suggest that Hillary has her support because she's a woman.  In the same context it is also inaccurate to say Obama's draw is based on personality.  Yes, some of his supporters may be motivated by personality - but again, some of Hillary's supporters are motivated because of her sex but it would be wrong to imply they were a "cult"

    But... (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:55:44 PM EST
    Women are voting for Hillary for more than being a woman. I'm crossing over for many reasons to vote for Clinton, but yeah gender is a biggest draw. But it's not because of charisma, or rallies, it's because I like the government to remain in one piece.

    Folks are treating Obama like a rock star. He can perform nicely on stage, and he can be a Bono. But his record isn't enough to merit the fanfare he's recieving. It's something like a fad, even.


    Triaged Noise (none / 0) (#222)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:24:12 PM EST
    Krugman is right to call out MSNBC they are acting as Obama surrogates to attack Clinton and inflame voters but its a triage too NewsWeek-Wapo-MSNBC-NBC.  Clinton should not debate on the network for any reason ever; Fox actually has a higher standard of punditry.

    Edwards (none / 0) (#176)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:29:02 PM EST
    I really don't see him cancelling a sit-down.  I wonder if he was snubbed?

    Let's hope so! (none / 0) (#202)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:53:42 PM EST
    My husband (none / 0) (#218)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:19:29 PM EST
    who always predicts things very well, thinks Edwards made a deal to be Hillary's VP.

    If Edwards can't be president, that would be a good ticket.


    The next president will be a Democrat... (none / 0) (#188)
    by marcellus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:38:01 PM EST
    ...and push the center of the country to the left.  This is the inevitable product of the liberal school systems that Republicans are always deriding, and has created millions and millions of left-leaning 15-40 year olds.  I guarantee you they are there as the majority.  To deride their naivitee (as Mark Penn has unfortunately done so far)is folly.  The Republicans had their 40 year arc from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush.  Judging by this curve, you can kinda understand whey they hero-worship Reagan.  Truth of the matter is, Carter and Clinton were better presidents than any of those, but for whatever reasons they weren't able to jump the narrative and shift the country to the left.  This is what got under Bill Clinton's skin.  I strongly feel that the next president will shift the center to the left.  Ted Sorensen sees it, Barack Obama sees it, Oprah Winfrey sees it.  If Hillary Clinton can see it in time, she could easily be the president that leads the movement.  

    No No (none / 0) (#204)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:56:08 PM EST
    Many of us do not want to move left moderates and conservatives make up 80 perecent of this  country by choice.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#240)
    by marcellus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:07:01 PM EST
    That doesn't contradict my statement.  In 2007, the number of self-identified conservatives were 36-40% & liberals 19-26%.  So moderates and liberals make up 65% of the country.  And since young people are much more liberal, (even factoring in a tendency to more conservatism with age) the trend will make it 80% moderate+liberal in the next 40 years.

    The most important thing (none / 0) (#192)
    by Lora on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:42:57 PM EST
    Great post.

    Just one thing.

    There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing.

    The most important thing we can do, bar none, is to insure fair, honest and fully accountable elections.  We do not have them here, although we just kind of imagine that we do because we don't want to be shook up in our basic acceptance of the workings of democracy.  Without fair, honest and fully accountable elections, the rest is just more or less talk.

    Thanks are in order (none / 0) (#206)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:59:56 PM EST
    I don't see it often, so I'd like to risk being called a 'kissa--' and say thanks to BTD and Jeralyn for being gracious hosts. There aren't a lot of places that take as much time as they do to keep the commenters civil and/or reasonable. And it is nice to see them try to keep things balanced by calling out B.S.

    It would seem to be biased for Hillary, but the fact is I see BTD keeping everybody honest, either by requiring sources or by reason alone.

    Thanks guys. I have very few other places to go, so this is a nice calm place in the storm.

    Horse manure (none / 0) (#208)
    by bob5540 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:00:30 PM EST
    Krugman called Obama supporters a "cult" - an inexcusable ad hominem attack if I ever heard one. Why is he so bothered as to resort to this? Because the Obama supporters have swarmed his blog, for very obvious reasons.

    I can point you to blogs of Hillary supporters who sound and act just like a cult, attacking the Obama campaign at every opportunity, and viciously attacking his supporters whenever they appear in the comments.

    You, BTD, and getting to sound like a one-person cult yourself, I might add.

    I wish this primary were over. We're going to kill each other before we've even had a chance to squash McCain.

    I have always been a one person cult (none / 0) (#215)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:13:15 PM EST
    No one loves ME more than I do.

    And me! I follow you everywhere BTD. :) (none / 0) (#241)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:09:59 PM EST
    Always the voice of reason (none / 0) (#227)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:30:22 PM EST
    Krugman has always been the voice of reason for the progressive movement.  He either spoke their minds, or gave them information they needed to know and they rode with it.

    Now that Krugman doesn't agree with their world view, suddenly Krugman is a horrible guy.  Has Krugman changed?  No, I don't think so.

    The so-called "progressive" movement has changed.  And just as conservatives feel the Republicans left them behind, I feel the "progressive movement" has left Krugman (and me) behind.

    I agree. (none / 0) (#228)
    by hillaryisbest on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:34:26 PM EST
    The progressive movement as well as the Democratic Party. I'm back to being an Independent and will vote Green or McCain.

    I decided I won't vote McCain (none / 0) (#243)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:12:46 PM EST
    However, I also don't consider Obama a true Democrat.  True Democrats would not resort to the chants, slogans and lack of substance.  They would cater to the highest common denominator.

    Well on Mars... (none / 0) (#248)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:28:11 PM EST
    It wouldn't make much sense. :D

    That spaceship is awaiting for ya!

    Now this comment I wouldn't lump in (none / 0) (#256)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:12:24 PM EST
    with the failings of Hillary supporters. Sandyk seems pretty clearly to me to be a Republican troll. Particularly seeing the propaganda and doubts it's trying to sow re universal healthcare, and how it's pushing destructive racializing and gender memes. A Democrat not in favor of SS or an improved healthcare system? ha ha Oh sure you're going to cross over and vote for Hillary.

    BTW, if anyone is at all confused about the difference between universal healthcare and government-run medicine, be sure to read this at Campaign for America's Future.


    Krugman provides more ammunition to the Republican (none / 0) (#257)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:44:22 PM EST
    So apparently Moe Lane over at RedState certainly didn't miss Krugman's jab at Obama...

    Mr. Krugman is supposed to be a leading voice for the Democrats.  He is not supposed to give talking points to the Republicans.

    On Krugman's blog (none / 0) (#258)
    by katiebird on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:11:52 PM EST
    A couple of days ago (well last week) on Krugman's blog I read that they were having to read every comment before they post them because he's getting so many abusive messages.  He said (at that time) that there was a backlog of over 400 comments.

    I'm thinking that he must be reading some upsetting language to have written that editorial today.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#259)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:08:09 PM EST
    thanks for your thoughts.