Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
What's the deal with Paul Krugman?
Paul Krugman once again plays hitman for Hillary, criticizing Obama for failing to connect with white, working class voters, while staying completely silent on how Hillary has played the race card again and again throughout this campaign.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
He doesn't even mention Hillary's stunning comments yesterday that she has the support of "hard working people, white people" while Obama is "only" the candidate of black people and the liberal elite (who, heaven forbid, went to college). Instead, Krugman reinforces these divisions in the guise of urging Obama to overcome them. It's classic doublespeak. In my view, Krugman has lost his intellectual integrity and irrevocably diminished his stature. He's a weasle in my book.
Comments (8)
In my book, he's a weasel, but otherwise I agree 100%.
I think he must have been promised a cabinet post in a Clinton administration. Then he wrecked his own career trying obsessively to give her an edge. Now he's bitter about the damage he's done to himself.
May 9, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are so many people who are loyal to the Clintons that are really just jumping off of a cliff for her.
May 9, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Paul Krugman, Sean Wilentz, Paul Begala, Ed Rendell, and Geraldine Ferraro all Clinton supporters who have a unique reelationship with issues of ethnicity.
Maggie Williams will have a lot of explaining to do in the African-American community when this is over. Clinton suporters Stephanie Tubbs-Jones of Ohio and Sheryl Jackson-Lee of Texas may eventually lose their seats because of HRC's race-baiting.
May 9, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Parts of Krugman's editorial peaked my curiosity:
"many of Hillary supporters believe she got a raw deal"
Meaning they think she was cheated? Rules weren't followed? Are there any Hillary supporters that could explain that to me? I don't want to debate it, I just want to understand it better.
"Why Obama's more diverse support(white, black, educated, non-educated) weakened over time doesn't matter". (paraphrase)
I disagree. "Why" does matter. Race wasn't an issue early on. It became an issue when the Clinton campaign started alluding to it and the MSM started marketing it. Rev. Wright was the most overplayed example of this--in the end, it didn't affect voters anywhere as much as the MSM or the Clinton campaign thought it would.
In fact, a month ago, Howard Fineman(pretty sure it was him) was talking about how "furious" Clinton insiders were that Rev. Wright didn't have more of an effect.
I don't deny that racism exists and there are voters whose votes will be guided by that. But I think "the great race divide" is another overplayed, mischaracterization of what's going on.
In the same way that the younger generation favors Obama, blue-collar workers, many caucasian, tend to favor Hillary. It's presumptuous to conclude from that that it must be a racist phenomenon.
In the 60s and 70s, maybe.
My prediction is that like everything else the media has overplayed, blue-collar workers will support Obama if he is the nominee-it's just not their first preference.
I contend that the stronger polarization is between the Clintons and African Americans.
My observation was that Sen. Clinton stepped over the line back in the N.H debate, when she accused Obama of doing business with a slum landlord. The words "slum landlord" were too provocative-- she didn't have to describe it that way. Why not landlord under indictment or a variation on that?
All things considered, I think if Obama is the nominee and the Clintons and their campaign tactics fade from center stage, so will the alleged "serious racial divide" in this country. Not saying there isn't one to a certain extent. Just saying it's being blown out of proportion.
May 9, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's possible to point up the flaws in Krugman's argument, of which there are several. What bothered me the most, though, was his unwillingness to hold Clinton responsible in any way or to any extent for either the racial divisiveness of the past couple of months OR the necessary healing on the road ahead.
In light of their willingness to capitalize on racial suspicions in the electorate, the Clintons have a vital role to play in bringing uncertain or wavering white voters comfortably under the big Dem umbrella. Considering Sen. Obama's consistent efforts to connect with working-class people of all races and ethnicities, why isn't the Clinton's role here THE focus of Krugman's piece?
Yes, I know the answer (can anyone say "shill"?) but this is the big point I'd like to see Krugman and, by extension, the Clintons held accountable on.
May 9, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I got a brain cramp reading Krugman today. It's the same feeling I get when I watch Fox & Friends in the morning. It's bizzaro-speak.
May 9, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awww... give the guy a break. He just lost a Cabinet Position.
Seriously, among the fallout from an Obama nomination will be an (unfortunate) re-evaluation of a cast of characters that used to have more of my esteem, including Bill Clinton and Krugman.
Just goes to show that there are no "good" vs. "evil" people in general. The world is complex. Krugman had an important function critiquing the Bush Administration -- and we should be grateful for that. As for the rest of it -- there's other people to read.
May 9, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
To tpmgary:
I am from Florida and Obama campaigned in Florida for about two weeks on a regular basis with TV commercials. I saw them! This was completely against the rules. If he campaigned and broke the rules why should Hillary supporters be the ones to be punished? Hillary won Florida and 1.7 million votes in our state were not counted because Hillary won. I truly feel that had Omama won they would have been counted just as voted.
Not to mention that Hillary has been held to a much higher standard, to try and trip her up to get her out of the race. People should be very angry at how a group of old Democrats are manipulating this election against Hillary. People that are spewing all of this hate probably have never checked anything out on Obama or the Clintons.
May 9, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment