cross-posted to goodCRIMETHINK

I’m tired of Paul Krugman. His latest column (“Hate Springs Eternal”) claims that the ugliness we’ve seen in the Democratic campaign is due to all these angry Obama cultists. He’s dismissive of legitimate grievances of the LBJ comments, for example. And this is all just so ironic because if there’s been a campaign marked by “hate” or at least anger, it is clearly not the Obama campaign.

The Obama campaign has not had to fire people for smearing Hillary Clinton.

The Obama campaign is predicated on hope. How can people criticize how happy and positive the Obama message is and yet complain that it’s Obama people who are the hateful ones?

And what the hell is Krugman’s basis for his assertion? Who is he talking to? Where is he getting his impressions? Every group of Obama people I’ve been around has gone out of their way to present a balanced perspective on Mrs. Clinton despite her best attempts to bring out the worst in us.

Paul Krugman needs to read the Clinton Attacks Obama wiki.

And yall need to read dnA over at toosenseblog

Continuing on to Krugman’s original point, which is that supporters of Clinton and Obama need to chill and stop sniping at each other, because we’re fundamentally on the same side. That sounds great, except the Krugman is downplaying his own role in instigating this fight. Just last week on his blog, Krugman claimed only three of his last ten columns criticized Obama, in comparison to his colleagues Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd who had written critically about Hillary 7 times and 6 times respectively.

Related Posts with Thumbnails