Paul Krugman today writes about the visceral hatred among some Democrats for Hillary Clinton:
Why, then, is there so much venom out there?
I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.
This characterization of Obama supporters seems rather loopy, in particular because Krugman doesn't even bother with evidence. That's a shame. For even if you think that Krugman is wrong, he generally tries to be right.
Excepting Donna Brazile, every person at Stephanopolous’ Roundtable yesterday was carrying this torch, that a vote for Obama is just a vote for a personality. This sort of ridiculous oversimplification of issues is what makes punditry so unbearable.
Hi JCasey,
What exactly is “loopy”? The hypothesis that most of the unfair ad hominem attacks (as opposed to any fair ad hominem attacks) in the Democratic primary race are against Clinton and by Obama supporters? Or that Obama supporters “want their hero or nobody”? Or that Krugman claims these things are true but doesn’t support them with evidence? I ask not because I’m trying to be argumentative, but because I was unable to figure out what you meant. Personally, I’m disappointed that Krugman seems not to support what otherwise is a perfectly plausible conjecture with any evidence.
Cheers,
David
Sorry that was unclear–but I thought Krugman’s characterization of Obama supporters was loopy, in particular because he didn’t support it with any evidence.
Obama’s supporters -> cult of personality -> George W. Bush -> Mission Accomplished
So, if Obama is elected, we should consider ourselves forewarned that he is likely to wage a disasterous war and claim victory with a stunningly brazen photo-op?
When I read Krugman’s op-ed earlier today, I thought to myself, “This would be a prime candidate for the Non-sequitur’s archives.” It was definitely one of Krugman’s weakest pieces. He makes what I think is a valid point about the unfair treatment that the Clintons have received in the press, but then insinuates that Obama is playing an active role in the Clinton-bashing. The two examples he gives — Shuster’s “pimping” comment, and the criticism of Hilary’s remarks about MLK and LBJ — don’t support this. Obama obviously had nothing to with the Shuster comment (to say nothing of Whitewater, etc.), and the criticism of the LBJ comment was not at all confined to the Obama campaign, which, arguably, had nothing to gain by involving itself in the race issue (and playing into HRC’s strategy of marginalizing him).
The cult of personality comment was irrelevant, perhaps even a hed herring.