Rick Horowitz and Hillary Clinton's "My Way" & Paul Krugman Plays the Tool
My Brandeis buddy, Rick Horowitz, who has a lovely voice that I did not know about, sings Frank Sinatra in tribute to the late Clinton Presidential campaign.
I admire Rick. He's not mean-spirited like me. He's funny.
But I do look forward to June 3. The only serious question left is this. Should Obama announce a VP early to end the pressure to take Clinton (since Friday an absolute impossibility). Or does he just ignore the pressure and take his time?
I assume he'll take his time. But ending the now thoroughly unrealistic talk of a Obama-Clinton ticket must have its appeal.
We need someone really formidable, someone who can match the awesome credentials of Bobby Jindal.
Read PAUL KRUGMAN going down with the mother ship. I've loved many politicians in my day but I sure wouldn't commit career suicide for any of them. Krugman has. Andrew Sullivan takes Krug down here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/opinion/26krugman.html?ref=opinion
May 26, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman is done. He became a total tool. What a loss.
May 26, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg, what happened to your yesterday's post about Hillary and RFK to which I and some others responded? Why has it been removed as well as the comments?
If you are allowed to post-facto edit and censor, it should be so stated such as "I reserve the right to extend and revise my remarks" like a Senator.
May 26, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering that myself. I was hoping he thought better of it, but seeing this here today has shattered that illusion.
May 26, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give Krugman hell, MJ! Today's column was by far one of the biggest hack job's he's ever written. "Career suicide." Wow. It's come to this - Clinton over Party over Career for Paul Krugman, the conscience of many a liberal. Sad.
Further Krugman discussion here on a reader's post:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/krugman-the-struggle-for-the-n.php
May 26, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
re : Krugman
we'll stop 'demonizing' her when she puts away the red pantsuit and pitchfork (what she's shovelling keeps getting blown back in her face anyway).
May 26, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good imagery...
May 26, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mirror Check, MJ.
Krugman is saying unite or die.
Historically, when there have been close Dem nomination fights, we lose. Why? Because we divide our party and alienate people that would normally vote with us.
Respectfully, you are the worst offender here. Your calls for division are unseemly, and only help McCain.
May 26, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The sentence I have the most trouble with in Krugman's op ed is
Do you believe it is up to Obama to unify the party and if so how do you suggest that he overcome the animus of her supporters? From my point of view, Hillary has whipped them into such a state with her sexisma and victimhood that I don't even see how even she could appease them at this point much less Obama.
May 26, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, all Obama supporters should advocate and heed Mr. Krugman's advice. Keep on, keeping on this "gang rape" of Sen. Clinton's reputation by YOU and others will have its desired effect. Obama will be Mike Dukakis before you can say "hope".
May 26, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gang Rape? You Clintonistas aren't just sick you are sociopaths.
May 26, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
All about that "man in the mirror". This is exactly what it is..."gang rape" of her person. Take a look at the right side of your page now or page through MJ and Jonathan have written over the past two months and there you go. But, hey, keep on....like I said Obama will turn into Mike Dukakis relatively soon.
May 26, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Gang rape": Gets my vote as the most overblown analogy on a blog yet today.
May 26, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
not overblown at all. The one thing that is overblown is you Obamanoids ability to see straight. But then again you might just be a pack of McCain operatives playing at being Obamanoids. It is hard to tell. If you are a true Obamanoid you are stupid and an unwitting tool of the Republicans, if you are an agent for McCain, I have to hand it to you, you are very clever. Evil, but clever. Nobody should underestimate the deviousness of the Republican attack machine and all its machinations of which I think MJ is a part of.
May 26, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the Clintons and their supporters mock, deride, misrepresent and attack Obama, we hear a lot about how politics is a contact sport, how you need to put the pads on, you need three balls to play it, etc. When Obama supporters return the favor against Clinton, we hear how she is being "gang raped" and doesn't get any R.E.S.P.E.C.T. For months, the Clintonites have been calling for and exploiting a ridiculous double-standard in this way.
Obama must have the patience of Job to put up with this crap in the way he has without complaining.
May 26, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no gang rape of Clinton and, as a woman, I strongly object to the metaphor. Whatever damage has been done to Clinton has been self-inflicted. It's difficult to keep track of her lies but, off the top of my head, there's the false claim that her daughter was at ground zero when the planes hit the towers; the false claim that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary; the false claim that, after a corkscrew landing to escape sniper fire in Bosnia, she made a quick getaway; the false claim that primaries used to last much longer; and that doesn't count all the BS we could dig up from her WH years.
But none of that was as damaging to her reputation as the smears against a fellow Democrat: the leaking to Drudge, without contextual explanation, of a photo of Obama in Somali garb by her campaign; the "shame on you, Obama" hysteria about her support of NAFTA (which video of her shows her supporting); her "as far as I know" answer to whether Obama is Muslim; her claim that only she and the Republican nominee, John McCain, are ready to be commander-in-chief; her use of a photo of Osama bin Laden in a commercial to instill fear in voters about electing Obama; her claim that Obama can't get hardworking white people to vote for him; and the latest, worst, Hillary tactic: recalling the RFK assassination as a reason for her to stay in the race and then, when called on it, blaming Obama for making a big deal of it (as if nobody would have noticed had Obama's campaign not mentioned it).
Have I left anything out? Of course, I have because it's almost impossible to keep track of the lies, smears, gaffes, and sheer insanity of the Clinton campaign. Oh, and before you assume that I started out disliking Clinton, you should know that I used to like and admire her. That was before she voted with Bush for an unnecessary war out of political expediency, not even bothering to read the intelligence report before doing so. And then, there was Kyl-Lieberman, and in-between, her refusal to admit that a vote for war was a vote for war and...
Damn, nobody's raped Clinton. Clinton has helped the Bushies do terrible damage to this country. And, by stoking the resentment of her supporters, by telling lies about where she stands in the nominating contest, she makes it more likely that the destruction will continue, via a divided Democratic party where some of her Kool Aid drinkers go for McCain.
May 26, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing that Krugman thinks Obama is the one who should be making the gestures for "unity" at this point.
May 26, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, he just asked Obama's supporters to quite pouring salt in Clinton supporters wounds.
That seems to me to be a reasonable request, as it is what Obama hisself has been advocating for some months.
Instead of lambasting Krugman for agreeing with Obama, perhaps you should consider that those that deter, discourage, or ridicule unity are the real enemies of Progressive values at this point.
You might want to ask why anyone would want to encourage the division of the Democrats at this time, and who benefits most from that.
May 26, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, he just asked Obama's supporters to quite pouring salt in Clinton supporters wounds.
It seems to me that Obama and most of his supporters keep trying to do this, and have made several overtures in recent weeks, but in return are always met with more attacks and aggressive forays from the Clinton camp. The Clintonites want to reserve the right to fight all for themselves, and when Obama supporters are forced to fight back against unending Clinton intransigence, the Clintonites cry about how they get no respect, and how the salt hurts their "wounds."
By my count, Hillary Clinton's acidic campaign has spent at least two months now dividing the party along various cultural, gender, age and ethnic lines, while hoping for some electoral miracle to fall out of the sky, when she could have decided to help unite the party immediately following the twelve consecutive losses that spelled the end of her chances for all practical purposes. People like the Clintons, Krugman, Ferraro, Begala, Carville and Lanny Davis should feel deeply ashamed for what they have done. Not only are they hurting the Democratic Party, but they are destroying their own reputations in the process.
This idea that the Clintons have some kind of sacred democratic right to stay in the campaign and continue to throw Hail Mary passes, or pray for magical superdelegate conversions or improbable crunch time rules changes, as they drive their supporters into ever deeper psychic pits of paranoia, insulted entitlement, victimization and hysterical rage, is frankly ludicrous. The denouement of the Clinton campaign is one of the most reprehensible, destructive and selfish spectacles we have ever seen played out on the national stage. If they and their team don't see the light very quickly, Bill and Hillary Clinton are going to go down in history as the second incarnation of George and Cornelia Wallace: the architects of a regional and generation reactionary backlash movement built on generational, racial and gender resentment and spite.
Do the Clintons represent what happens when Generation Brat - all those ridiculously spoiled, self-centered, center-of-attention boomers - reach the age when they begin to have to share the spotlight with the rising generation behind them? De we get utter psychic meltdown, loss of practical bearings, and a desperate clutching onto sinking ships that drags down themselves and those around them? Let's hope not. Let's just hope the Clintons are one pathetically sick pair, and that once their incomprehensible spell is broken, their supporters will recover their balance and common sense.
May 26, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, Dan. It's called plain ol run of the mill everyday democracy. Nothing particularly unusual or new.
I don't agree with your characterization of Senator Clinton, and find it--in a word--hysterical. There have been ugly, devisive tactics on both ends.
What is your point here? That you have a grudge and you have a sacred democratic right to feed it? You do, but if you want to beat the GOP in 2008, I'd maybe rethink that.
What purpose does holding that grudge serve? IMHO, it serves the GOP quite well.
May 26, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Workerbee, you may be sincerely interested in uniting the party against the GOP, as I am. But your candidate is not doing it. If you are really interested in uniting the party then get together with your fellow Clinton supporters to write a letter to your candidate and tell her to get behind Obama and start uniting now. Every day she extends this divisive campaign is another day in which some of her most hardened supporters become more alienated and bitter.
Instead of having her people tell the media every day why white Appalachians will not vote for Obama, and by extension sending that same message to white Appalachians themselves, why doesn't she instead hit the road, go to Appalachia, and tell them why they must vote for Obama. Why won't she be part of the solution now instead of continuing to exacerbate the problem? Instead of telling Floridians every day why they are victims of Obama, why doesn't she instead turn her energies now toward getting them to vote for Obama?
Unity talk is cheap. Unifying the party means more than offering vague and abstract unity words, but requires actually doing something to unify it. And right now, Hillary Clinton is not doing that. She is still working every day to further divide the party. The most destructive thing she is doing is putting out demoralizing arguments about why Obama can't win. Since Obama is going to be the nomineee, she needs to stop his immediately.
I'm sure we will here more from Bill Clinton and other Clintonites about how Hillary "still has a chance" and how outrageous it is that people like me call for Hillary to get out of the race before she is absolutely, unequivocally, incontrovertibly, apodictically, mathematically eliminated. But decent candidates almost always get out of the race before they are absolutely mathematically eliminated. Had Joe Biden been mathematically eliminated when he quit? Had Chris Dodd? Had Bill Richardson? Richardon could have decided to run the same kind of divisive blackmail campaign Clinton is running. He could have argued, "I am the only candidate who can deliver the decisive Mexican-American vote for the Democrats." He could have worked to anger and polarize those supporters. And then we would have millions of angry, alienated, radicalized Mexican-Americans claiming right now that Bill Richardson doesn't get any respect, and that unless we overturn everything that has happened so far and give Richardson the nomination at the convention, they will vote for McCain. But Richardson didn't do that - possibly because he is not a selfish prick.
There are many things we all have a right to do, but that it is nevertheless not right to do. I have a constitutional right to say almost anything I want to my family members. I could spend my days sowing division among them by exercising my free speech rights. But it would be wrong for me to do it. Clinton has a constitutional and legal right, under our democratic system, to stay in this race. But what she is doing is not right. The value of hanging hopes on the mathematically minuscule chance she has left is far outweighed by the daily damage that is being done by her inherently divisive campaign. She must stop.
May 26, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan,
Hillary isn't my candidate. That you think so may have something to do with your state of mind, which I believe is somewhat overwrought and fatigued. I understand, a little. I never got off the fence, so I'm not emotionally involved. I can say that I wish MY candidate stayed in the race longer, because it was a much better race when he was in it, and I think he figured it out, too, because he came out for Obama. I didn't think he would. The fact that he did caused me to rethink some things. Step back a bit.
Richardson, et al, did not have nearly half of the Democratic vote. Hillary does. I think you're really worried about this, as are many Obama supporters, but I don't think you should be.
There's an old saying, "It takes two to tango." I don't blame Hillary or Obama for this. I blame their respective supporters equally. It's time to stop the division and unify. If you aren't working for that, you aren't working to defeat the GOP.
That's about all I have left to say other than I've always respected you. Still do. I wouldn't bother, otherwise.
May 26, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, what concrete steps do you think party leaders should take to unify the party? It seems to me that the chief impediment right now is that Hillary Clinton will not suspend her campaign.
I decline to play the moral equivalence game here. While Obama has been working passages into his speeches about how awesome Clinton is, Clinton has been telling the country that the party's almost certain nominee can't win. While Obama has been making positive noises about including all major figures and leaders into his administration, Bill Clinton has been lobbying delegates to force Hillary Clinton into the VP slot, whatever the Obama campaign's decision. It is not a two-way street; it's not a tango a deux. We have one candidate looking ahead and working to unify, and another candidate hanging on to the past and working to divide.
And here's the kicker: Once it is clear that your rival is going to be the nominee, then you should stop writing editorials and such telling people that you are the best candidate, even if you continue to believe that in your heart. I'm sorry to be so blunt about it, but if Hillary Clinton is really serious about uniting the party behind the nominee, then she needs to shut up, and desist with statements about what is wrong with Obama.
May 26, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, I think Krugman had a fair set of concrete advice for both candidates.
With the race so evenly split, it is going to probably go to the convention, and it probably should.
My hope is that their both thrown out as being too divisive, and MY candidate gets the nod.
How's that for equal offense?
:P
May 26, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
With the race so evenly split, it is going to probably go to the convention, and it probably should.
Given that comment, I would say your professions of concern for unity have been exposed as fraudulent. No objective observer, having witnessed the divisive effect that the past several months have had on the Democratic Party, could possibly think that two and a half more months of this ugly cage match will have any kind of healing or unifying effect on the party. I don't see how anyone serious about beating John McCain, as you claim to be, could hold that the race "probably should" go to the convention.
When the Clinton candidacy finally ends, whether it is now or in August, it is going to be a very painful blow to her and her supporters. They will need substantial recovery time. Better that blow comes now, more than five months before the election, rather than in August with less than three months to go.
May 27, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, codswallop, Dan. That's just silly.
Read the angry Clinton supporters complaints. You're their polar opposite, you're all jumping the shark. It's beyond tiresome and you folks are driving the division equally as hard. I won't hold anyone's misguided zealotry against the actual people running.
I reflect far more accurately the typical dem voter. So go ahead and insult me. I'll still vote for your candidate, but I sure will think less of you. I really think you need to get away from politics for a spell.
Sorry.
You're still invited to the Barbeque. I'll make sure you get an extra Hillary effigy to grill.
May 27, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't reply to the point I made. It doesn't matter whether Obama supporters are or are not equally responsible for sowing division in the Democratic ranks. The point is that the prolongation of the race is quite obviously making the situation worse. If you are serious about uniting the party then you should be calling for an end to the race now.
May 27, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I already addressed that point Dan. I'm sorry, this is one of the closest primaries in the history of the democratic primary. It should go to the convention. Changing the rules and procedures is ridiculous.
The only ones that are making it a divided electorate are those fanatics in both camps that are gullible enough to be led by the nose by our hysterical media.
You can buy into it, just don't expect me, or the majority of voters, to.
Peace.
May 27, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Changing the rules and procedures is ridiculous.
What changes are you talking about? Several candidates have dropped out of the race this season. None of those decisions required any changes in rules or procedures.
Nothing good can come from a failure to wrap up this nomination battle well before the convention, as modern party history bears out. The convention ends on August 28th and the election is on November 4th. That's just over two months, which isn't nearly a sufficient period of time for healing, and for reorganization and remobilization of the Clinton forces as part of the Obama campaign. You're talking like a crazy person.
May 27, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
CLINTON SUPPORTERS losing, CLINTON SUPPORETERS are making ridiculous claims about general election demographics and trying to change the rules at the end of the game, CLINTON SUPPORTERS are the ones who have gone negative since the early days of this primary, yet it's Obama who needs to unify the party? This is the very definition of chutzpah.
To hell with all of you. Sit home in November because your poor little feelings were hurt because your warrior princess got beat FAIR AND SQUARE, and enjoy a McCain presidency. I am sick to death of your constant whining and constant bullshit. The adults are ready to move forward. I suggest you all shut the fuck up until you can behave like adults instead of tantrum-throwimg children.
May 27, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, brewman.
That was incredibly sophomoric.
Look, I know you fanatics, and I mean that in the kindest way, don't like reality.
The fact is the vote is close. The delegate count is close. The polling is worrisome.
If the race was a slam dunk, the supers would have acted. It isn't.
It would be nice to behave like adults, sure. How about we let the process, a well established and tested process, play out?
That IS the adult thing to do. It would be helpful if we didn't go out of our way to eat our own, either. Let's save that for the unity barbeque.
May 27, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here we go again... *rolls eyes*
Just for the record I supported Chris Dodd until he bowed out. By that time it was just Clinton and Obama left in the race. And if I remember right it was the Clinton supporters who started with the "Obamamaniacs" and "Worshiping the cult of Obama" nonsense. Senator Obama and his supporters aren't the ones who started all of us down this path. The reason Clinton will not be the nominee has NOTHING to do with sexism or any kind of "anti-Hillary" bias. It comes down to her vote on AUMF, the "obliterate Iran" comments, her and Bill interjecting race bait politics into this campaign and her running of a generally divisive campaign. Senator Obama might take the high road but that doesn't mean his supporters are gonna sit back while we and the candidate we support get smeared!!!
Gang rape? Gimme a f'ing break...
All I know is that if it is Hillary that was the nominee I would vote for her in November. I get the distinct impression that Clinton supporters would vote for McCain out of spite in some kind of futile and useless attempt to vindicate her. It should be all about getting a democrat in the Executive Branch...or so one would think.
May 26, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that "gang rape" is inappropriate.
A look at the readers post column might give us a clue as to why a normally coherent Clinton supporter might use the ugly term, though.
My thoughts on this, as someone whose first choice was Edwards, and second choice was Dodd, is this:
It really doesn't matter who started it.WE need to END it. Both campaigns have been typically putrid and negative. Not to the point of GOP nastiness, but close. We, as collective progressives have nothing to hold our heads up over.
I do know one thing. WE WILL LOSE THIS ELECTION if we continue with the petty politics of division. History teaches us this, if nothing else.
MJ has been one of the loudest dividers and hopefully look back with horror on some on the columns he's penned, and deleted.
I'm looking forward to the day when people recognize division trolls and shun them and get back to discussing real issues that mean something. We're being manipulated. Again. You'd think we would have learned by now. But no. Sadly.
Hey Libertine, did you come to Middletown yesterday to see Obama? :) I was on the hill with the other sardines.
May 26, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howya doin' workerbee? 8)
Nawwww...didn't make it down to Weslyan yesterday. Too early in the morn to have to get up...though I would loved to be able hear Barack speak in person.
For my part I am trying to show restraint. I want to walk us all back from the edge of the abyss. Paramount importance on my mind the that a D is being sworn in on January 20, 2009. I wont disparage Clinton too much. Election politics is a hardball game and that is the way she played it. But the race is all over now but for the shouting. I have no problem with her playing out the primary process. I do feel she owes that to her very passionate supporters. But the rhetoric needs to be tamped down by her side. As far as Obama goes I really feel criticism of him is unwarranted. Some of his supporters are still fanning the flames (or rubbing the salt in) but Obama himself is trying to be gracious.
For the life of me I can't figure out Clinton's referral to Bobby Kennedy. In my mind Bobby's tragic legacy is that he was cut down by an assassin's bullets in the prime of his life. There are no other "lessons" to take from his candidacy in '68. And America's nutjob Lunatic Fringe needs no encouragement. I am willing to drop the matter though. We really do need to start unifying the left for the upcoming general election.
Hope you are having a great Memorial Day workerbee...the cookout is about to start here. ;)
:)
May 26, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL...
this;
Paramount importance on my mind the that a D is being sworn in on January 20, 2009.
should have been;
Paramount importance in my mind is that a D is sworn in on January 20, 2009.
I'll chalk that up to hunger, lol. :-P
May 26, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
:)
Can I come over? The ex got the barbeque.
LOL
Just kidding.
I think Obama has been stellar. I don't think Clinton is anywhere near as bad as her critics and campaign have made her out to be. But maybe that's just me.
Lis B put up a youtube of Obama's speech. It's not really political, but it's inspiring, and I recommend it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX5WEgqw6pM
Middletown looked lovely. I was proud of our lil city. I heard a rumor that Wesleyan might be hosting a Presidential Debate. If that happens, I'll host a party as I'm about a mile away. If you join Genghis's mybo group, you'll hear about it.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/TPM-aholicsSupportGroup
This group is neither sponsored nor endorsed by TalkingPointsMemo.com
Just sayin.
May 26, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I from the Hartford area...Middletown is just a hop, skip and a jump away. I just joined the group too.
Middletown hosting a presidential debate? Wow, very cool if it happens. It is a beautiful city. I worked in Old Saybrook for 2 years in the '90's and drove through Middletown on Route 9 twice a day, 5 days a week. The traffic sucked at times but the city was always very nice. ;-)
Well you missed this cookout but the next one should be on July 4th...I'll extend the invite now. I am serious. If you are in town you are welcome here. Let me know...
:)
May 26, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I'll take you up on that. I'll friend you at mybo, and figure out what's going on. It's a Friday this year. Cool.
:)
May 26, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a matter of framing and perspective. To Krugman, the LBJ flap and the RFK flap is caused by Obama supporters reacting excessively to Hillary's comments. They apparently assume the best of possible motives for Hillary, and think ascribing race-baiting intent to her motives is unfair politics by the Obama camp.
Partisan Obama supporters might say the opposite about Clinton pushing the "bitter" and "cling" comments as an issue, and using them to describe Obama as an elitist was equally, if not more, absurd.
Even the best politicians sometimes make impolitic statements, and it is certainly possible to overreact to them. But Krugman seems to be blaming this fracas on the Obama camp's reaction, not Clinton's original, unfortunate comments, despite Obama's own unequivocal statement, "Sen. Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I would take her at her word on that." Blaming the controversy over Clinton's gaffe on Obama supporters, ignoring the candidate's diminution of the issue, is itself absurd also.
Partisans on both sides have been irrationally extreme in their reactions to perceived slights. Certainly stylistic differences between the candidates are significant and important, but on the issues the two are quite similar. Perhaps that similarity explains, ironically, the vehemence of the fight.
Alexander Pope was right: what mighty contests rise from trivial things!
May 26, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although Krugman sometimes sounds like just another Clintonista I don't think he will go down with the "mother ship". His economic columns continue to be relatively free of the kind of cant that is in his political columns.
In the spirit of a "team of rivals" I hope that Obama would bring Krugman into his team to counterbalace the influence of the Chicago School of economics.
May 26, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa! As a rape survivor I am appalled that you DARE use that term. You disgust me. How could ANYTHING that has been written or said even remotely compare to rape? Even remotely! You need to get your head out of the ether.
Hillary Clinton has never and will never, and I mean NEVER come close to rape. She's spent most of her adult life surrounded by security in mansions paid for by taxpayers. She's one of most protected people on the planet. She lives in a bubble of her own creation -- and any "rough treatment" she has experienced over this campaign or any other time in her life, she ACCEPTED as part of political life. She chose. She could step into or out of that spotlight any time she desires.
Rape victims do not have a choice.
As for verbal abuse, please. Do NOT ever even consider verbal abuse akin to rape. Just do NOT.
You people with banter with words and consider yourselves savvy and erudite. You disgust me.
Just like Senator Clinton -- THINK before you open your mouths.
May 26, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, freakin take a look around this blog or any blog and see for yourself. What do you call what is going on here and has been for months? You put a term to it what you will. But, when I see people doing exactly this on a daily basis to someone this is the term that fits. "gang rape"
May 26, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good God, Louisville1975, show some respect for TPM, your readers, and to DrZee personally. Your terminology can seriously bring back some horrific memories for people, and you should respect that after being asked only once. You've been asked dozens of times in the last 48 hours. Stop using the "GR" term. I'm fairly certain this kind of abusive language is against TPM's "Terms & Conditions" that you agreed to.
May 26, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, I am neither clever or erudite. And, I said "gang rape" of her character, her person. Your telling me that isn't happening? Did she ask for all the words that are being pushed her way. Misogyinist? Sexist? Hateful? Hurtful? Tell me the definition of what you have seen here. I'd love to hear it. Thoughtful prose by Obama supporters? Is the word "hate" worse than the word "rape"?
May 26, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sexist? Outside of Chris Matthews and her own friends on Foxs what comments are sexist? If she was a white southern guy, I doubt she'd be getting a way with wishing for Obama's timely demise. I'm a woman of her age and she's no role model for me.
She lost the nomination in Iowa and every white woman I know in Iowa voted for Obama. She lost the old-fashioned way: she earned it. Only her boundless sense of entitlement keeps her in the race.
May 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what anyone else but you would say; but I know I would say the term is totally preposterous. Clinton was the favorite for a long time; and she was as shocked as a lot of people that Obama went ahead and stayed ahead. She IS desperate; but it isn't caused by what Obama supporters, the MSM, or anyone else has done. It is because she ran an inferior campaign and has more baggage than a school bus full of world travelers.
"Assassinate" was a poor choice of words; but this is worse.
Please listen to yourself and your arguments.
May 26, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louis
They are just provocateurs trying to stoke the flames of division as deep as they can BETWEEN THE Hillary camp and the Obama camp. (btw) Obama himself does not act like the Obamanoids. As Krugman says, that can only hurt the Democrats in November.
All these characters that we have seen post on these pagers since the campaign started who appear to be Obamanoids, are new or infrequent posters and all they do is engage in vitriol against Clinton or anyone who dares to support here . My suspicion is that they are part of Rush's "chaos" brigade deployed to sow chaos amongst the Democrats to give McCain a better chance in November.
They are dull, unimaginative, and prone to wild exaggerations, stupidity and plain old meanness and that for me spells REPUBLICAN OPERATIVES.
Watched “Recount” on HBO and got a reminder of what criminality Republican Operatives are capable of. So beware of these so-called “Obama Supporters”. I don’t buy it. They show no characteristic of a Liberal sensibility but all the ugly traits of Republicans.
May 26, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The worst mistake the nominee can make is to sue for peace to the loser. Obama won. Hillary will endorse him and campaign for him.
As for her more extreme supporters, let them do what they want. The winner does not sue for peace. Our guys lose when they are perceived as wusses. One thing about Hillary, if she won she'd tell the other side to go to hell. Obama won't do that and he shouldn't. But it's not a terrible model.
Clinton supporters should be the last people urging Obama to suck up to them when they know, if the shoe was on the other foot, they would reward their friends, punish their enemies and WIN.
That is the only way to win.
May 26, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you refuse to shake the hands of the losers in stickball, MJ?
Your advocating poor sportsmanship?
There is someone being a tool around here, (of the GOP) and it ain't Krugman.
May 26, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, but i didnt kiss their butt
May 26, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just knocked them in the head with your stick.
May 26, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a bat.
May 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, I know, a BIG bat.
:D
I know you can be a force for good MJ. I do.
May 26, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Workerbee.
Actually, here is the bat in question.
http://cdn.overstock.com/images/products/L11036597.jpg
I didn't actually hit the guy, but I did dwing it nicely.
May 26, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not dwing. Swing. It scared the guy bigtime. It's a long story but you are on to something!
May 26, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is one scary bat. I'd love to hear the story some time.
May 26, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, that kind of bat.
May 26, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
100% agree. It's true. Obama can't appear weak. He's been gracious, but he can't grovel to the loser. If she fails to pay along after submitting, she should be censured or shunned politically from here on out. Remember: we have to 1) End Iraq, and 2) Fix Bush's disasters. The Clintons are not about the Country or the Party.
May 26, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You trash Krugman and praise Andrew Sullivan? You really have jumped the shark.
May 26, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
. One thing about Hillary, if she won she'd tell the other side to go to hell. Obama won't do that and he shouldn't.
For those of you who follow my observations on logic and reasoning in general, notice how MJ's posts make claims that he nor anyone could possibly substantiate.
He claims that if the shoe were (notice the contrary-to-fact conditional)on the other foot, Hillary would be mean to Obama or some such Rosenbergian nonsense.
How does he know that? He does not and nobody could know such a thing in principle.
The Obamanoids are replete with such speculative assertions parading around as proven fact.
One wonders, outside of smearing people what else does Rosenberg do? Ask yourself that.
May 26, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I have come to understand from all the Clintonista threats to secede from the Democratic party and their admonitions that should Clinton not win they will not vote for Obama, regardless, and from their ongoing mantra blaming Obama is that these people are Clintonites, not Democrats. They, like their icon only want what they want and the earth be scorched. It finally sunk in when in an appalling overabundance of tacky Clinton chose to bolster her determination to stay on by alluding to RFK's assassination. EVEN if no malice was attached to the utterance, it was done in a blatant attempt to tie herself to the Kennedy aura rather than to cite more recent, more reasonable examples of late campaigns. But it was HER gaffe and furious that Sen. Obama did not flaunt it as she did the bitter comments and the Wright situation, she and her minions decided that if he was going to be rational, they could blame him for HER dim-witted obtuse comment. (her own mentor, Charles Rangel, has already called her utterances 'dumb'". Her camp followers (including Krugman)have bought it hook line and sinker. I have read the blogs. It's Obama's fault that she is being 'demonized'. It is obvious from her lack of endorsements that the Superdelegates see her for what she is. It is obvious from the Superdelegates that have abandoned her that they do not want any part of her campaign. Like a wilfull child she has ravaged the fabric of unity in the name of Clinton. She should at least have the decency to accept the blame.
May 26, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look. The party is ipso facto divided. I think all the spleen vented by the Obama and Hillary supporters is due to this.
The question is, do you want to beat the GOP? Then you'll need the 47% of the party that prefers Clinton. Clintons supporters, slim chance that they have, will need the 50% of the party that prefer Obama. Do the math.
Obama wants this type of division to end, as does Hillary. I suggest we listen to them rather than "division trolls" doing their best to incite and divide us.
The differences in policy with these two candidates precludes any REAL opposition based on fact, you might want to consider you're being played.
Just like we were back in 200, and 2004.
Please don't buy into it anymore.
May 26, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quite right, workerbee
May 26, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno, I don't see that Hillary wants the division to end, at least not until she gets something from Obama for it.
May 26, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with that. She launches grenades (FLA as historic voter rights crusade) and we are supposed to smile approvingly. She invokes assassination nightmares and we are supposed to beg her supporters forgiveness for questioning her empathy. Bill says this is a contact sport and now its gang rape. Good grief. Im trying to see it from the HRC supporter side, but not seeing alot of it in return. And I believe if they cant see the double standard they never will. Still, we fight a greater evil in November, so Im hoping for some water under the bridge.
May 26, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two things. First, Obama is probably far more practical than you are. Therefore he will likely have examined the electoral map and may, if he is wise, select Clinton, regardless of your outrage over the RFK remark. You may have noticed that it just doesn't have the traction you thought it deserved. That's because it cuts two ways. It outrages Obama supporters, but makes Obama supporters look hysterical to everyone else. Nor does the deeply negative outlook on human nature jive with the image of idealism formerly associated with Obama supporters.
Second, anyone can sing Sinatra. Most of his songs have a very limited range.
May 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get it when I hear one side or the other say that the supporters of the other candidate are the evil ones. Get a grip! There's vehemence expressed by both sides. To those who say Clinton has been unfairly attacked here, why not go check out hillaryis44.com, where the attacks on Obama are relentless and overhyped.
The true dynamics here are that both campaigns started out waging a mostly positive campaign. Obama took the lead in that stage of the campaign. Clinton's only hope to win was to go negative. She did it. It worked partially - she stemmed the bleeding and got to breakeven for the post-Wisconsin contests. But breakeven wasn't good enough, as Obama had the lead. I think it's fair to say that had Clinton gotten the lead, Obama's campaign would have been far less negative than hers. It's partially a stylistic (and hopefully governing) preference - and it's also true that this is her last, best shot at the presidency, so she had more motivation to throw the kitchen sink.
The problem is that she has continued to gin up her supporters' sense of resentment well past the point at which she has lost the contest. There is always some resentment at the end of a primary contest. I remember resenting Carter for beating Udall; Carter for beating Kennedy; Mondale for beating Hart (with that ridiculous "Where's the Beef" line, and Roger Mudd's unfair slant on the southern primaries - the wounds take a long time to heal), etc. But I got over it and voted Democratic every time. What Clinton is doing is taking it too far. She is emphasizing not only differences, but imagines that she, exclusively, has suffered slights - which, frankly, took place on both sides of the campaign. She is hurting Obama as the national nominee. it is time to give it up if she really believes in the policies she has run on. There's too much healing to be done. If this goes on to the convention, there is no way the Democrats win.
Pablo
May 26, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Otto is right in saying "...image of idealism formerly associated with Obama supporters." I was (artlessly) fully committed to a "let the best candidate win" campaign. I was so repulsed by the present administration. Then I heard Hillary answer "not as far as I know" to the question of Obama being Muslim (she knew better)...later she pontificated "I would not have remained in that church." She made hay with the 'bitter' comments and that's when I realized that this talented woman had chosen, not to run a campaign on her considerable merits, but instead to lacerate her opponent at every opportunity. She called him a 'wimp' and even her surrogate Carville said in an interview "If Hillary gave one of her xxxxx to Obama he would have one and she would have two." nary an apology for those sickening comments. Later came the fact that he could not carry 'white workers' although Oregon has disproved that by 16% in a state in which she and her family campaigned ardously. All this to say that I did not come to my current stance easily, but sadly, here I am.
May 26, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
For months now, Krugman's been on my "why bother list" with Kristol and Krauthammer
So if it isn't too much trouble MJ - what did he say?
As if I couldn't get that from the headline
But I do rely on others to read what I won't
May 26, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman said unite or die.
Sound familiar?
May 26, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Krugnan said that the winner needs to go to the loser, make her VP, and appease her grieving supporters. Hillary was right about economists. Not too bright.
May 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What did he say Clinton should do?
May 26, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
He said she should continue to try to steal the nomination by any means necessary.
May 26, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he didn't.
May 26, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alright, workerbee, you're working on me. I admire your sunny disposition in the midst of all this crossfire. I'll tone it down. Not against Krugman, but against Hillary. Until midnight, June 3rd-4th. :)
May 26, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You rock.
Totally.
May 26, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So once again we have Obama distancing himself from his supporters, who continue to be ever so thin skinned about anything that could possibly be construed as some slight, even though his nomination is certainly in the bag. Move on!
The real concern I have (and I did vote for Obama) is not him, it's his inablility to deal in any way with his supporters and surrogates to keep them on message (you know, messages that talk about policies and positions, not personalities). If in his desire to bring "change" about he cannot even keep his own supporters from going off the reservation, how is he going to govern. The shock and outrage over anything and everything Clinton does just feeds the right wing attack machine.
How we all feel toward the current administration and Republicans in general is where our energies must be directed.
I am so disappointed in Kos and Josh for allowing their sites to fall into gutter politics. Progressives have few enough places to go for real info about what is going on, not gossip, rumor and trivial tales.
Grow up people, this is our and our children's future we hold in our hands. This isn't a food fight.
May 26, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll be happy to direct our energy toward the Republicans if Hillary would just go home. (That is the polite version of where I'd like her to go).
May 26, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an absurdity. How can a candidate keep his supporters on message. Who is keeping you on message?
The question is keeping the candidate on message which is no problem with Obama and a rather huge problem for Clinton.
Gotta run. I think Axelrod is calling to tell me the message.
May 26, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely put, CRW.
May 26, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 3, 2008 is the new January 20, 2009.
As for your question about Obama picking his VP; I think he should wait. Take his time and see what the landscape is. The drama has to be over as well so the VP can get an extensive and grand entrance to the National Stage.
May 26, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read last week's Economist. In the "Lexington" column, they dismiss the notion of a Clinton VP handily. Much more sensible than Krugman.
Really, truly sad to see him deteriorate. So many progressives admired him but his blind support of HRC despite her feckless campaign has damaged his reputation.
May 26, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Problem is what else will Clinton do or say while Obama is taking his time? She will be marginalized once FL/MI is resolved and he is declared the presumptive nominee; she will need controversy to get her back in the news.
May 26, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, this is what that Clinton "shill" Krugman said HRC should do:
Wow, he says she needs to concede and work for Obama. Some shill HE turned out to be.
:D
May 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
my worry is about part 2 of krugman's prescription for clinton:
May 26, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry about the sloppy block quoting - but y'all get the point, no doubt.
May 26, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting.
Who is she creating the problem for? By recognizing that Obama hasn't adequately addressed the concerns of these "problem voters" I'd think she has done him a favor.
Perhaps he will address their financial worries after the convention. That's all he really has to do, I'd think, to get their vote..
We all know there is no way in hell McCain will.
May 26, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting the HRC prescription by Krugman. I have to say that the plea for her not to be a spoiler is a day late and a dollar short to earn any objectivity points. Its doubly ironic he asks this after the RFK statement and arrogant non-apology, and FLA/MI as a holy crusade. Add Bill "Its a Cover UP" Clinton and not playing the spoiler doesnt seem in her, or his, DNA. I wotn hold my breathe that Krugman will notice this breach in conduct, as he has missed all others during the entire race. He is a shill, and well earned.
May 26, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. Rosenberg, TPMCafe Coffee House, May 13: posted in full because the author might decide to delete or change it:
Paul Krugman, the "tool," May 26:
What happened between May 13 and May 26? Were you a "tool" and being "thoroughly unrealistic" on May 13? Or are there two or three or four of you posting under your account?
May 26, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Friday's comment changes everything. I was no Clinton fan to begin with but was prepared to go with her for party unity etc.
No more.
No how.
No way.
May 26, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean you're too ashamed to admit that you heard wrong?
May 26, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's typical MJ. Talks from six sides of his mouth
May 27, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman's love affair with Hillary is a mystery.
I understand why he likes her health care package better than Obama's, but surely, it's not the end all, be all. In fact, I think Obama is probably more realistic about what is feasible and what isn't.
Regardless, of whose health care plan is better, from reading Krugman, you would think that Obama was George Bush in disguise, the way Krugman goes on about him.
Totally bewildering.
May 26, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
speaking of vp selections and bobby kennedy---what was it LBJ did in 1964?---was it a blanket statement that no one from the cabinet would be considered for the spot eventually accepted by HHH?
I think Kennedy said he was sorry he had to take so many other qualified people overboard with him. Maybe Obama should say no former first ladies would be considered for the vp spot.
May 26, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, that's going back a long way, don't know about LBJ and the VP but your theory makes sense.
He was rightly concerned about being viewed as the heir, to JFK rather than the president as his own right.
It would be nice if Obama could choose someone now, but there is all of the interviewing to do and an FBI background check on the VP, his family and associates. Probably impossible to do, before he wraps up the nomination.
That's why the Super Dels are so important right now. My guess is, that Obama has masses of them set to declare after june 3rd. At least I hope, so. Certainly Hillary's recent comments, have to have helped Obama's cause.
May 26, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should acknowledge one thing about Hillary's statement that all of her supporters are trying to spin today. That is her assassination statement was out of context. I read the transcript a few times and it seems clear that she was following some kind of scripted outline. I know how that works, one follows an outline but the actual sentences are not pre defined. It gives the presentation a little spontaneity. But then right in the middle of this outline, the assassination sentence appears. Seemingly out of nowhere. But this is Hillary's problem. 1. That statement is unambiguous in its meaning. 2. It's "out of context" was her doing. It was clearly a Freudian slip that allowed the whole world to get a peek into her unconscious desires.
May 26, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Northern racists like Clinton, Ferrero, and Krugman all believe that what is called for is that blacks vote for whites who will throw them a bone.
May 26, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The campaigning calendar won't allow for Obama to "take his time" with a VP selection. Obama and McCain are already "debating". I foresee a (Bill)Clinton/Gore in '92-esk like candidacy with Obama. For McCain,it will probably be Florida's Gov Crist. Gov. Bobby Jindal’s background sounds impressive with his Elitist education but Conservative thinking can be pretty shallow and probably don't want a closet Hindu on the Republican ticket because… being a true Republican means White, Christian, male, with a conservative outlook on life.
May 26, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman's philosophy is "Clinton Right or Wrong."
It's bizarre, coming from a guy who a few months ago seemed like an Edwards supporter. If Clinton had run a honest campaign, and didn't go Karl Rove on us, then I don't think running until the end is a minor inconvenience for Obama. But she is so intent on her dog-whistle politics, much like Bush, that she's done permanent damage to her legacy. Krugman and others who have psychological underlying issue with Obama may go off the deep end, but most won't.
If Obama was running against a strong opponent in a different time, he'd be in real trouble. He still might be in real trouble, but if he runs a reasonably good campaign, he'll easily beat a weak opponent who doesn't know much about domestic or foreign policy, and who is running on Bush's record of failure.
Obama's 50 state strategy also is perfect for this time, when so many voters are so sick of the R's that even many strong R districts and states are up for grabs.
May 26, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse my miswording - I meant to say:
"If Clinton had run a honest campaign, and didn't go Karl Rove on us, then I think running until she's mathematically eliminated would have been a minor inconvenience for Obama."
May 26, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real issue here is whether Obama is electable or not. It happens that Krugman and Hillary supporters don't believe he can be elected, that he is too flawed a candidate and will be swiftboated. Kerry ran on being electable, to the point where people ignored his flaws as a candidate.
But Obama supporters don't seem to understand this, they assume that Krugman and others are simply picking on Obama, trying to destroy the Democratic party to somehow deny him the chance to be president. When you look at it that way Hillary does seem like she is hurting the party.
But if you don't believe Obama can be elected then his candidacy is seen by many as pointless. Also pointless is everything Obama supporters like about him, and everything they don't like about Hillary. Some people want anyone as president who will advance Democratic goals. They don't care whether it is someone they are starstruck with like Obama or someone who is annoying sometimes like Hillary. They just want health care, ending the war, higher wages, etc.
So the difference is that Obama supporters don't seem to care whether he is elected or not, only whether he is the candidate. If they really want to help Obama start making the case he can win and will be a good president.
May 26, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if that is what Hillary and her supporters feel that is all fine and dandy. Bottom line is the democratic primary voters have spoken...and they have opted for Barack Obama.
I happen to feel he is very electable...if everyone pulls together as a team that is. Or are Clinton and her supporters hoping for and working towards a self-fulfilling prophesy?
May 26, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine, it's nice that you are so confident but whether Obama is electable or not is a matter of fact not feelings. Kerry was the same, he ran on being electable with no real scrutiny of whether this was true. People were so desperate to get rid of Bush that they thought any Democrat would do.
I just don't see anything electable in Obama, and Obama supporters never offer any reasons why he is. It seems you have to "get it", like people "got the internet" when it started. But Obama might not be electable just because 51% of Democrats get something the 49% don't.
And what happen if these warm fuzzy feelings about Obama lead to his being soundly beaten, maybe like Dukakis? Are Obama supporters going to feel responsible for not listening to anyone about this?
May 27, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good grief.
Some folks realllly need to get out more.
:D
May 26, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, let's all go over to Libertine's, cuz he has a barbeque.
The Obama supporters can burn effigies of Hillary on it, then eat them, and the Hillary supporters can brood in a darkened corner and down long island iced teas.
I understand I'll likely be the only one amused at the thought.
May 26, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This piece by Rosenberg highlights everything that has been distasteful about the Obama movement. Not the campaign itself, but the teenage flotsam and the hippie-ish jetsam that writes on Obama's behalf on-line. I'll vote for him, but God save me from his volunteers. This is the last Rosenberg link I'll hit on TPM.
Krugman has been sour on Obama because Obama's health care plan isn't very good. It's a fair critique. So is Krugman's critique of the resuscitation of "Harry and Louise" to discourage voters from choosing Clinton's plan.
On the other hand, pretending that Hillary Clinton is somehow invested in the assassination of Barack Obama is moronic. And citing to Andrew Sullivan, paragon of objectivity, is beyond parody.
May 26, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right On!
May 26, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say it in a much more polite way than I have been saying it. Rosenberg the rabble rouser stirs up the pot yet again. Sad.
I Am a Hillary supporter that will vote for the Democratic nominee.
I do think she was unfairly knifed throughout the campaign by the media and the liberal blog. What that is all about is a mystery. When you have Chris Mathews and Josh Marshal on the same page you start to worry. But hey, as Obama himself said he is a Chicago style campaigner, and they play rough. He also said he wants to unite people, but those types of inconsistencies are beyond comprehension by immature supporters.
I give him kudos for having bagged the nomination but I would strongly advise him to rein in his nearly psychotic followers so that we can get him into the White House.
May 27, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your reasoning doesn't make sense. It would mean if Clinton supporters are nasty to Obama, then Clinton's a nasty person.
I don't judge Clinton on whether some flamer has a stupid post. (I haven't read hardly any personal attacks by Obama supporters on Clinton, although I have read many that are disgusted with her behavior.) I do judge her surrogates who take cheap shots at Obama. Ferraro's comments were dumb on their own - however, they were part of the pattern of dog-whistle race baiting that culminated with Clinton complaining about Obama's problem with those hard-working whites.
It's interesting how some Clinton supporters complain about anti-sexism of Obama, but they never give any examples. That's because there aren't any. On the other hand, I can give you a few quick examples of cheap shots from the Clinton campaign:
*Obama isn't qualified to be Commander-in-Chief as she and McCain are (perhaps because they voted for the Iraq War).
*Obama is elitist (perhaps because he was a community organizer instead of a WalMart Board member).
*Obama doesn't appeal to hard-working whites.
*Clinton's agreement not to count Florida and Michigan, then insisting the DNC change the rules to suit her.
*Saying she can't get out of the race now in case something happens like the 1968 RFK assassination (to whom?).
*Obama is running a Rovian campaign (I think that's projection on the part of the Clinton campaign.)
*Obama doesn't win any important states, caucuses don't really count, etc. etc. etc.
Robert Reich says the Obama health care plan is better, and that it will be cover more Americans. And while Reich has endorsed Obama, he isn't obsessing about bashing Hillary Clinton and twisting her words. Krugman, not a member of Clinton's campaign, has been pathological in his venom for Obama.
I believe most Clinton supporters are saddened by her behavior. Yes there are some who will support her no matter how low she will go (and they are the loudest), but most have ethics and want what's best for the U.S., and will gladly support Obama in November and beyond.
May 27, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ebenezer, your post is well thought out. The objection I have is that Obama supporters don't seem to have reasons for their support appropriate for a president. That's why it seems more like a mass hysteria or euphoria, emotional rather than intellectual. For example.
1. Obama is supposed to be nicer, and Hillary a b*tch by comparison. I've never heard of choosing a president based on if they are nice or not. Some did that with Dubya and look how that turned out. If niceness is important then get Obama his own tv show.
2. Obama talks about change and his opponents represent the old partisan ways. So did Dubya. But often the old ways are best and politics has evolved over thousands of years, not for someone to throw all that tradition away without explaining what this change actually is. The left and right fight in elections in every democracy, and even in dictatorships in the streets. This non partisan politics has never existed nor should it. It might work for Doctor Phil but not in politics. Maybe Obama could be the new Oprah, but presidents don't act like this.
3. Obama is really the ultimate negative candidate, like Dubya was in some ways. As we saw though a fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer. Obama criticises everything and everyone and somehow gets a free pass on this because he ridicules and laughs at things rather than insults people. However one can criticise anything, it doesn't mean you have a better way to run things.
4. Hope has no place in an election, even the audacity of it, people need the audacity of a plan or it is a pipe dream. People already hoped for the things Obama hopes for before he came along. I don't need Obama telling me this, I need him to explain how he will do these things, and so far he hasn't done this.
May 27, 2008 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't read hardly any personal attacks by Obama supporters on Clinton, although I have read many that are disgusted with her behavior.)
That's suppose to be a joke or something?
May 27, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
For anyone who doesn't believe there's sexism in the Obama camp, just read the comments here (or most of the TPM stuff, or comments from a wide variety of blogs) on the subject.
And who do we get quoted about how terrible Clinton is (and comparitively wonderful Obama is)...Andrew Sullivan. As if any Democrat really gives a damn about what he thinks.
Krugman is correct, of course, as he is about 90 percent of the time. If Obama is going to be the nominee...and it looks as if he will be...gaining unity will be his problem. (It will be the problem of all of us, of course...lest St John have a chance.) It will be a tough job but as someone said (was it Krugman?) it is a job for a leader. And if he doesn't bring it off, he's toast. (no offense intended.)
As to MJ's "analysis" about the duties of the loser to sue for piece, or just get out of the way...why doesn't he apply that advice to his Palestinian buddies. They've lost! Convincingly! Several times. So why doesn't MJ give THEM the advice he is giving Hillary? And give the Israelis the advice that he is giving Obama?
One more comment for you folks who talk pretty big about the terrible Clintons, without the guts to put anything but a completely anonymous name out there
1. I challenge you to make your collective names and e-mail addresses public when you make such shameful comments; and
2. He hasn't won yet. Ya see....the Rules say that a majority of the elected delegates (minus Florida and michigan, of course) is pretty meaningless. If the Super Dee's want to do so, they could collectively stop it all TODAY. Just by tossing their votes to him. (or to her, for that matter). but they haven't seen fit to do so. Which means, that it is not over.
3. If you think the Dems are going to win without Florida and Michigan I'd like to know what you are smoking. And dissing the potention democratic voters in the two states is NOT a way to beat the Republicans. It could happen, but it won't be easy.
4. Whether is is his job to make nice with her 17,000,000 voters, or her job to make nice with his a few fewer voters...if we don't get together then St John wins, and this country is in even bigger trouble.
Andrew Sullivan will show us how. right!
May 26, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you tried to ask McAuliffe and Ickes why they, as members of the credentials committee, voted to void the MI and Fl primaries if they cared so much about saving their franchises? Clinton shot herself in the foot when her own people threw MI and FL under the bus.
May 26, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What sexist comments? Why don't you quote some instead of making accusations you can't substantiate?
Perhaps because you're making it all up.
May 27, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary needs to start thinking about how she can shape legislation with her colleagues and work for what she cares about. Again, it's what suits her best.
I see that Erica Jong has joined me in the Hill Dump Bill! Club.
The next poster who whines about mean Obama folk has to go check out noquarter and/or Taylor Marsh and bring back examples of commenters determined to make nice. You'll have to hunt for them among people that are so mortified by Obama's "misogyny" that they will vote for the gumbyman who will abort Roe v Wade, called his wife the C.WORD in public and who is most likely to ask their kids to die for our country.
Respect is earned not demanded and those lovelies can go infect the GOP with my blessing.
May 27, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman wastes another entire column selling nightmare scenarios he thinks we should fear because he says so, because he's now suddenly an expert on emotions in elections.
And he wraps this one up with his concern that we just don't understand how scary the prospect of losing really is. Krugman's latest have become plain condescending, patronizing, awful ... blech.
If the point of the column is to persuade Obama to offer the VP spot to Hillary, it's not very persuasive, is it? Seeing as how he manages to talk down to both Obama and Hillary supporters in the same column.
I mean, Krugman notes in his 6th graf that, on the issues, Obama deserves and gets former Clinton supporters - but not before using his 5th graf to frame the offer of VP to Hillary as something that Obama should be offering in order to assuage hurt feelings.
Without offering any further rationale(s) for the VP offer.
It's not about helping make an Obama administration more effective. It's not because it's been earned. It simply should be offered because feelings have been hurt.
Do women really want this kind of help from Paul Krugman?
He has just reduced the VP spot to a consolation prize for bitter female voters who can't be bothered to act like grown-ups and vote based on the issues.
How is this doing any favors for the cause of women in our country?
It's not. It's a sick joke. An insult.
Who's going to go ask Paul to stop talking about Clinton supporters as if they were children?
May 27, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Electability is a phony, tautological argument. And I also don't think it is an argument that helps HRC... her negatives are very high--
May 27, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
the krugman take on this primary has really caught me off guard and disappointed me and enraged me. last year, he wrote a piece called i told you so about all the politicians who were vocal against the iraq war in 2002. obama was the center piece. what has happened since then? is it all about health care minutae? his one sided and selective take is maddening. his tone is patronising. fuck him!
May 27, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
krugman is right. OBAMA MUST APOLOGISE! for running a disciplined, intelligent, respectful, and inspired campaign. how dare he be the target of assassins. who does he think he is? he has gotten hillary into trouble again and caused her so much pain while she is working so tirelessly for us. i will vote for mccain if he doesn't stop his elite ways. don't take my vote for granted osama obama.
May 27, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
krugman is right. hillary is an honest straight shooter who never panders and reaches out to those who might disagree with her. she has always put the good of the party above all else. it is outrageous that obama supporters would take umbrage at the many thoughtfull comments she has made on race, gender, and 20th century history. she seeks to enlighten and the obama suopporters want to sweep it all under the couch. clearly, party unity will be best served by a contested convention.
May 27, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
on a serious note..... i always defer on economic analysis to the likes of krugman. yet when i see him tell a self serving and selective story about the primary campaign that i have been paying close and obssessive attention to....it makes me wonder.
May 27, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
one final note on krugman's latest.
he writes..."Mrs. Clinton needs to do her part: she needs to be careful not to act as a spoiler during what’s left of the primary, she needs to bow out gracefully if, as seems almost certain, Mr. Obama receives the nod, and she needs to campaign strongly for the nominee once the convention is over. She has said she’ll do that, and there’s no reason to believe that she doesn’t mean it."
...o.k. krugman so you remember what you wrote when she is still flinging shit around in mid june.
May 27, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman is making a case for unity and civility. These lame attempts to villify him only support his argument, not undermine it.
May 28, 2008 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink