Talking about missing the forest through the trees. If you think that Krugman's principal point was that Obama's campaign is analogous a George-Bush like cult, then you are spinning. That is not his principal point, which by the way is that there is a lot more hatred directed at Hillary Clinton from some of Senator Obama's supporters than the converse, and that the product of such hatred is a mirror of the right-wing hate machine, which Krugman speculates will only turn on Senator Obama at some point.

Yes, Krugman appears to favor Senator Clinton over Senator Obama; indeed he writes that in his article on the basis of their economic positions. I, too, a two-bit poster, have said that I voted for Senator Clinton. Does that disqualify either of us from discourse? If so, what qualifies you?

As a social scientist, Krugman should understand the data sampling concept of a "self-selection error". It is not surprising that Krugman has more personal experience of Obama partisan venom directed at Obama opponents than Clinton partisan venom directed at Clinton opponents. That is because Krugman has turned himself into an vigorous Obama opponent over the past several months. So he, himself, must receive a lot of hostile email from Obama supporters, while being saved from the hostile messages from the Clintonista attack dogs. However, if he would venture a little further out into the internets he would probably find a different overall story.

Tell you what? I don't think Krugman's that far off base. I'm pretty much astounded at the hostility coming from some Obama supporters. (so much so that I started to suspect that they might be Republican trolls masquerading as Obama lovers).

I support Hillary but I'd be very excited about an Obama win too. He's run an amazing campaign

Bev, go check out hillaryis44.com or taylormarsh.com and then tell me the Obama supporters are the cult followers.

I didn't say, Josh, that the Obama supporters are cult followers. If you'll reread my post I said that Bruce was correct.

You don't go to many blogs, do you? I have tried -- no, begged and pleaded -- in vain for Obama supporters to put party above personality, and they all refuse. It's "my way or the highway", scorched Earth, Obama or no one. What Krugman is describing is very real, and Obama HAS to nip this thing right way or it's going to undermine both his campaign, and Hillary's if she's our nominee. You don't want Obama's campaign to be defined by the hate and vitriol. It's gotten to the point where I can't believe these are Democrats -- they either have to be trolls or moles, and pointing out that they're about to step in it is about as effective as it was pleading with Friedman not to sully himself with his stubbornness.

Krugman did you guys a favor, believe me. But hey, don't listen to me. I just feel an obligation to tell people, especially a fellow Dem, when they're about to stick their heads in a noose. What you do with the information is up to you. I've argued with enough Bushies on the Net to know when it's a lost cause.

What so many Clinton supporters seem so stubbornly unable to consider is the possibility that if it is indeed true that Clinton has come in for more than her share of criticism and attacks, then maybe, just maybe, that is because she deserves a lot of it. These supporters have so internalized the Clinton persecution complex, and are apparently so taken in by the fifteen year con perpetrated by a pair of flagrantly dishonest people, that they reactively assume every bad thing they hear about Hillary Clinton is a pure fabrication of the "right wing attack machine."

Well wake up, and get out of your Clinton bunker! After the humiliating and disgusting Clinton melodrama of the nineties, where some exaggerated and outlandish right wing claims were woven around a core of genuinely reprehensible behavior, any other couple and with a shred of decency and shame would have walked away from further aspirations for higher office. At the least, they would have asked their fellow Democrats for forgiveness for humiliating us. But the level of Clinton chutzpah and entitlement are stunning. The fact that they are still here, and still running, is a scandal to the Democratic party.

Instead of whining about the venom directed by some of us toward the Clintons, why don't the defenders show us we're wrong? Instead, all we get is this moral equivalence argument: "Obama supporters are meaner to Clinton than Clinton supporters are to Obama! No fair!"

Well Obama did not spend the nineties helping his sexual abuser spouse cover up and lie to the American public about his actions. And Obama did not then spend the last six years authorizing an illegal war and then participating in the continuation of an aggressive, pandering and dangerous foreign policy. Clinton is not entitled to the same across the board support Obama gets.

It is really time to say goodbye to the Clintons. I wish it hadn't come to this, and they had just retired from the scene with dignity. I wish that's what had happened because I hate having to bring up the ugly, obvious truth so many times, a truth that Clinton's obtuse supporters refuse to grasp. But the Clintons have no dignity, and just won't stop. So, we still forced to watch Bill Clinton, that lying demagogic cretin, wag his finger at us through the TV screen, say "shame on you", and presume to lecture us, and the media, and anyone else who stands in his way, on the appropriate ethics of campaigning. The gall of this man! He is truly sick.

And I still have to watch his willing accomplice Hillary Clinton snarl and flare up with anger, and trot out her innocent victim act every time the going gets rough. So unfortunately, the Clintons have compelled us to get into this dirty laundry once again, and stop them before it is too late for the Democratic party. When will the Clinton enablers get a clue, and say "enough is enough"?

I think the fact that we are faced with another Clinton candidacy that has gone this far shows some deep weakness in the Democratic party establishment. The party has been ruled by that hulking, belligerent slob and his consort for too long. Apparently, a number of Democratic leaders live in moral terror of them. Otherwise, how do we account for the fact that nobody with authority had the guts to go to them and say "Hey, maybe the wife of a president who was impeached, and has a record of sexual harassment dating back decades, is not exactly the ideal candidate for our party to run for President"?

There are certainly both Obama and Clinton supporters who have an irrational distrust or dislike for the other candidate. There are also people who, in their hope that Obama can bring the country together, might have expectations that seem unrealistic. (I hope they prove to be realistic.) I don't think it does anyone any good to denigrate either side by calling people part of a "cult of personality". I was fortunate to have heard both candidates at the JJ Dinner on Saturday in Richmond - both were warmly received. Obama brought the house down, but interestingly, I saw some people with Hillary paraphernalia apparently leaving before his speech was over. No polite applause for him at the end by these people. (Maybe it was just late.) Anyway, I'll happily vote for Clinton over McCain, even though I currently support Obama, this unless she pulls some dirty delegate tricks to get the nomination. In that case I'll still probably vote for her, but I can imagine a whole lot of people being too revolted to do so.

It's hillaryis44.org, not .com. An amazing site and reflective of what to expect with a third term of the clintons. Sorry, not interested in that.

On the subject of the 'Obama Cult' you only have to
read the writings of MJ Rosenberg or some of the more overwrought Obama proponents on this thread to realize that Krugman has nailed it.

Somewhere on TPMCafe, one of the contributors (as
opposed to us peon posters) wrote "Obama is the
greatest natural politician in History." Hmmm,
overwrought much?

There is a strong vein among certain Obama supporters that Obama is a transcendent messianic figure. Obama will change things by...

...being Obama.

On actual policy issues, he's not all that different from Hillary Clinton. While in the Senate, his Iraq votes have been identical to hers. He didn't vote for the authorization for the use of force in 2002 - but then he wasn't in the Senate, and on occasions he's said publicly that he might well have voted for it. His plan for pulling out of Iraq would take place over more than a year, would leave a residual attack force, and he would reserve the right of re-entry. His foreign policy views are as hawkish as the next candidate. He's announced a willingness to bomb Pakistan, and his idea of 'moderation' is to state that he's willing to discuss calling off regime change efforts if the Iranians surrender. The 'new Obama era' isn't much different from the Clinton proposals, and is only a degree or two less psychotic than Bush. Both Clinton and Obama propose less than what America actually needs, and are in line with the Washington consensus. On health care, again, there's not a significant difference. Nor is there on most aspects of domestic policy.

With no material difference in policy, it comes down to questions of romance versus practicality.

What I find fascinating about Obama is the amount of projection going on. Perfectly rational people seem to stop thinking, and simply project their fantasies onto the man.

The real Obama is a centrist/conservative.

The fantasy Obama is a kind of Liberal Messiah, a transcendent figure. This Obama believes all sorts of things that the real Obama doesn't. This Obama also has magical powers to change the very nature of politics and discourse.

Some of the more idiotic Obama supporters actually
believe that the Republican hate machine will not go after Obama the way it went after Clinton, and the way its churned away furiously at anyone for the last eight years. This goes beyond 'magical thinking' into raw delusion.

But beyond that, there is trust in Obama's magical
ability to 'change politics.' Republicans will work with Obama because he is Obama. Republicans will become liberals. The Republicans who have in the last two years lead record breaking numbers of filibusters against the Democrats (including Obama) will suddenly repent their ways, filibuster only rarely, and will negotiate, deal, bargain and compromise in good faith.

Obama will unite the Democrats... as soon as they're finished purging all those f*ck*ng Clintonites, etc. etc.

The point is that the 'Magical fantasy' Obama, the
'Liberal Messiah' that has such a powerful emotional grip, is not a rational construct. It is is an emotional idealized projection of wish fulfillment.

Whatever it is, it is not the real Obama. And it sure as hell is not a real assessment of Obama's actual policies. It has no relationship to what Obama might actually be able to accomplish. And its out there smoking crack in terms of how it thinks the Republicans will deal with Obama, and their ability to inflict harm on him and his agenda.

So yes, 'cultlike devotion' is an accurate assessment by Krugman of at least some of Obama's following.

It's not going to turn out happily for the cultists.

They have a sort of 'year zero' notion where Obama
inherits a country free of baggage and is thus
empowered to do all sorts of wonderful things.

A President Obama will be inheriting a country whose military is broken, a country which has no good options left and is continually trying to avoid failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, a country whose foreign reputation and power is in tatters. Obama cannot magically change these things, Putin, the Chinese, the French, etc. are not impressed by charisma.

A President Obama will be inheriting a recession, a massive deficit, ongoing debt, a country where the dollar hovers on collapse, a mortgage crisis
impoverishes the middle class, a whole list of
problems and limitations which will make it hard to implement a positive agenda. Lyndon Johnson could dream of a 'Great Society.' The next President will have to work like a ditchdigger to simply put out fires and deal with Bush's mess. The next President will have to bail like mad to keep the boat from sinking. That's going to make it hard for a President Obama to fulfill liberal fantasies... even were he inclined.

Most importantly, a President Obama will have to face a Republican attack machine which has been refined and running at full tilt for a generation. People who can hate at the push of a button. People so dishonest they can turn about face on a dime.

We talk about how the Clintons have baggage. What was so special about the Clintons that aroused so much hatred? Nothing. Realistically, the Republicans should have loved Bill Clinton, he reached out to them constantly, his policies were reasonably conservative. His welfare reform was a Republican dream. It certainly wasn't his private morals... if there's one thing we've learned about Republicans, their affairs, their trips to mens rooms, sex clubs, illegitimate children, interracial liaisons, etc. its that they can't keep their pants on.

What aroused the Republicans hate machine was simply that the Clintons were there. If it had been someone else, the Hate machine would have been just as bad. The Clintons were hated for existing, and that's all. After Bill Clinton left office, the Republican Hate Machine never missed a beat, it would crank up against Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, against Scott Ritter, against Paul O'Neil, against a 10 year old boy who had received Health assistance.

The notion that they won't go after Obama is
ludicrous. The notion that a Republican Party which has waged war on the Democrats for over twenty years is suddenly going to call a truce is ridiculous. They see no reason to do so. Their tactics have always worked for them, and they're not going to abandon it for Obama's magic.

The result is likely that they'll go after Obama, and they'll do everything they're doing now.

If Obama's only tool to deal with them is
'bipartisanship' then he'll be torn apart. At best, his Presidency will be completely ineffectual. At worst, he'll be disgraced.

Given the inevitable failures and limits that Obama will face, I see it as equally inevitable that those who are projecting their fantasies onto him will, when reality sets in, do a 180. They'll go from near-cultlike devotion to rabid hatred.

In the end, President Obama will face the fiery rage of his former followers, and the inevitable frenzied malice of Republicans. He may well end up the first President to be completely impeached, and for reasons far more trivial than Clintons.

I don't envy him.

Anyone who thinks there are significant numbers of Obama supporters who won't vote for Clinton, or vice versa, should look at the polling.

The latest AP poll,from an AP report:
"The AP-Ipsos poll, released Monday, is an initial look at voter sentiment since the Super Tuesday contests last week. In the poll, Illinois senator Obama leads McCain 48 percent to 42 percent. New York senator Clinton gets 46 percent to 45 percent for McCain."

The poll seems quite consistent with the earlier polls.

What difference their is, if there in fact is any, could be explained by independents or republicans going for McCain over Clinton; but, again, the difference is insignificant.

Again, one who seek to draw conclusions from the one, five, ten, or twenty vitriolic comments they read in these threads is on fool's errand.

I really like this memekiller...

Krugman really needs to stop insinuating that Obama supporters are naive. It's pathetic.

All Democrats and progressives are aware how the media operates and manipulates regardless who they support. None of us reasonable people want to see unfair media bias. Nor do we want to see manipulation of the media by the candidates. Of course, there are plenty of unreasonable supporters on both sides that want to win at any cost.

I would suggest there are as many uninformed Clinton supporters who like the name Clinton and Hillary's tough-mindedness as there are Obama supporters who like to hear him talk about Hope and Change.

Many of us have determined that his stance on any number of issues makes him the better candidate. And, we might even like his health care plan better.

Bizarre Krugman column. He accuses Obama supporters of being the venomous ones... and proves it by referencing a mainstream media type who isn't associated with any campaign (Shuster) and a comment by Hillary that was (he believes wrongly) interpreted as disrespectful by the media. Obama had nothing to do with either. It would be stupid to pull up anonymous comments from liberal blogs if he needed to prove that Obama supporters were venomous, but instead he gives... no evidence.

In the real world, sure, there are plenty of hardcore Obama supporters who don't like Hillary. And sure, sometimes they're uncivil on comment sections in blogs. But if we look at the *campaigns*, can anyone argue with a straight face that Hillary's campaign has been positive and clean while Obama's has been nasty? Lemme think... Shut down the casino caucus sites... 5 times as many votes for casino workers... college kids shouldn't vote in Iowa... Obama said Reagan and Republicans had all the good ideas... Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too... Obama was out in the neighborhood doing you-know-what while Hillary was fighting for the last 35 years... Even if Obama went to a secular Madrassa, he's still okay... he voted present on abortion bills...

And most bizarrely, he ends his article with "I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election."

Okay. Done and done. Both candidates do say that, and have always said that.

By the way, I do know a few Obama supporters who wouldn't vote for Clinton (I support Obama but would vote for both). They tend to be non-political "independents" who like Obama and don't like Clinton. I'm sure that somehow Obama will be at fault if Clinton is the nominee and they don't vote in November.

Krugman writes a column. That means he gets his own opinion printed. That is all he is entitled too. He is not entitled to universal agreement that he is infallible and must never be challenged. Tom Friedman, Maureen Dowd, and Mr. Krugman all appear to have Messianic complexes. What are they putting in the water at the NY Times offices!

Some of Clinton's supporters seem to be of the opinion that she is entitled to the votes of Obama supporters and all democrats in general especially if she should win the nomination. It may not be a cult of personality, but neither is it a healthy attitude. Sen. Clinton needs to address the concerns of Obama supporters just the same as she needs to address the concerns of all voters. I for one have not heard a satisfactory explanation from her with regards to her support for the invasion of Iraq and her saber rattling concerning Iran. Her attempts to finesse this issue are not indicative of the qualities of leadership that I personally value. I need to know that the candidate that I vote for is capable of honest self-evaluation and ready to admit when he/she is mistaken.

Based on the comments, maybe it wasn't so useful to call Krugman out on what was clearly to me a twisted argument (let's stop the name calling, but by the way Obama is virtually a cult leader whose style reminds me of George W. Bush). If Krugman would stick to his substantive critiques of Obama (his arguments that Hillary Clinton has a better health care plan, a better economic stimulus package, and so forth) he'd be doing us all a service. While he's at it he could spare a little time to criticize John McCain, who is to the right of Bush on foreign policy but is viewed as an independent, a maverick, and a "truth-teller" by all too many Americans. I'm an Obama supporter, but it goes without saying that I will push hard for Hillary if she is the nominee. The challenge will be to keep the many people who have come to (or come back to) political participation because of Obama's candidacy to do the same.

I 'support' neither Barack or Hillary; I favored Joe Biden, and am leaning towards John McCain now. However, I believe Mr. Hartung's response reflects exactly the (very real) problem that Mr. Krugman is talking about.

There is a sense of 'cult' about Barack. A man who talks about vision and change - but rarely can talk any specifics, and has his own ethical challenges as well - is someone who is running on personality. And whenever anyone points that that there may be no 'there', there, that person is attacked. Just like anyone who said anything negative about Cheney/Bush from 2002 onwards was.

Do you really want that guy going toe to toe with Putin and his KGB colleagues? They thought Cheney/Bush were easy to manipulate; they'd be salivating at someone with so little life experience as he facing them. Someone who has done nothing in the Senate for 3 years - except, run for President. Someone who has chaired a subcommittee on Europe - and never called a meeting. (Too busy running for another office, perhaps?). Even though NATO is falling apart at the seems over Afghanistan.

I disagree that the Republicans want to run against Hillary. The smart ones want Barack. A totally un-tested individual with a tendency at crying out 'unfair!" every time someone points out what he hasn't done, or what he doesn't know. There isn't an attack they can mount against Hillary Clinton that would make her crumble or give up; Barack is very, very susceptible to being successfully swift-boated.

Getting tiresome to see either side defining the other by the extreme.

That one, or thousands, of Obama fans are exuberant, is not the point. The distribution is, and it is not considered. Is the Obama camp concentrated at the extreme of adulation? Of course not.

I do get the impression of more weight at the extreme than on Hillary's side, but I find that encouraging, not frightening. What is wrong with enthusiasm? We're not talking about flying saucers, just a bit of Camelot.

They guy is not going to be Bush. He might be a (gasp!) centrist like Bill.

I know Krugman said that he won't fake evenhandedness, but he comes closer than the other columnists at NYTimes. I am often amused at his clear attempts to try to rein in his bias. He does so by acknowledging Obama's rather obvious strengths, but he doesn't mince words about what he thinks are shortcomings in his policy stands: a naive call for bipartisanship and (what he believes is) a dangerous weakness in his healthcare plan. So far, that has been the extent of this criticisms of Obama (unless I am forgetting something, but nothing comes to mind). Perhaps Krugman's critique of Obama's campaign platform is clouded by his bias for Clinton. But his critiques are fairly bland. And he has never suggested that Obama is somekind of a boob candidate, just not as strong as Clinton, the candidate he clearly prefers. I mean this is tame stuff- very tame stuff. Maureen Dowd doesn't like Clinton, but what can you take from that? Dowd has made a career out of saying gratutiously mean things about everybody. Sometimes she manages to be funny, sometimes very funny, even insightful- when it comes to Hillary, not so much. But she say something worth thinking about. Frank Rich? Well, lets just say that I may have to abstain from reading him until the primaries are over; reading him is like watching an addict getting a fix.

Thanks for reinforcing my point, bluebell.

I chose to read the whole thing. Krugman is an enigma. His slights of Obama bear little on the point he is making, consequently they appear to be intentional propaganda mixed into the aggregate message. Others have guessed at why.

I will be plain. I waffled between Obama and Edwards until Edwards backed out. I liked Edwards more, but Obama seemed able to go the distance. I have opposed Clinton since 1993 (yes, the other Clinton) although I have swallowed hard and voted for the louse several times. The Clintons (both of them) are DLC. To my mind, no more needs to be said. When Krugman attributes dislike for Clinton to a cult of personality for Obama, he overlooks the defect in his own product.

I think the Krugman bashers here should consider what he's trying to do: throw light on Obama's position on the issues. His health care reform is the weakest of the Dem candidates. I for one am glad that Krugman's holding Obama's feet to the fire.

Yes I think he really let it all out. That visceral hatred for the Clinton's that is founded on the attacks they have endured throughout the years from the right wing conspiracy which is alive and well.

You summed it up very well: In his entire rant he could not come up with anything that either of the Clintons did that deserves his venomous hatred towards them. So Dan K you are exposed. You have an irrational hatred for the Clintons. A common affliction in America (the rest of the world thinks you are crazy)
I would say you really need to do some serious soul searching. Dirty laundry, abusing women ( never thought that having sex is abusive, but it seems to be an aberration of the far right fundies to think so I hear). That's about as close to coming up with something that some loonie sexually repressed right winger might legitimately consider offensive.

You don't consider it offensive that Bill Clinton was Impeached over NOTHING?

Yeah you drank the koolaid, that's for sure.

That position I can respect.
But you have to be a realist in this war. Sure Hillary makes all the right moves to appease AIPAC, who doesn't?

You think Obama does not genuflect for AIPAC?

You don't have the luxury of pristine politicians with no dirt on their hands.

I predict that Hillary--like her husband--will put pressure on Israel to come to an agreement with the Palestinians.

I sure as hell don't think that McCain is going to do any such thing.

So if you want pristine leaders to take you to the Promised Land you are not going to find them in this environment.

This is political warfare and it is no time to throw a tantrum against Bill Clinton or Hillary for their dirty hands. The other side has blood on their hands.

Valdron, I have been following your posts for quite awhile and disagreed with almost all of them. But this time I think you're spot on, and Krugman the same.
The world is a rough place. The Republican "hate machine" is hardly the worst it has to offer (a shocking thing to say on this site, I know). No leader is going to change that.
George Bush has pretty much failed but not because his policies were "wrong" but rather because he couldn't justify them, because he couldn't speak English, because he was arrogant and irritating and surrounded himself with similar types.
I thought Bill Clinton was good. The country ran well under his leadership. It might do well under Hillary or Obama. I am not worried about them. I am worried about their followers, their base...for reasons somewhat similar to those you articulated.

The legions of public figures of past and new that support Obama must be of some evidence as to his ability to be the best Democratic nominee.
I agree w/ Krugman on so many issues; this one, he is off. After Obama gets the nomination, the Clintons and the Democratic will unite. The only people I see not voting for Hillary would be the youth; though, I think Obama will do everything in his power to speak to his supporters. Then, they will realize that having a Republican will be a death sentence. So, don't worry.
I think Krugman's response comes from the vitriol that The Republican Noise Machine has demonstrated over the last 30 years, and their success @ using such base propaganda and cynical tactics that Paul is worried that Obama can't handle it. (Truthfully, I understand from Paul's writing that race has been there number tactic, so I see where his anxiety stems most.) That said, Obama and the Democratic Party and it surrogates are ready and will fight this one to the death.