First is that all political campaigns, and to an even greater extent insurgent ones, depend on a fuel more important than cash: enthusiasm. I’ve just spent the last three weeks volunteering, giving up a vacation and 9 straight days (and 30 hours of driving) to put time into the campaign in SC, and then back to MA to do it all again except in my after-work hours. It’s really hard to do this kind of work if you’re not totally (maybe even insanely) enthusiastic. So part of what you’re seeing in terms of partisan flag-waving is a bit of artificial pumping-up just to have the energy to do this kind of thing. What you’re asking for is a bit like asking the Red Sox to play the game in a nonpartisan way. Look what response Manny got when he suggested, “It’s only a game.”

And the reason why all political campaigns, and especially insurgent ones, depend on this enthusiasm is that social change depends on people coming together as communities to take action. The media’s self-serving obsession with poll numbers and advertising misses what’s happening on the grassroots level, most of which depends on someone somewhere doing work for absolutely no pay. Maybe you do it because your union bosses tell you it’s the thing that will best advance your union’s interests; maybe you do it because your friends are all cajoling you to go canvassing with them next weekend. But volunteer work that’s not harnessed and focused (and therefore appears, to outsiders, to share characteristics with cults) is totally useless. Witness the anarchistic Ron Paul supporters who basically do stuff to amuse themselves without advancing their candidate’s chances at all. Only people working in concert can make real change.

For me, I know that when all of this is over, if Hillary is selected, I’ll be sure to support her as best I can (even if I’m not half as enthusiastic about her).

I was struck by a few of the things you said. I apologize in advance for this very long response, but you provided a lot of food for thought.

I respect your position. I understand that people on both sides can get out of hand at times. But, after serious thought, I’ve come to the opposite conclusion from Krugman, and I’d like to think that it’s just as rational as any Clinton supporters’.

Your last line appears to sum up what you see as the short argument for a lot of Obama supporters: “Obama is great/_____ is not.”

Respectfully, we’ve lived with the opposite for the past 16 years. “The Clintons are great ______ is not.” We supported Gore, tried hard with Kerry, but many Democrats still see Bill and Hillary as saviors of the Democratic Party. The measuring stick. In fact, I heard one woman say she voted for Clinton because the Clintons have shown that they can win (nothing more, nothing less – that seems kind of shallow to me).

Now, I agree with you on one point. I too don’t like with blind loyalty of anyone. But, with that said, I think people have every right to object to Krugman’s article and the sentiment behind it.

It’s extremely condescending to suggest that Obama is where he is . . . that he’s gained this amount of respect and success merely because of a.) cult-like followers; or b.) “irrational” hatred for hillary.

I also find it offensive (and this is not directed at you – I don’t know you) that people continually suggest that 1.) Obama is an empty suit with no specifics and 2.) his support is based in emotion.

Why is this offensive? Because it denies agency and intellect: Agency of the Obama campaign and intellect on the part of his supporters. It also maintains the assumption that everything must center around Hillary Clinton. The idea is, “Well, you didn’t actually beat me. I lost.”

Ironically enough, the converse assertion that Hillary and her supporters are somehow more informed, reasoned and rational can, by itself, be labeled as shallow and emotional.

The fact is, her “experience” hasn’t done her much good in this campaign. Her “experience” has netted less pledged delegates, less states, less money and a slow, but steadily decreasing amount of support. But instead of realizing this and taking time to regroup, Hillary belittles any loss she gets with an abundance of ready-made excuses: “it’s just a caucus,” “my husband never won this state or that state,” “it’s just a small state,” “latinos aren’t likely to vote for a black candidate,” “there were a lot of black people,” etc.

I know, this thing is far from over. But make no mistake about it, Senator Clinton is LOSING right now. This is her fault. No one else’s. She is not a victim here. She’s losing, in part, because her message is not connecting with enough voters and people have grown tired of her style of politics – Clinton fatigue already setting in before we even have a nominee.

She has NOT distinguished herself from Obama on the “issues.” They are practically the same from a policy standpoint with only slight differences on a few issues (healthcare, etc.) – slight differences that don’t matter in the long run because everything has to get through (and will ultimately be compromised by) Congress anyway.

Therefore, given their similarities in policy, people will obviously give more weight to the intangibles: style of leadership, “inspiration,” “change v. experience,” electibility, etc. Obama is winning the argument on each of these fronts.

For me, Hillary’s “experience” is exaggerated. She’s more “experienced” because she says so . . .because she’s made that her stump speech (like Obama has made “change” his stump speech). People just keep on repeating it and it becomes gospel. “Hillary’s more experienced, Hillary’s more experienced, 35 years of experience, 35 years, 35 years . . . ”

To be honest, you could ask your average Clinton supporter why they support Hillary and you’d get the same blank stare and canned one-liners that you claim to get from many Obama supporters.

And let me stress this point. If Hillary’s supporters are so concerned with “experience” then why didn’t they support Senator Biden, Senator Dodd, Governor Richardson, etc? These people dwarf both Hillary and Obama in “experience.” As a matter of fact, when you consider that some of their elected experience goes as far back as the early 70s, Hillary’s 4-5 year advantage over Obama in the U.S. Senate seems quite insignificant. Especially when you consider the fact that Obama has MORE ELECTED EXPERIENCE than Hillary when you factor in his 8 years as a state legislator.

So her experience argument is disingenuous. If people wanted experience, they should have picked Senators Dodd or Biden. But they didn’t. Obviously, people were looking for more than “experience” when they made their decision.

In my opinion, what really propels her campaign is the fact that she’s “safe.” We know she’s smart and capable. We know her husband. We know what type of fight we’d have between her and the Republicans. She’s safe, but that doesn’t mean that she’s great . . . that doesn’t mean that she’s the right person for this job at this time. As someone noted, she’s “Phil Mickelson” to Obama’s “Tiger Woods.”

She’s safe, but that DOES NOT mean that she’s better. Obama, though less known, has already proven to be her equal (as evidenced by this campaign) and has a much higher ceiling and an ability to expand the party and perhaps shift the country from a center-right to a center-left disposition.

The proof is in the pudding. Obama validates his message of change and hope everyday. What’s the proof? People respond to it. Yes, educated, sincere and passionate people of all races, ages, colors and backgrounds come out to support his message. People who’ve never voted before, young people, people who’ve felt disenfranchised, people who’ve left the Democratic Party, cross-over Republicans . . . yes, people who have lost hope . . . all come out by the thousands to support his message. That’s change. That’s different. Why? Because his message connects with something bigger than politics. It’s self-empowering. It’s not bound by race or party. Yet Hillary still wants to see this as some sort of phase. That is so dismissive and depressing.

It’s ok. People are starting to see this. It’s ok to “roll the dice” especially when the wager consists of the power we have to be the change that we want to see. There is life after Bill and Hillary Clinton.

But, for some strange reason, we like to equate intelligence with cynicism. We’re never impressed. It’s always to good to be true. Change is top down not bottom up. We’re told, “You don’t know what you’re getting yourself into. Wait your turn. Save ‘hope’ for some other day.”

I’m sorry, but that is an extremely condescending message. And people have begun to reject it.

There comes a point in time when, after failed encounter after failed encounter, one has to start looking at his/herself. . . look in the mirror. But the Clintons don’t do this. No, it’s always somebody else’s fault. It’s the vast right wing conspiracy. It’s media bias. It’s cult like Obama supporters. It’s some entrenched character flaw on the part of their critics. That sounds familiar . . . “you don’t support me, you’re unpatriotic, you don’t support the troops” . . . eerily similar to Bush.

People like Krugman are LOOKING for a reason to NOT vote for Obama. Like I’ve said before, switch roles (give Hillary a string of 8 or 9 wins in a row) and you’d have the DNC rallying behind Hillary and urging Obama to drop out.

Krugman is grasping at straws. Let me get this right. He won’t support Obama because he doesn’t like his supporters? Okay. He doesn’t list a single transgression on the part of Obama or his campaign. Why? Because he can’t. Obama has run a relatively clean campaign. So instead, Krugman lists actions from other people (David Shuster, etc.) and tries to attribute those comments to Obama and Obama supporters. Very disingenuous. He must think we’re stupid.

(As a side note, I find it amusing that Krugman laments the overreaction to White Water, yet says nothing of Clinton’s attempt to paint Obama as a slum lord because of past association with Resko).

Listen. It’s not just right wing conservatives who dislike the Clintons. It’s a growing, substantial segment of the Democratic Party (blacks, progressives, anti-war activists, etc.) The Clintons (and a number of their supporters) have insulated themselves in their inner circle so much that they’re convinced that any criticism MUST be irrational. “How could anyone dislike the Clintons?” “What would we ever do without the Clintons.” As though there’s no RATIONAL reason to support anyone who’s last name isn’t “Clinton.” As though there’s no RATIONAL reason to dislike the Clintons and their campaign tactics.

It’s disappointing that the Clintons turned their attack dogs on their own party. But it’s not necessarily surprising that they tried to hit us with a low blow. You want to know the real surprise? This time . . . WE HIT BACK!

It’s funny. Krugman says we’re the cult members. In truth, it’s the Clintons who’ve become a kind of religion to many rank-and-file Democrats. They’re all we know. We can’t fathom a world without them. They are our habit, our knee jerk response to everything political over the last two decades.

Well, many of us are ready to turn the page. I’d tell Krugman not to worry. We’re not crazy. We’re not irrational. We’re not children. We want something different, and we see Obama as a vehicle to affect the change that we want to see. Krugman doesn’t have to agree with our willingness to change the system. I just hope that he and others would respect our decision (and capacity) to do so.

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/01/mr-obama-you-did-what-you-had-to-do.html

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/01/losing-my-religion.html

http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-if-roles-were-reversed.html

Just heard Tavis on the TJMS this morning (2/12/08). Tavis has just lost his ever-lovin’ mind. He’s going on and on about “I’z a free Black man and I don’t need no [Barack Obama] to tell me anything” … “Tom Joyner don’t speak for me …” blah, blah.

Clearly the pressure has gotten to Tavis; he’s a proud brotha who can’t seem to find a graceful way to save face. He was one of those folks who, a year ago, thought they were in the know. They first dismissed Barack as not-Black-enough. Then they said he couldn’t win the “white vote”, and so they calculated that voting for him would be a wasted vote. In other words, they went for the Clinton okey doke. Yep. Team Clinton convinced some Black folk that Barack couldn’t organize. Couldn’t campaign. Couldn’t appeal. Couldn’t win.

Well, now that they’ve been proven wrong on all points, they’re thoroughly embarassed. Even ashamed. And rather than admit that they were wrong in their political “calculations”, they’d rather lash out at those who made the right decision.

In other words, “what’s the best way for a Clinton shill to crack on Barack’s persona without it appearing obvious”. All in pathetic wishes of changing the minds of a few fence sitters.

To answer your question, I want to pose a couple of questions to you. Why is that people in the media such as Krugman say Obama supporters are cult members? Obama is not the first political figure who has been this popular. But somehow his supporters are irrational. Why is that? Did people say blacks were irrational when we fawned all over Bill Clinton and almost lost our minds when he moved to Harlem?

Second, Krugman “is” entering territory he’s unfamiliar with. In his follow up post he presumes to be the authority on what’s racist and what’s not (I love when white men have to explain racism to black folk). Krugman continues by suggesting that we black folk are too stupid to think for ourselves–that the media is influencing us.

Finally, I don’t think anybody thinks Obama is a flawless messiah. I don’t agree with some of the things he’s said, for example calling Reagan a transformative figure. But he is a fresh face in politics. He doesn’t seem to triangulate. And he was against this war in Iraq.

Finally, don’t lump all Obama supporters into one category. I am just as protective of Hillary Clinton when people are cruel to her. I will, however, call her out on hypocrisy–for example pimp-gate. John McCain told a far worse joke about a teenaged Chelsea Clinton, and by both Clinton own admission, Hillary and John are good friends.

‘The problem for Krugman is that’s he’s clearly entering territory he frankly has no business marching into.’

say what? He can’t offer up his criticism in a public forum unless it pertains to economics? I don’t mean to sound flip, but should the same apply to Baratunde when he appears on News and Notes? By what qualifications should he proffer an opinion and not Krugman?

I’m baffled here.

Webb: Um. Huh? All the Clinton’s criticism of Obama — all of it — has lacked substance? Okay, chief.

This kinda speaks to what I was getting at. I don’t think calling some of Obama’s fans irrational is wrong. Almost every conversation i’ve had with someone who was voting for dude was rooted in emotion; it makes sense that would be the way he was defended too.

I’m glad folks are energized. Seriously. But I invite y’all to read this blog (and those like it) as a fence-sitter like myself. “Obama is great/____ is not.”

So I’m not surprised by whats happened to Krugman the last few months; he’s an ass.

you rock.

anonymous,

with your Krugman reply, you rock too!

g.d.,

you want serious attacks on Obama based in policy, but without racial animus – read Black Agenda Report.com

I’m not always down with them, but I do believe they are policy-driven when it comes to Obama. What sets them apart is that they are hard on everyone.

When someone lies to you…lies about you…what do you do? Do you go mute? Do you defend yourself?

Barack is not perfect, but I challenge you to quote any LIES/Distortions that he may have made about the Clintons.

When the Clintons and their surrogates lie about Barack, I DO take it personally. When the Clintons tell me that the only reason I voted for Barack is because he is black, it insults my intelligence…it GRAVELY insults my intelligence.

So when I say that the Clintons = Lies, Fear Tactics, and Race-Baiting…but more importantly, when I say that OBAMA = TRUTH, TRANSPARENCY and HOPE…it’s the easiest, simplest decision that I have to make.

The Clintons shall reap what they sow.

It’s equally difficult to parse the difference between Hillary-bashing and honest dislike of Hillary. I think part of the problem is the unique nature of the American presidency: you’re not choosing a prime minister or head of the party, but rather someone who (a) runs a large bureaucracy and (b) provides moral leadership for the country. (b) is not really in the Constitution, but has clearly become the most important factor in the election. (Otherwise, why wouldn’t Mitt Romney be the ideal President?) So, for better or for worse (I say worse), character matters.

The problem for Krugman is that’s he’s clearly entering territory he frankly has no business marching into. He’s an economist whose views on the media and electorate are, at best, naive. So he’s crossing the line from legitimate analysis (Obama’s healthcare not as good as Hillary’s) to personal attacks on Obama supporters whom he has no qualifications to assess or address. I think the problem is even deeper: MSM should get out of “opinion journalism” altogether. But that’s another matter.

My point in that piece is that the blogosphere ain’t the best place for reasoned, nonpartisan dialogue.

Anyway, who knows if Krugman is approving comments on his blog, but this is what I’d written:

===

I respect your opinions and analysis of economic issues, and I think your rejection of Obama’s health care plan is well-reasoned. But I think your analysis of the relationship between the “media” and voters lacks similar sophistication.

No, Bill did not play the race card with his “fairy tale” comment. No, Hillary did not play the race card with her LBJ comment. But to chalk up Bill’s Jesse Jackson comment as “a stupid way to spin a big loss” ignores ample evidence to the contrary, particularly since the Clinton campaign had started sounding racial notes well before the SC vote in an attempt to turn what they began to realize would be a landslide into a poison pill (that is, Obama can only win blacks’ votes). Of course the Clinton campaign would never make the mistake of summoning up overt racism — there’s no better way to knock yourself out. (Kerry Healy attempted a rerun of the Horton tactic against Deval Patrick in MA and learned that lesson the hard way). Bill’s comments were a much subtler opinion-shaping effort that confirms journalists’ race-centric storyline (e.g. Latinos dislike Obama) without serious inquiry into the underlying reasons (the outsized influence of machine politics in recent immigrant communities).

Whether it matters that journalists buy this story or not is another matter. As an employee of “the media” yourself, you have every incentive to play up the influence of “people in the media” on the electorate, but if you glance over at McCain’s success in the Republican field, you’ll see that the magical “right-wing attack machine” ain’t what it used to be.

If you truly believe in progressive politics in America, you have to begin to act progressively in pursuit of your convictions, not just defensively in evasion of your enemies. Perhaps you’re right that Obama’s health care plan starts out the gate compromised by a defensive posture. But I hear Clinton proclaiming that her entire administration would take a defensive posture. Shouldn’t be even more dangerous to the prospects of true progress over the next 4-8 years?

It seems that whenever anyone criticizes Obama on this blog, it gets chalked up as racism or some kind of personal animus toward Obama. For those of us who aren’t Obama true believers — but who want to be — it’s more than a little off-putting. Obama is a superlative human being, but neither he or his policies are flawless.

Jack Turner said he doesn’t know Obama die-hards who are hateful — to which I, as a black Brooklynite who runs in Obama-supporting circles and who reads this blog all this time have to say — are you for real right now, fam? I can’t count how many times I’ve heard Hillary Clinton referred to as a ‘bitch’ or as dyed-in-the-wool racist. Either you’re feigning ignorance or you’re not paying attention — to what you post on your own blog, even.

Y’all are so enamored with dude that your suspicious people who look at him and come to different conclusions.

First, I do agree that there is some venom coming from both sides, but I do not find it bizarre. From the Obama side, at least for me, it’s a reaction to the shock we got when Bill turned ugly in January. It isn’t that we don’t expect a rough, ugly attack machine in the fall no matter the nominee, it’s that we expected so much more from BILL, and he let us down. Watching my hero fall, and having the years of Republican spin echoing in my head, I suddenly thought “Oh my God, they were right all this time. He’s a spin-master, he thinks he’s bulletproof, he thinks he and Hillary are entitled to this, he’s willing to do anything… it IS all about him after all… and I’ve been defending him for how long? What a fool I must look!!!” Perhaps for me this was more salient than for others, but originally hailing from John Ashcroft’s home town in Southwest MO, the unspeakably crass Clinton bashing didn’t stop when he left office. I’ve gotten at least one wretched email forward a month from my own friends and family alone, for years and years and years. To think that maybe they were on to something – to see the side of Bill that they always knew… it was a kick to the gut. Feeling embarrassed, like I’d been suckered for over a decade, made it easier to justify turning a little bit of venom back on them – however small that makes me. I’m trying to stop, but it’s hard because I feel so betrayed.

And while I agree with you that this type of venom hurts the party, I disagree with your assertion that “Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.” I will not rally behind Hillary – but not for the reasons you may think. See, when I supported her, I was ready to fight with her against those nasty Republicans – bring it on! I can take eight more years of crap email, let’s bury them! Won’t the Daily Show be great – partisan bickering is such great sport!! More recently, what I’ve come to understand is that as Democrats, we have a small window of opportunity here in which we can transform and grow our party. We are engaged, and the Republicans are split into warring factions, with average folks feeling left out and unheard. With Obama, we can bring Independents and moderate Rs into the fold — likely for decades to come. Hillary on the other hand, is the Republicans’ best hope for mending their party quickly and finding a common cause around which to rally. Four or eight more years of scandal can only make this easier for them. So even though I do care for my party, I think that from a decades-long perspective, four years of McCain–even with supreme court nominations thrown in–would do less damage to progressive causes than would four years of Hillary fighting them every step. Two years into her presidency, we would again have a strong united conservative Republican machine, and a weakened and demoralized progressive base.

Finally, while I am sure that the cult of personality issue may exist for some, I would offer this juxtaposition. The Clintons were a cult of personality, at least for people like me. I loved the IDEA of Bill, and the legacy of Bill, and the good times of peace and prosperity that came along with Bill… and I held out hope that he’d rubbed off on Hillary. Even if I didn’t find her particularly engaging or inspiring, I was engaged and inspired by the idea of More Clinton Times. By contrast, Obama is not all about Obama, he’s all about ME. We are the ones who are important, we are the ones who will take responsibility… we are the ones that matter in this race, not him. He’s The Great Facilitator, if you will… a conduit for us to affect change for ourselves. So last year WE were Time’s person of the year – this year, WE get to be president. The cult of personality is our infatuation with our OWN ego. Yes there are dangers associated with this as well, but to the extent that it (a) engages the populous in government again and (b) holds politicians accountable to us, it’s a good thing.

This distinction permeates his policy stances as well, and I’m surprised you haven’t touched on this – their goals are virtually indistinguishable, but the means to the end for each of them reveals a critical ideological difference – whether enduring change can be found by treating the symptom vs. the cause – by trusting people or government. Take the example of healthcare. The end state for both of them is broad, quality coverage for all Americans. But Clinton’s plan mandates coverage for everyone. Obama’s approach demonstrates his belief that people are rational, and that if his policy clears the path for them, they will act in their own self interests. This approach runs through the majority of his policies – if you create a system that removes obstacles and rewards people for acting in their own self interests, they will. A good analogy might be to compare the idea of legislation that either (a) increases govt funding for abortions or (b) increases govt funding for birth control & sex ed. One is a band-aid, the other creates lasting behavioral change – the type of change that is difficult to dismantle 4 or 8 years later. It’s unfortunate that the difference between their policies is relatively nuanced and complex, particularly for the casual voter, but the difference IS there, and it’s an important one. It’s also a critical difference in being able to pull in independents and centrist Republicans – the nanny-state approach is a turn-off, even for moderates.

Whether it’s white conservatives striking out at Blacks in general by using Jesse Jackson as a whipping post, or whether it’s white liberals striking out at “Obama supporters” — I guess that’s the new code phrase — to attack a specific person’s Blackness, the sentiment (an the results) are still the same.

And it’s not just whites that are doing this. I stopped listening to Tavis Smiley on Tom Joyner’s Morning Show because Tavis did the same thing. Even as Bill Clinton was running around calling Obama a fairytale, Smiley was taking weekly swipes at Obama.

BTW, I don’t think Dowd and Rich should be attacking Clinton as much as they do. When a columnist targets one candidate all the time, his/her credibility comes into question.

Krugman’s op-ed piece tinges of racism. He implies that Obama can’t be taken seriously and that those who support him are irrational. Clinton’s supporters are just as passionate about her, but they’re not seen as cult followers.

Based on how this primary/caucus season turns out, I may follow ronnie b’s lead and leave the Democratic party, too.

I hear ya. You’re talking to a registered Independent.

No love for the Democratic Party. They have no spine. Too weak to be progressive. I swear . . . Democrats v. Republicans . . . the party of NO ideas v. the party of BAD ideas.

Time and time again, I believed that I had franchise in that party; some ownership. Yet time and again, the “parents” of the party treated me like a child who should be seen and not heard (except during election years).

It became clear to me that the Party would never respect Black leadership; would never respect Black authority, I said to hell with them.

I’m down with Obama until the end. But Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should never mistake that for support of their party.