• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

Another missed opportunity for Jamie Dimon to just shut the fuck up.

Republicans: “Abortion is murder but you can take a bus to get one.” Easy peasy.

This country desperately needs a functioning Fourth Estate.

Biden: Oh no. We’ve upset Big Pharma again.

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

The words do not have to be perfect.

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

In after Baud. Damn.

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the gop

We still have time to mess this up!

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

Republicans do not pay their debts.

‘Museums aren’t America’s attic for its racist shit.’

It’s not hopeless, and we’re not helpless.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

Pelosi: “He either is stupid, or he thinks the rest of us are.” Why not both?

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

People are complicated. Love is not.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Past Elections / Election 2008 / Is It Really That Ugly

Is It Really That Ugly

by John Cole|  February 11, 200812:22 pm| 164 Comments

This post is in: Election 2008

FacebookTweetEmail

I don’t get this Krugman column:

The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

Has this really been that bitter of a nomination fight, because I sure do not see it that way. Sure, the Obama groupies are irritating as all hell. And yes, the diehard Hillary or Bust crowd will call you a misogynist and a Clinton hater at the drop of a hat. But, overall, the only way I think one could get that impression is if your only news is coming from Andrew Sullivan, who is an unrepentant swirling vortex of Clinton hate. Other than that, though, I just don’t see it as being that bad, and it certainly is not as bad as the GOP race, where the standard bearer is routinely booed by the base.

By the way, has there been anyone as loudly obnoxious towards Obama as Paul Krugman? It seems kind of amusing that he, of all people, after essentially waging jihad against Obama for months, should be penning a column about the nastinesss of the race.

At any rate, I just don’t see this as a particularly ugly race. I think there has been some appliation of the clinton rules- people keep claiming Bill is injecting race and what not, and the only thing I saw that was remotely suspicious was the Jackson remark following South Carolina. Other than that and the Mark Penn bilge, this has ben a pretty clean race, I think.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « This Will Leave a Mark
Next Post: ATTN: Hillary Supporters »

Reader Interactions

164Comments

  1. 1.

    John S.

    February 11, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    By the way, has there been anyone as loudly obnoxious towards Obama as Paul Krugman? It seems kind of amusing that he, of all people, after essentially waging jihad against Obama for months, should be penning a column about the nastinesss of the race.

    Heh, I think it is pretty funny.

    Equally funny is that in the thread where you highlighted Frank Rich’s column on Hillary, the Hillary supporters called foul because Rich has an anti-Hillary bias, only to come back later and trumpet the Krugman piece.

    It has certainly been one zany primary season to say the least.

  2. 2.

    Davebo

    February 11, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    There’s a reason Krugman is so hard on Obama and it has absolutely nothing to do with health care.

    It’s that other big issue out there. And he came down on the same side of it as did Hillary.

  3. 3.

    Pb

    February 11, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    A: No.

    The zealots have been pretty crazy, but Obama has been running a pretty clean campaign; and if you saw his interview on 60 Minutes, well, it’s quite intentional on his part, and I appreciate it.

  4. 4.

    John S.

    February 11, 2008 at 12:36 pm

    It’s that other big issue out there.

    He learned how to stop worrying and love the bomb?

  5. 5.

    Mr Furious

    February 11, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    Krugman is practically Sullivanesque in the other direction. His litmus test for Obama’s lack of health care mandates is preposterous, and he has been dishonest in his portrayal of the plans.

    The “venom I see” that Krugman is talking about is in his own mailbox, because he is provoking it. I don’t see the exchanges between the actual campaigns as equivalent at all.

  6. 6.

    Grand Moff Texan

    February 11, 2008 at 12:38 pm

    I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody.

    Uh, no. The polls I’ve seen show that each candidate’s supporters equally support the other if they’re the nominee (within the MOE).

    Krugman is being a dumbass.
    .

  7. 7.

    Dennis - SGMM

    February 11, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    …I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here…

    Thanks for the tipoff, Paul. Otherwise we would have simply accepted your conflating Obama with Bush in the last two sentences. Get a grip, or a sense of irony, Paul; you’ve just made the shittiest remark in the campaign in a column about incivility.

    Krugman is resolutely marching toward Broderian irrelevance.

  8. 8.

    Punchy

    February 11, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Wow, I saw the post’s title and figured it was another post about K-Lo.

  9. 9.

    John S.

    February 11, 2008 at 12:40 pm

    The Krugman defense aka “how he is not like Frank Rich hating on Clinton” (from a Hillary fan):

    Apples and oranges. Frank Rich is one of the Village Idiots, while Krugman has long been a liberal icon and an island of sanity in a sea of stupidity.

    Compelling?

  10. 10.

    wvng

    February 11, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    As someone who likes them both quite a lot, and recently moved into the Obama camp, I would agree with Krugman that Obama supporters are more likely to say “I’ll never vote for her, I’ll vote for McCain first” than Hillary voters are to say the opposite. And I would agree that they are more likely to use vitriolic CDS language about her than HRC supporters are likely to use about Obama.

    I have never experienced the level of vitriol that is routine on the RW blogs, except as glancing blows. I’m sure the HRC/Obama swipes have not been as bad as that, by even an order of magnitude (if you can sufficiently quantify nastiness), but it’s been bad enough that blogs like the Carpetbagger to take a deep breath and get back to discussing issues.
    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14523.html

  11. 11.

    Jake

    February 11, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    Sorry, I must have missed something.

    But until recently I have been busy watching the Mittenites threatening to set themselves on fire if McCaniac won and declaring war on the Christians after the Republicans in Idaho picked pHuckabee.

    I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

    Yeah. He’s too popular and some of his supporters are whackjobs. Bush was too popular and 99% of his supporters are whackjobs.

    OMG! They must be the same thing!

    Further support for Pundit Theory #42: The average pundit hits himself in the face with a brick before he sit down to compose the day’s maunderings. If he feels the seductive fingers of logic plucking at his brains, he gives himself a few more whacks with the brick.

  12. 12.

    Mr Furious

    February 11, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    Krugman concludes:

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

    WTF? As if the mutual admiration excercises in the debates hasn’t been enough? They’ve been heated for brief exchanges, but I’ve never for an instant gotten the impression that either would not fall in behind the other once the nomination is decided.

  13. 13.

    Zifnab

    February 11, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.

    Welcome, fellow wet-suiters, to the new liberal-bashing meme from the right. Obama’s wild popularity stems from the fact that he is, in fact, a cultish demagogue.

    And we can’t have demagogues for President! It’s just not healthy for our society.

    We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

    Yeah, another four years of President Bush would be a real nightmare for our country. Better vote for the establishment candidate. It’s the only move that makes sense.

    *gag* Am I the only person getting rather sick of “warnings” coming from the Punditocracy? How often will these daring intellectuals and desk jockies come sweeping in to save us from our own foolish mistakes – like contesting the ’00 SCOTUS decision or questioning WMDs in Iraq or being “unserious” about how tax cuts affect the economy?

    Maybe Krugman is right and we are about to fall into a horrible trap of naive decision-making, selecting the charismatic young politician from Illinois and ushering in the end of days. Or maybe Krugman is as wrong today as he’s ever been, and he needs to stfu if he can’t find any actual political events to cover.

  14. 14.

    SpotWeld

    February 11, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    The reality seems to be rather different than the preferred news narrative. (Or at least in my opinion.)

    And to me, it seems as simple as Saturday Morning Cartoons. The easier stories to sell are the ones that boil down to “Side A vs. Side B”, and if the cartoons of the 80s have taught us anything you can keep that story simple if one side is ironically different than the other.

    Hillary is a white woman, Obama is a black man. Now, I decidedly do not want to paint this in terms of racism or misogyny. Just that you can pop up a picture of them side by side and automatically the audience says “That is Team A, and that is Team B.” Ironically different. Could you put a picture of Huckabee next to McCain and get the same feeling? Half the time a random person on the street will confuse one with the other. It’s a harder story to construct to say “This older white guy is intrinsically different than this other older white guy.”

    So, it’s just easier for the “versus narrative” between the Dem candidates to be carried around, it becomes analogous a Coke vs. Pepsi sort of story. With the GOP candidates, it’s like a story of Coke vs, Diet Coke.

  15. 15.

    Mr Furious

    February 11, 2008 at 12:46 pm

    And no, Professor, you weren’t trying for “fake evenhandedness” when you threw the dig on Obama’s health plan in an unrelated context either…

  16. 16.

    JGabriel

    February 11, 2008 at 12:46 pm

    John Cole:

    I just don’t see this as a particularly ugly race.

    I agree, the campaign hasn’t been particularly ugly.

    That said, I think Krugman’s right: there has been a disconcerting acceptance of Clinton rules by Obama’s supporters, and it could come back to haunt them — as Obama *will* become subject to the same rules if he wins the nomination.

    The weird thing is, when you look at the few polls that have asked, it looks like Obama and Clinton supporters are equally happy to vote for the other candidate in the general election, about 70-75% on both sides. So it’s not as though the Obama groupies are more numerous, they’re just louder. Or write more frequently in the blogospere.

    .

  17. 17.

    ThymeZone

    February 11, 2008 at 12:46 pm

    The press wants — desperately needs — drama.

    If the campaigns don’t supply it, then the press will.

    It’s as simple as that.

    As exhibit A, I offer you the breathless and completely nonsensical rants of CNN’s Bill Schneider during the last week: Dems “dread” drawn out delegate fight.

    Dread. Get it, we dread this. The reason why the non-news-media get away with this crap is because we let them. Nobody challenges them. Schneider hasn’t had a cogent thought in his head since he came to CNN. The motherfucker is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, for crissakes.

    AEI has emerged as one of the leading architects of the second Bush administration’s public policy.[5] More than twenty AEI alumni and current visiting scholars and fellows have served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government’s many panels and commissions.[6] Former United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is a visiting scholar, and Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney and former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, is a senior fellow.[7]

    Do you understand that all of these people are whores who are doing nothing but advancing their own agendas?

    Krugman is just another whore. Don’t feed these people.

  18. 18.

    John S.

    February 11, 2008 at 12:48 pm

    I would agree with Krugman that Obama supporters are more likely to say “I’ll never vote for her, I’ll vote for McCain first” than Hillary voters are to say the opposite.

    And you base this on what? What does Krugman base it on? I personally haven’t seen or heard this sentiment from any Obama fan on this blog, and when I have seen it on other blogs it seems to generally come from trolls.

    Thhere is absolutely no reasonable explanation for an Obama fan looking for change to hand the keys over to another Republican who will continue Bush’s legacy.

    And I would agree that they are more likely to use vitriolic CDS language about her than HRC supporters are likely to use about Obama.

    I guess that depends on the observer. It seems to me that your average Hillary fan is quick to label any critique of her as CDS, so in light of that you may have a point.

  19. 19.

    Mr Furious

    February 11, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    So, on balance, is this week’s column better or worse than last week’s “Obama is running on hope, and the last candidate to do that didn’t work out so well, so don’t make THAT mistake again”

    The last “hope candidate?” Bill Clinton.

    The current alternative to the “hope candidate?” H(B)illary Clinton.

    Stick to economics.

  20. 20.

    Foxhunter

    February 11, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Something must be in the water…Larry Johnson at noquarterusa.net has been apoplectic of late in regards to Obama. He’s added some marginal commentary that could be seen as mildly racist, too. If he’s challenged on this fact, his reply is ‘get used to it, this is nothing compared to what the Repub machine will bring come November’. I used to enjoy Larry’s insight into all things CIA/FBI, but now I’m beginning to wonder if he’s just another blowhard but happens to have a D behind his name. At least Krugman is a bit more restrained, albeit still over the top.

  21. 21.

    Stoic

    February 11, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Oh, yeah, it’s bitter. My local Democratic Club’s last meeting had a “present your candidate” forum and the club’s president (who is a Obama supporter) let the Obama people go overtime with their homage at the end of the meeting. The nasty emails and complaints that came from the Hillary people could have peeled your wallpaper. The upstart of it all was there was only one “persuadable” person in the room, who at the end of it all, told me she was leaning towards Edwards anyway.

  22. 22.

    carol h

    February 11, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    The Krugman column was about Clinton hate and Clinton haters. I do not see how anyone can deny that for the last 15 years there has been a core group in this country who blindly hate the Clintons. Whether that is an argument for or against her candidacy depends on how you feel about her. He did not say anything about Obama personally, just about some of his supporters. Waging jihad on Obama? You really believe that? OTOH, the Rich column was a personal attack on Clinton. It’s much more apt to say that Rich was waging jidah on Clinton although I would not use that word. My interpretation? John Cole is still stuck in his Clinton hate from the 90s. As a recently reformed republican his judgement about who does or does not fight dirty in politics is some suspect.

  23. 23.

    orogeny

    February 11, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    Krugman doesn’t really crtiticize Obama’s campaign, other than his health care plan. He is talking about the Obama supporters.

    Want some proof as to the behavior of the Obama supporters? Want to see just a bit of the venom that they are spewing? Go to Dkos and search for the following phrases in the comments. Read the search results. Then try to do the same for comments in the same vein directed from Clinton supporters toward Obama. Do you notice any difference?

    clinton, crook
    clinton, sleazy
    clinton, slimy
    hillary, scum
    hillary, rotten
    hillary rotten clinton

  24. 24.

    Dennis - SGMM

    February 11, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    Krugman is just another whore.

    TZ, I prefer to think of them as parasites. Compared to being a pundit, being a whore is a decent and honorable profession.

  25. 25.

    ThymeZone

    February 11, 2008 at 12:52 pm

    So it’s not as though the Obama groupies are more numerous, they’re just louder. Or write more frequently in the blogospere.

    Myiq called and wants his megaphone back …..

  26. 26.

    ThymeZone

    February 11, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    Compared to being a pundit, being a whore is a decent and honorable profession.

    Good point.

    My apologies to all whores everywhere.

  27. 27.

    tas

    February 11, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    It seems kind of amusing that he, of all people, after essentially waging jihad against Obama for months, should be penning a column about the nastinesss of the race.

    And it’s especially amusing that Krugman heaps all the guilt for negative attacks in Obama’s camp while completing ignoring the “Obama went to jihadi madrasas!” emails sent out by some of her state campaign managers, or her husband’s insinuation that Obama’s stance against the Iraq war is a “fairy tale,” and that only black candidates win in South Carolina. Krugman’s seriously harming his credibility with these weekly attacks against Obama.

  28. 28.

    NonyNony

    February 11, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    The weird thing is, when you look at the few polls that have asked, it looks like Obama and Clinton supporters are equally happy to vote for the other candidate in the general election, about 70-75% on both sides. So it’s not as though the Obama groupies are more numerous, they’re just louder. Or write more frequently in the blogospere.

    JGabriel has hit it on the head, and so I’ve quoted the whole block and highlighted the important bit.

    Obama’s supporters skew younger than Clinton’s. They skew a lot younger, in fact. So they’re more likely to be not only comfortable with this whole new fangled series of tubes we call the Internets, they’re also more likely to be in college and have the time to read a lot of blogs and post huffy comments about how they’re only voting for the guy with the Magical Unity Pony and no one else. Clinton’s supporters are more likely to make those kind of proclamations at the corner sports bar while tipping back a few beers with their buddies than to post it on their MySpace page.

    Demographics. Hardcore Obama lovers are over-represented on the Internet because of demographics. The fact that Krugman (or any of us) see more angry blog commenters spewing Clinton hate and Obama worship only means that THAT particular loudmouth has a computer instead of a regular stool at the bar down the road.

  29. 29.

    John S.

    February 11, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    John Cole is still stuck in his Clinton hate from the 90s.

    Ding, ding, ding.

    Another Clinton supporter responds to the sound of the Pavlovian bell.

  30. 30.

    Mike P

    February 11, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    I’ll say again what I said last week…the garden variety Clinton or Obama supporter (i.e. people who don’t follow political blogs and/or news obsessively) would vote for their non-preferred candidate on the Dem. side in a heartbeat. The elite opinion about these candidates is polluted, and there’s certainly some long standing Hillary hate mixed in. But Krugman is off the rails here (again) on this issue.

  31. 31.

    John Cole

    February 11, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    I think something needs to be made clear here- much of the venom directed at the Clintons by Obama supporters are people OUTSIDE the party. Folks like Sullivan, who, only under the rarest of circumstances (Bush being a disaster) see eye to eye with Democrats.

    I have seen VERY little venom directed at the Clintons from within the party. Hell, I spent 20 years in the GOP, and just recently became a Democrat, am supporting Obama, and have a whole load of Clinton baggage. But I will GLADLY support her over anyone in the GOP in 2008.

    On the other hand, most of the vicious anti-Obama stuff is from hacks within the party who are loyal to the Clintons. Which one is worse for the Democrats?

    I would argue the latter.

  32. 32.

    Gay Veteran

    February 11, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    wow, before the primaries I bet most liberals would describe Krugman as one of the best columnists in the country

    but now he’s worthless because he doesn’t support Obama? WTF?

  33. 33.

    jenniebee

    February 11, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    Krugman can’t be happy that Edwards is out of the race, but he isn’t a Village Drama Mama by a long shot. He’s been critical of Obama for a while now mostly for dodging details about his (Obama’s) health care proposal and for his (again, Obama’s) attacks on the other candidates from the right.

    It’s a sad, sad day when the most progressive candidate to survive the early nominating process in a dems-can’t-lose cycle is a Clinton. And Krugman makes some very good points about Obama: beyond the rhetoric, the man’s a cipher. Obama is frustratingly vague on policy and is basically riding into the nomination on the strength of being the most feel-good, supporter flattering candidate to run for President since Ronald Reagan. Meanwhile, Hillary is addressing the problem of coming across as too plastic and insincere by working on her packaging.

    And they’re what we’ve got to fight people like this.

    Ugh. I need a drink.

  34. 34.

    Jake

    February 11, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    Am I the only person getting rather sick of “warnings” coming from the Punditocracy?

    No. SA2SQ.

    See also TZ’s comments on drama and sign my petition on establishing Punch a Pundit for Peace Day.

  35. 35.

    wvng

    February 11, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    And you base this on what? What does Krugman base it on? I personally haven’t seen or heard this sentiment from any Obama fan on this blog, and when I have seen it on other blogs it seems to generally come from trolls.

    Of course trolls are an issue, but assuming that the crap is only coming from trolls is, well, an assumption. And you know about assumptions.

    I guess that depends on the observer. It seems to me that your average Hillary fan is quick to label any critique of her as CDS, so in light of that you may have a point.

    True, and I prefaced my remarks as someone who likes them both and has moved into the Obama camp. I simply stated that more of the more extremist positions seem to be coming from ostensible Obama supporters. And no, I haven’t done a tally.

    As long as I’m at it, I’ll support Krugman as well. His problem with Obama, from the outset, has been Obama’s recurring tendency to use RW frames to separate himself from the competition on key progressive issues. The health care mandate issue is but one example of an Obama narrative that will make ultimate passage of good legislation more difficult. As a die hard liberal, that makes Krugman angry. I’m saying this as an Obama supporter, not a troll.

  36. 36.

    John Cole

    February 11, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    My interpretation? John Cole is still stuck in his Clinton hate from the 90s. As a recently reformed republican his judgement about who does or does not fight dirty in politics is some suspect.

    I am so sick of these drive-bys from Clinton supporters. She is always the victim, isn’t she? I chose someone else, so it just must mean that I HATE THE CLINTONS. Can’t be any other reason, can it?

    Even though I spent weeks being chided for defending Hillary, and even though I have said I will gladly support her should she beat Obama.

    You know what I see when I think of Clinton supporters- angry women who are perennially the victim and Mark Penn.

  37. 37.

    Mike P

    February 11, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    jenniebee says:
    “And Krugman makes some very good points about Obama: beyond the rhetoric, the man’s a cipher. Obama is frustratingly vague on policy and is basically riding into the nomination on the strength of being the most feel-good, supporter flattering candidate to run for President since Ronald Reagan.”

    (beating head against wall)…I’m going to link you to two posts from today that have already said most of what I would want to write in response to the above statement:

    Obama and the Details:

    Obama at J-J Dinner:

  38. 38.

    John S.

    February 11, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    but now he’s worthless because he doesn’t support Obama? WTF?

    Worthless? I wouldn’t go that far. But merely stating he doesn’t support Obama doesn’t go nearly far enough.

    Krugman has been attacking Obama relentlessly for quite some time now. One could argue he has a full blown case of ODS.

    The great Gizoogle doesn’t lie.

  39. 39.

    cleek

    February 11, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    but now he’s worthless because he doesn’t support Obama? WTF?

    RIP poor strawman. you never had a chance.

  40. 40.

    Billy K

    February 11, 2008 at 1:07 pm

    Two thoughts come to mind:

    1) “The Media” doesn’t know how to write about elections and/or politics in any other context than “bitter” and “contentious.”

    2) We, as a nation, have become really thin-skinned. I find myself constantly worrying about offending others (particularly at work), and despite my best efforts, offending them anyway. No, it hasn’t been that ugly, but we view any disagreement as a horrible, horrible thing.

  41. 41.

    Jake

    February 11, 2008 at 1:08 pm

    wow, before the primaries I bet most liberals would describe Krugman as one of the best columnists in the country

    but now he’s worthless because he doesn’t support Obama? WTF?

    Wow, anyone who actually read the post and/or the comments would see that’s exactly what isn’t happening here. Don’t let it worry you, though. PK makes good living and he also leaps to unsupported conclusions and lacks critical reasoning skills.

  42. 42.

    John S.

    February 11, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    And you know about assumptions.

    We both do. I countered your assumption with one of my own. That’s a whole lot of assumption going on. Where does it end? I assume never.

    I simply stated that more of the more extremist positions seem to be coming from ostensible Obama supporters.

    You assume that Obama supporters have an antidisestablismentarianist streak. I presume that your assumption may be correct.

  43. 43.

    plum

    February 11, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    John Cole said:

    I have seen VERY little venom directed at the Clintons from within the party. Hell, I spent 20 years in the GOP, and just recently became a Democrat, am supporting Obama, and have a whole load of Clinton baggage. But I will GLADLY support her over anyone in the GOP in 2008.

    Actually, there was a lot of this sentiment being expressed in dKos, peaking at around the time of the SC primary, which was widely seen as ugly on the part of the Clintons and their surrogates.

    It’s calmed down a lot, though, mainly from self-policing and efforts from dKos higher-ups. To their credit.

    It’s also worth noting that African-American bloggers have moved almost as one to repudiate the Clintons after SC. To visit Jack & Jill Politics, Root.com, Field Negro, Skeptical Brotha, or say African-American Political Pundit is to realize how quick it was for hidden misgivings about the Clintons to bubble up. Sometimes, what appears to be perfectly innocuous language to white liberals is read as race baiting by AAs.

  44. 44.

    GSD

    February 11, 2008 at 1:14 pm

    I am no longer stopping by this website anymore. Everyone here is either bitter or contentious.

    -Barack O’Hillary

  45. 45.

    Mr Furious

    February 11, 2008 at 1:14 pm

    Obama is frustratingly vague on policy

    That’s crap. It’s the conventional wisdom being pushed by the Clinton camp, but it’s simply not true. Hillary might rattle more minutae off in debates, but her policies are not any more mapped out than Obama’s.

    He knows people tune that shit out, and spends his time talking above it, while Hillary needs the details to work her experience angle.

    They are each playing to strengths, and neither is outdoing the other on actual policy.

  46. 46.

    liberal

    February 11, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    Davebo wrote,

    It’s that other big issue out there. And he came down on the same side of it as did Hillary.

    Which issue is that?

  47. 47.

    wvng

    February 11, 2008 at 1:17 pm

    And Krugman makes some very good points about Obama: beyond the rhetoric, the man’s a cipher. Obama is frustratingly vague on policy and is basically riding into the nomination on the strength of being the most feel-good, supporter flattering candidate to run for President since Ronald Reagan.

    I don’t see Obama as a cipher at all. His policy positions are available for anyone to read, and they are quite close to HRC’s on most issues. He is perfectly able and willing to speak to the details, and is doing so more and more as the campaign progresses. Up to now what he has done is inspire, and he is doing that in spades.

    Speaking of the campaign, it has been a marvel. He’s run down the presumptive and prohibitive favorite by outflanking her at every turn (and yes the msm has been helpful). He’s outplayed the insider’s insider. And, most remarkably, he’s run HIS campaign,and avoided the trap of letting beltway insiders pollute the clear path that he sees and show him how the “pros” do it. I look very favorably on a candidate with those kind of skills in the general election.

  48. 48.

    Frank

    February 11, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    Mike P – Get your gay retarded ass out of here and don’t come back.

  49. 49.

    John S.

    February 11, 2008 at 1:19 pm

    He knows people tune that shit out, and spends his time talking above it, while Hillary needs the details to work her experience angle.

    RE: The Experience Angle

    I never really got that one. Obama has more actual experience working as a public servant in elected office than Hillary. I realize that people like to give her credit for the time she spent at Bill’s side, but let’s get real. My wife doesn’t gain job experience for all the years she was by my side, and if she ever tried to put it on a resume to get a job in my field nobody would take her seriously.

  50. 50.

    John S.

    February 11, 2008 at 1:21 pm

    Up to now what he has done is inspire, and he is doing that in spades.

    RACIST!

    j/k

  51. 51.

    ThymeZone

    February 11, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    Speaking of the campaign, it has been a marvel. He’s run down the presumptive and prohibitive favorite by outflanking her at every turn (and yes the msm has been helpful). He’s outplayed the insider’s insider. And, most remarkably, he’s run HIS campaign,and avoided the trap of letting beltway insiders pollute the clear path that he sees and show him how the “pros” do it. I look very favorably on a candidate with those kind of skills in the general election.

    Word.

    And I know a lot of people who have been won over to his side by this alone.

  52. 52.

    Dr. Squid

    February 11, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    I’d like to quote myself now about Frank Rich…

    Somerby’s going to have a field day tomorrow.

    Damn, I’m good.

  53. 53.

    Mike P

    February 11, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    Frank,
    WTF is your issue?

  54. 54.

    Jake

    February 11, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    but we view any disagreement as a horrible, horrible thing.

    No it isn’t.

  55. 55.

    wvng

    February 11, 2008 at 1:25 pm

    Oh, and John S, you may assume I’m LOL :-)

    Thanks.

  56. 56.

    Gay Veteran

    February 11, 2008 at 1:28 pm

    “PK makes good living and he also leaps to unsupported conclusions and lacks critical reasoning skills.”

    really? care to name a few? and please be specific

    “Krugman has been attacking Obama relentlessly for quite some time now.”

    Relentlessly you say? And Krugman has a full blown case of ODS? Oh lordy, that mean ole Krugman, how ever will Obama survive?

    Obama and the Obamaphiles need to toughen up. McCain is no Alan Keyes.

  57. 57.

    AkaDad

    February 11, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    Paul Krugman hates black people.

  58. 58.

    Z

    February 11, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    I am absolutely in agreement with John on this. The people I know who will vote for Obama, but not for Hillary, are all independents. Further, the ones that are the most anti-Hillary are former Repubs. All the actual Democrats I know would vote for either.

  59. 59.

    LiberalTarian

    February 11, 2008 at 1:32 pm

    Surely there are still other things in the world to talk about. Something. Anything.

  60. 60.

    ThymeZone

    February 11, 2008 at 1:33 pm

    Paul Krugman hates black people.

    And vice versa.

    Okay, I made that up.

    But it seems to fit.

  61. 61.

    lectric lady

    February 11, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    At any rate, I just don’t see this as a particularly ugly race.

    Go see Booman
    Josh Marshall
    Huffington Post
    Daily Kos

    …dripping with vile, misogynist, spewing Hillary-hate.

    And when Hillary supporters try to come to her defense, we get this

    I am so sick of these drive-bys from Clinton supporters. She is always the victim, isn’t she?

    Here’s a suggestion. Don’t go throwing any more gasoline on this fire. There are thousands of other topics to blog about. Maybe like shining more light on the upcoming McCain campaign and how,just, maybe, we can do stuff to defeat him in November.

  62. 62.

    Mr Furious

    February 11, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    John S-

    That’s why she has to recite details. Her experience is not real. Not in terms of the way she uses it against Obama anyway…She talks detailed policy because it makes her sound like she knows her shit—and she does I’m not taking that away from her. Hillary is perhaps the most thorough and prepared speaker I’ve ever listened to, but it’s hard to listen to…plus she laces her material with misrepresentations so often, I end up listening for those as opposed to what she’s actually selling.

    BTW, If Obama started the experience clock after receiving his college diploma, it would sound like a long time too.

  63. 63.

    John S.

    February 11, 2008 at 1:35 pm

    Oh lordy, that mean ole Krugman, how ever will Obama survive?

    You may add this piece of straw to the pile from your previous comment.

  64. 64.

    MBL

    February 11, 2008 at 1:37 pm

    Disclaimer: I lived in Hyde Park in Chicago for many years, and have been voting for Obama in some capacity or another for something like a decade. Take salt with this post as necessary.

    It’s simply factually inaccurate to say that Obama supporters are less likely to vote for Clinton than vice versa; several people have already pointed out that all the polling says the two camps are virtually identical in that respect. I really really really don’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton for reasons having nothing to do with her gender (she’s spent the better part of her public career portraying people with my demographics and hobbies as violent psychopaths, for starters) but if it comes down to her and any Republican, I’ll do it.

    As far as the ODS/CDS websites, I’ll take your Andrew Sullivan and raise you Tennessee Guerilla Women, a site that I used to read regularly that has become completely unreadable since Obama’s surge. Granted, they don’t get Sullivan or Krugman’s readership, but there are examples on both sides.

  65. 65.

    lectric lady

    February 11, 2008 at 1:38 pm

    and this:

    You know what I see when I think of Clinton supporters- angry women who are perennially the victim

    Wow… just … wow.

  66. 66.

    Mr Furious

    February 11, 2008 at 1:38 pm

    Josh Marshall…dripping with vile, misogynist, spewing Hillary-hate.

    You’re fucking crazy. Until recently Marshall had been accused of subtly supporting Hillary and being biased in her favor. As for the rest, I think kos has also done a good job not being negative towards any particular candidate, and perfectly clear that any eventual nominee will be vigorously supported.

    If you are talking diaries or comments, that’s a whole other issue, and one that should NOT be attributed to any of those hosts.

  67. 67.

    ThymeZone

    February 11, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    Here’s a suggestion. Don’t go throwing any more gasoline on this fire. There are thousands of other topics to blog about. Maybe like shining more light on the upcoming McCain campaign and how,just, maybe, we can do stuff to defeat him in November.

    I agree, and would like to sign up for your newsletter.

    Seriously.

  68. 68.

    John Cole

    February 11, 2008 at 1:42 pm

    and this:

    You know what I see when I think of Clinton supporters- angry women who are perennially the victim

    Wow… just … wow.

    What the hell am I supposed to think when I spent weeks, hell months, defending Hillary and giving her a shot, pointing out what I thought were legitimate bits of sexism directed at her, and then as soon as I decided I would support Obama, people came in and acted like I was the one being sexist to Hillary. Folks like, say, you, and Carol, and, well, you want me to go through the archives and find the other angry women yelling at me because I am not supporting Hillary?

    What other impression am I to get? I have done nothing to Hillary but DEFEND her despite by misgivings, and because I am not supporting her, the NOW gang comes and shits all over me. I stand by my assertion.

  69. 69.

    crw

    February 11, 2008 at 1:43 pm

    The blogosphere, being populated by young turks who tend to run their keyboards a lot more, is full of vitriol and bad faith argument. This is news?

    See also the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

    Back in the real world, only the Republican front runner is getting booed by his own base.

  70. 70.

    Billy K

    February 11, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    lectric lady Says:
    and this:

    You know what I see when I think of Clinton supporters- angry women who are perennially the victim

    Wow… just … wow.

    Hush, myiq…

  71. 71.

    Frank

    February 11, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    Mike P- You fucked up the formatting of the thread because you are too stupid to learn how to link.

    John Cole- I thought you were going to start banning idiots for this shit.

  72. 72.

    Punchy

    February 11, 2008 at 1:47 pm

    My local Democratic Club’s last meeting

    /snickers uncontrollably

    No. SA2SQ.

    OK, been waitin a LONG time on this, but I finally cant take it–what the hell does this acronym mean?

  73. 73.

    ThymeZone

    February 11, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    Simple answers to simple questions.

  74. 74.

    Mike P

    February 11, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    Frank,
    Calm down dude. I’ll fix the link next time. Jesus Christ.

  75. 75.

    Dennis - SGMM

    February 11, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    …dripping with vile, misogynist, spewing Hillary-hate.

    lectric lady: just a suggestion: drop the “misogynist” bit. Opposition to Clinton is no more automatically misogyny than opposition to Obama is automatically racism. Neither racism nor misogyny is a defining characteristic of the 2008 Democratic Party.

  76. 76.

    ChrisA

    February 11, 2008 at 1:54 pm

    I agree w/ Krugman on the cult of personality. That’s my biggest problem w/ Obama. . . it’s basically, trust me, I’ll do right.

    What I want to trust is the democratic process, which involves disagreements, healthy debate, and healthy compromises . . . this has not been possible since the Fox media/Republican Information Channel have hit the airways.

    The other side of the column is that the ‘bitterness’ of the Democratic Party debate, feeds into the basic laziness of the media. That’s one of the underlying B.S. ideas being pushed by the right-wing media: ‘ the Democrats are always divided, always bickering’.

    They’re just too f…ing lazy to go out & do some real reporting so they just spout the same shit all the time.

  77. 77.

    Mr Furious

    February 11, 2008 at 1:54 pm

    Mike P’s links worked, so what if they ain’t pretty? It’s not like he pasted the two columns into his comment. Jesus Christ is right.

  78. 78.

    Frank

    February 11, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    John- Thanks for fixing the thread.

  79. 79.

    lectric lady

    February 11, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    This spewage on the left blogs, by BOTH sides, has gotten way out of control. It’s like watching two troops of Chimpanzees whooping each other up getting ready to make war with each other. As I read your very reasonable post, my thought was OMG, the comments are going to be flaming (and of course they are).

    I am just hoping that you have not decided to join in. There are still a few blogs, like Firedoglake and Group News Blog where the hosts have decided to remain neutral (Jesse Wendel, for example), even though their commenters are not. One can choose to not read the comments, but still find thoughtful information in their posts.

    I hope your place remains in that category.

  80. 80.

    capelza

    February 11, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    Meh…Kos is a mess. I had stayed away precisely because I don’t find cannibalism fun, but venturing over there the past week…jesus fucking christ.

    I appreciate that Obama is bringing back the younger voters and that they are fired up. But some fo them over there (and to a much lesser extent) are rude little fuckers that I’d just as soon pop on the nose than engage.

    Like John, I have defended Hillary because of some of the crap I hear..and I ain’t that big a fan, so to speak. Though I disagree that sexism doesn’t play a role (as does the generational divide..which i didn’t know existed till I was informed by one gung-ho kid that I was a menopausal Hillbot who blew my chance to change the world and that I should move over and STFU. And this was months ago. It has only gotten worse over there. ) Not saying that Hillary supporters aren’t as bad sometimes, either…but the ratio is extremely loud on the Obama side.

    I’m going back to my history forums…wake me when the primaries are over.
    Though, as I said before, this year the Oregon primary might actually matter…that would be a change.

  81. 81.

    Mr Furious

    February 11, 2008 at 1:57 pm

    If Hillary runs the WhiteHouse like she runs her campaign, all her experience is truly fucking bogus…check out this crap about their finances, power structure and just general ineptitude and overconfidence.

  82. 82.

    jcricket

    February 11, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Demographics. Hardcore Obama lovers are over-represented on the Internet because of demographics. The fact that Krugman (or any of us) see more angry blog commenters spewing Clinton hate and Obama worship only means that THAT particular loudmouth has a computer instead of a regular stool at the bar down the road.

    I think this is actually true.

    In “reality” (everyone from the political bloggers to the apathetic non-voter) I think John Cole’s right – this really isn’t that venomous of a campaign.

    Sure, there’s some venom, both from Hillary and Obama. But that’s to be expected. When two candidates are running neck-and-neck and jockeying for position right now, do you expect them both to just say “My opponent’s totally right, but vote for me anyway”?

    Compared to swift-boat/John McCain’s black love child, the intramural skirmishes are nothing. And personally I think they make each candidate better prepared, and the supporters more energized.

    If we can look longer term, past the primaries, I think this race is good for the Democratic party. Especially if supporters of the eventual losing candidate can put aside their disappointment and GOTV for whomever is the nominee. .

    That will be the true test. If HRC loses, but then throws her weight and money and organization behind Obama, great. If Obama loses, but he takes his “message of hope and change” and newly energized voters and gets them to unite behind Hillary, great. But it’s up to the candidates, IMHO, to do that.

  83. 83.

    Davebo

    February 11, 2008 at 2:00 pm

    So Josh Marshall is dripping with vile, misogynist, spewing Hillary-hate?

    Err… OK, whatever you say….

  84. 84.

    capelza

    February 11, 2008 at 2:00 pm

    (and to a much lesser extent)

    That should read and to a much lesser extent Hillary supporters as well). Sigh.

  85. 85.

    Frank

    February 11, 2008 at 2:00 pm

    With a name like that your a funny guy to complain.

    John has twice posted directions on how to link here. And all anyone has to do is put in a return in the middle of the url to fix the problem.

  86. 86.

    The Other Steve

    February 11, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    This seems to be a case of Krugman in the bubble. I’m sure he’s received his share of nasty emails, because frankly he’s been spewing a lot of stupid venom at Obama in his columns.

    It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. And sadly, it seems to be a character trait of the clintons.

  87. 87.

    Billy K

    February 11, 2008 at 2:03 pm

    This spewage on the left blogs, by BOTH sides, has gotten way out of control. It’s like watching two troops of Chimpanzees whooping each other up getting ready to make war with each other.

    Way to dial it back.

    See? The MUP is working already!

  88. 88.

    Jen

    February 11, 2008 at 2:08 pm

    There are few things more tiresome than being called “misogynistic” for criticizing Hillary. It may be a boy’s club over here, but dammit I’m a girl and I’ll criticize her too.

    All that she, or anyone else, deserves, is a fair shake and a level playing field. John went out of his way to be fair to Hillary, pointing out, for example, when the media was treating her differently than they would treat someone else.

    It’s a sad, sad day when the most progressive candidate to survive the early nominating process in a dems-can’t-lose cycle is a Clinton.

    She simply isn’t more progressive than Obama.
    Cuba
    Cluster bombs

    to name a couple

  89. 89.

    The Other Steve

    February 11, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    If Hillary runs the WhiteHouse like she runs her campaign, all her experience is truly fucking bogus…check out this crap about their finances, power structure and just general ineptitude and overconfidence.

    I don’t think it’s fair to criticize Clinton for running a terrible campaign. Her’s has been no worse than say John Kerry in 2004.

    What’s different is that Obama is running a terrific campaign. Seriously, I’m just amazed at everything. The foresight, the planning, but even the emails. The emails coming from Obama are professional, personal, and pragmatic. They aren’t the typical rah-rah crap, or please send money or George Bush will eat your baby!

    Part of it appears to be that Obama brought in a group from very different backgrounds who knew what they were doing. It’s not just a whole group of Chicago machine people he’s loyal to. They’re professionals.

  90. 90.

    ThymeZone

    February 11, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    John has twice posted directions on how to link here.

    A zillion instructions over the last three years. How could it be any easier to do, anyway?

    You copy your link url into the clipboard. You highlight the text in your post want to carry the link. You click Link, and paste in the link url. Done.

    Voila, ze linque eez embedded.

    (The preview doesn’t always work. I ignore its handling of links nowadays. Just follow the instructions and trust in Jesus NMYM).

  91. 91.

    Nathan

    February 11, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    Nothing drives me crazy more than when columnists make these broad, sweeping statements about a group of people without anything more than anecdotal evidence. The numbers simply don’t support Krugman’s hypothesis.

    For example, from CBS News:

    in last Saturday’s South Carolina Democratic primary, more than three in four voters there — 77 percent – still said they would be satisfied if Hillary Clinton won their party’s nomination, while only a few percent more — 83 percent — said they would be satisfied if Barack Obama won.

    it continues:

    This tolerance of both major candidates continued with the voters in Tuesday’s Florida primary. Eighty percent of all Democratic primary voters in Florida, and 70 percent of Obama voters, would be satisfied with a Clinton nomination. Seventy-one percent of all voters, and 60 percent of Clinton voters, would be satisfied if Obama won

    Other states, I’m sure, have similar numbers attached to them.

  92. 92.

    ThymeZone

    February 11, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    Obama brought in a group from very different backgrounds who knew what they were doing.

    OMFG, imagine if this happened in government …….

  93. 93.

    John S.

    February 11, 2008 at 2:11 pm

    It’s like watching two troops of Chimpanzees whooping each other up getting ready to make war with each other.

    Which is particularly entertaining because they know how to make crude tools out of rocks and sticks.

  94. 94.

    Jake

    February 11, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    What other impression am I to get?

    1. That some people are whackjobs and arseholes.
    2. That some of said whackjobs and arseholes support Hillary.
    3. The End.

    Ceerist. If everyone’s thinking began and ended with Bush Supporter = Limpdicked Cheeto Stained War Pig Who Squeals TREASON When They Spot a Liberal, you’d be in here with Darrell.

    And you want to talk about being shat all over? I’ll see your hand full of angry women (assuming everyone who posts here is exactly who he says he is) and raise you a ruling political party an administration and waves upon waves of fRightWing Blaggers.

    And yet, I can hear someone say: I vote Republican, or even: I voted for George Bush, and not throw a conniption fit. Why is that, John?

  95. 95.

    borehole

    February 11, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    MBL–holy crap, yeah. Used to love TGW, back before they started calling me a misogynist every other sentence.

    Is there a lesser-known form of the word base “gyn” that means “careerist tool who unfailingly acquiesced to the most vile demands of an evil, illegitimate administration,” or do these people really think that Hillary’s critics are motivated by sexism? Jesus Christ, that bullshit Iran resolution ain’t exacly ancient history.

    I wish Obama had been in the Senate in ’03. Braver pols with less to lose signed off on this stupid war, so I assume he sould’ve done the same, and then this contest could be seen for what it is: two profoundly flawed individuals fighting over a job that nobody with a lick of sense would apply for.

  96. 96.

    tas

    February 11, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    lectric lady:

    “Josh Marshal [is] …dripping with vile, misogynist, spewing Hillary-hate.”

    How? When? Where? Can you point to any examples of JMM being “vile” and “misognynistic” towards Hillary? And I’m talking actual posts of his, with actual quotes of actual hate speech — no insinuations or, “Well, I think he means…”

  97. 97.

    Billy K

    February 11, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    Jake, I know you’re trying to say something, because I see you took a lot of time to press all those buttons on your keyboard. But what exactly is it?

  98. 98.

    ThymeZone

    February 11, 2008 at 2:18 pm

    dammit I’m a girl

    RuPaul couldn’t have said it better, honey.

  99. 99.

    TheFountainHead

    February 11, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    After reading this mess of a thread I have two comments:

    1. Someone taught Krugman how to be a concern troll.

    2. I don’t think this nearly as big a gender gap as it is a generational one. The women I know under the age of 30 are all for Obama. The women I know over that age are largely for Hillary. And this guy is going to put his faith in the crowd that didn’t vote for GWB twice.

  100. 100.

    lectric lady

    February 11, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    I was thinking about this exchange:
    Greg Sargent’s article at TPM

    and this response

    and this response

  101. 101.

    Gay Veteran

    February 11, 2008 at 2:22 pm

    I’m a former Edwards supporter but I will be supporting the Democratic nominee in November. Maryland’s primary is Tuesday but I will not be voting, don’t like some of the things Hillary has done and can’t vote for Obama after he threw us Gays under the bus in South Carolina (plus, after Bush, even the whiff of a cult of personality is too much to take). BUT again I will vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

    btw: anyone who thinks a race between Obama and McCain is going to be a cakewalk needs to wake the fuck up! The korporate media will turn on Obama if he wins the nomination, and the right-wing slime machine will be in overdrive.

    And lay off Krugman, he’s one of the good guys.

  102. 102.

    Jen

    February 11, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    What’s different is that Obama is running a terrific campaign.

    Ezra Klein talks about wherever Obama really organizes, he wins.

  103. 103.

    lectric lady

    February 11, 2008 at 2:26 pm

    God, I always hit ‘submit’ too soon.

    The mysogynistic part of TPM (IMHO) is the way they manage to dig up the most ugly pictures of Clinton that they can. Example is the paired pix of Shuster and her. He, gorgeous, smiling, innocent, and she looks like the meanest school-teaching nun that you ever met. Ready to give him ‘you know what.’ Pictures DO matter.

    Huffington Post does the same thing, on a regular basis.

  104. 104.

    John Cole

    February 11, 2008 at 2:26 pm

    I was thinking about this exchange:
    Greg Sargent’s article at TPM

    and this response

    and this response

    Your links are scewed up but I am familiar with the exchange- Hillary’s crew ratchets up the pressure and demands that Shuster be fired, then Hillary supporters everywhere, starting with Armando, start claiming that we can’t read the English language and that she really doesn’t want him fired.

    There is a word for that sort of finessing- Clintonian. She was clearly demanding that Shuster be fired, as Josh pointed out quite capably.

  105. 105.

    John Cole

    February 11, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    The mysogynistic part of TPM (IMHO) is the way they manage to dig up the most ugly pictures of Clinton that they can. Example is the paired pix of Shuster and her. He, gorgeous, smiling, innocent, and she looks like the meanest school-teaching nun that you ever met. Ready to give him ‘you know what.’ Pictures DO matter.

    There are no pictures on any of the links. None.

  106. 106.

    tas

    February 11, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    lectric lady, nothing of what you linked to is “dripping with vile, misogynist” hate against HIllary coming from Josh Marshall. In fact, two-thirds of your links don’t even point to something that JMM wrote. So, I’ll again ask you to point out actual posts of his, with actual quotes of actual hate speech—no insinuations or, “Well, I think he means…”. Unless you have some concrete evidence, your notions his his Hillary-hate are busted.

  107. 107.

    Jen

    February 11, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    Ah, yes, what was dripping with vile, misogynist hate was pictures that don’t exist…ho-kay.

  108. 108.

    ThymeZone

    February 11, 2008 at 2:33 pm

    He, gorgeous, smiling, innocent

    { gazes into mirror }

    Yes, yes!

  109. 109.

    libarbarian

    February 11, 2008 at 2:38 pm

    I think something needs to be made clear here- much of the venom directed at the Clintons by Obama supporters are people OUTSIDE the party. Folks like Sullivan, who, only under the rarest of circumstances (Bush being a disaster) see eye to eye with Democrats.

    I have seen VERY little venom directed at the Clintons from within the party. Hell, I spent 20 years in the GOP, and just recently became a Democrat, am supporting Obama, and have a whole load of Clinton baggage. But I will GLADLY support her over anyone in the GOP in 2008.

    On the other hand, most of the vicious anti-Obama stuff is from hacks within the party who are loyal to the Clintons. Which one is worse for the Democrats?

    I wasted 20 minutes trying to say the same basic thing.

    On one hand we have a lot of Obama-supporting Independents saying “I like Obama as an individual if not necessarily the Dem party as a whole. If he’s not the Dem candidate and if I prefer McCain to Hillary then I will vote for McCain”.

    On the other we have Democrat Hillary supporters saying “We support the Democratic party as a whole but if our candidate isn’t nominated we will purposely vote for a person we really dislike just to fuck Obama over!”.

    There is NO moral equivalence between people who are honestly voting their conscience and people who are voting against their consciences purely to spite someone who never did them any wrong.

  110. 110.

    lectric lady

    February 11, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    The pictures are no longer on the TPM site.

    Greg Sargent wrote the original piece, but Josh Marshall signed off on it.

    I think calling someone a liar when they have not lied is vile. I think the pictures he posts of her are misogynistic.

  111. 111.

    John S.

    February 11, 2008 at 2:44 pm

    I think the pictures he posts of her are misogynistic.

    So, unflattering photos posess the quality of hating women?

    That’s a fascinating piece of analysis.

  112. 112.

    Mr Furious

    February 11, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    I think the pictures he posts of her are misogynistic.

    Yes, Josh clearly should be spending more time with his airbrush…WTF?

    Or, I suppose if he put the old gauzy soft-filter on Hillary THAT would be sexist…

    Get back to us when you have a real pattern of behavior about a serious topic.

  113. 113.

    Jen

    February 11, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    the pictures he posts of her are misogynistic

    These pictures that aren’t up, they are not photoshopped or altered, they are simply unflattering pictures of Hillary Clinton? So….the way that she looks is misogynistic?

    I must say, your defense of this position has not been on par with Clarence Darrow.

  114. 114.

    Jen

    February 11, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    Before anyone says it, I am not actually John S., either.

  115. 115.

    Hypatia

    February 11, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    I agree, the campaign hasn’t been particularly ugly.

    That said, I think Krugman’s right: there has been a disconcerting acceptance of Clinton rules by Obama’s supporters, and it could come back to haunt them—as Obama will become subject to the same rules if he wins the nomination.

    I agree with the foregoing, and I would add that Obama’s fawning and submissive press may not last forever, either. Right now he’s the Teflon candidate but that could change overnight. We’ll see.

    So it’s not as though the Obama groupies are more numerous, they’re just louder. Or write more frequently in the blogospere.

    The groupies are on television, too. I watched the Friday edition of Charlie Rose, and he was interviewing Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention and a couple of other Republican talking heads. It was an odd experience. They yakked a bit about McCain, sure, but mostly they went on and on about their ObamaLove, and what a fine fellow he was and how elevated the campaign discussion would be if he were the Democratic nominee, and how if Clinton were the candidate it would be Swift Boats all over again. Land spoke happily about “Obama Republicans,” how nice it would be to have an African American president and put all this race stuff behind us, and invoked the sainted Ronnie as a uniter, not a divider (Reagan, I hope I don’t have to point out, was one of the most polarizing policitians in recent American history.)

    I have no idea what to make of all this, but it creeps me out. What is Obama going to do to make all these ‘independents’ and ‘Obama Republicans,’ happy, and what do they know that I don’t know? I hate it when Republicans mess with my head.

  116. 116.

    Mr Furious

    February 11, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    Frank Says:

    With a name like that your a funny guy to complain.

    John has twice posted directions on how to link here. And all anyone has to do is put in a return in the middle of the url to fix the problem.

    I think John had repaired the links by the time I saw them and commented. Either way, telling someone to “Get your gay retarded ass out of here” and calling for them to be banned for an HTML violation sounds a bit out of whack to me.

  117. 117.

    Billy K

    February 11, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    I think calling someone a liar when they have not lied is vile. I think the pictures he posts of her are misogynistic.

    You know, I might buy this if you said the pictures he posts are Anti-Hillary. I really don’t see how posting unflattering pictures of Mrs. Clinton (assuming he did), means Josh hates women.

    Are you really going to take it that far?

  118. 118.

    John S.

    February 11, 2008 at 2:51 pm

    Before anyone says it, I am not actually John S., either.

    Perish the thought! One of me is more than enough, and I never liked sockpuppets – even as a kid – particularly that wretched Lamb Chops.

    Although, had I formed as a girl rather than a boy in-utero, my parents were planning on naming me Jennifer.

  119. 119.

    lectric lady

    February 11, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    The pictures were on the front page all weekend. I can’t find where they are archived, but that doesn’t matter since you are all convinced they didn’t exist.

    If you have the choice of a wide variety of flattering pictures and hag pictures, why choose the hag pictures? I know why I would.

  120. 120.

    Mr Furious

    February 11, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    I think that archived or individual stories on TPM don’t get pics, but he has pics on the front page. I am a photo editor and art director by trade, and I can tell you that often it can be challenging if not impossible to find the most flattering picture possible of somebody—especially when they are speaking.

    If you are not motivated to do so, you probably won’t, and in the high-turnaround of a webblog, I’m happy TPM is spending time on the reporting rather than the photo research.

    To assume a malicious intent is likely just as paranoid on your part as it is evil and misogynistic on their’s.

  121. 121.

    tas

    February 11, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    lectric lady, both of these thoughts of yours are insinuations, which is not what I asked for. Furthermore, this kind of parsing of words by you and the rest of the Clinton-camp is, dare I say, quite Bushish — it reminds me of the head-against-wall frustrating conversations I had with conservatives who tried telling me that Bush never said “Mission Accomplished”. Do what JMM did, read the letter that Hillary sent to NBC. Especially this part:

    Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient.

    What would you draw from that? If a “half-hearted apology” or “no temporary suspension” is “sufficient” for Shuster, then what punishment do they think is suitable?

    It doesn’t matter what the Hillary campaign says about the letter now, it’s the letter itself that counts. If Hillary didn’t want Shuster fired, then — with her very words — what exactly does she want?

    In light of such a strong letter, you can’t say that JMM has “lied” about Hillary’s intentions. Furthermore, even if her intentions were mistaken, this is most certainly not an example of anything that is, in your very words, “dripping with vile, misogynist, spewing Hillary-hate.”

    I would request another example from you, but doing would be tedious. You are clearly wrong.

  122. 122.

    Jen

    February 11, 2008 at 2:54 pm

    What is Obama going to do to make all these ‘independents’ and ‘Obama Republicans,’ happy, and what do they know that I don’t know?

    Here’s the basic idea as I understand it, that it would be Reagan Democrats, but converse. The Reagan Democrats didn’t move Reagan’s policies to the left. But they liked him. They moved him. They felt good about voting for him.

    I think we can take as givens that the Republican party is in a shambles, and that Republicans are not going to fall over themselves to vote for Hillary. Obama gives them another option, a likeable and principled option. What I like about this is that rather than getting votes by triangulating, like the Clintons do, he seems to do it with charisma and keeps the principles intact.

    Obamacans

  123. 123.

    surpass

    February 11, 2008 at 2:54 pm

    For an economist who won the prestigious John Bates Clark medal (best economist under the age of 40), Paul Krugman has shown an amazing lack of rationality in his columns. It appears that he is reacting more with his emotions than with logic, anathema to any economist. A true economist would have compared the counts of so-called vitriol spewed by supporters of both candidates, controlling for a whole lot of other factors such as race and gender. Instead ,by relying on a few select instances, he is only trying to confirm a hypothesis he holds personally without taking into account facts that bely his claim. Perhaps they ought to take away his medal. As a psychologist, I study instances of irrational behavior for a living – Paul Krugman is now a prime candidate as a subject of my studies.

  124. 124.

    TheFountainHead

    February 11, 2008 at 2:54 pm

    Uhmmm, regarding the open letter Hillary sent out regarding Shuster, yes, she clearly did state that she wanted him fired, and any other reading of that is dishonest.

  125. 125.

    lectric lady

    February 11, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    How about this one, from Time?

  126. 126.

    John S.

    February 11, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    What is Obama going to do to make all these ‘independents’ and ‘Obama Republicans,’ happy, and what do they know that I don’t know?

    I don’t know about the independents, but P.J. O’Rourke and Doughy Pantload gave a glimpse on Real Time with Bill Maher this past weekend of why Republicans like him.

    They are laboring under the delusion that unlike Hillary, they will be able to push Obama around when he is elected to office. The way O’Rourke said it, he would have you believe that Obama is really a GOP Manchurian candidate.

    Uh-oh, I hope I didn’t just give a new talking point to the Hillary Fan Club…

  127. 127.

    Billy K

    February 11, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    If you have the choice of a wide variety of flattering pictures and hag pictures, why choose the hag pictures? I know why I would.

    Perhaps because you dislike the person…not necessarily the gender?

    I’m ready to slap the Troll Tag on you.

  128. 128.

    Svensker

    February 11, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    Why is putting up a not flattering picture of Hillary misogynistic? Huffpo regularly puts up pics of Cheney and Bush that make them look bad. Is Huffpo misandronistic?

    I’m sick of people — mostly women — claiming that not liking Hillary = sexism. It doesn’t. Are all Hillary supporters racist because they’re against Obama?

    The whole thing is silly and I’m tired of it. It also makes me even less likely to vote for Hillary because I can visualize all the imagined slights if she’s in the Oval Office — OMG, the president of India leaned toward Hillary when he was angry: threatening male pig! ! !

    Let’s all put on our Big Girl Panties and try to deal with some real issues. Like the fact that our president admits he tortures people and no one has done a thing about it. Or that the Senate will likely pass a telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping bill tomorrow and nobody gives a shit.

    If Hillary’s so fragile that she can’t take any criticism, then she shouldn’t be president.

  129. 129.

    jcricket

    February 11, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    There is NO moral equivalence between people who are honestly voting their conscience and people who are voting against their consciences purely to spite someone who never did them any wrong.

    I guess not, but what you’ve posted seems like a strawman/fantasy. Based on the polls others have posted, neither Obama or Hillary supporters within the Democratic party are really likely to switch to the other side just because their nominee loses.

    Some “independents” (read: Republicans fed up with Bush) will not vote Hillary if she’s the nominee.

    The two groups (Democrats who support Obama/Hillary and “independents” who support Obama) are really separate phenomena and their thoughts should be treated differently.

    I won’t shed a tear if people like Sully vote Republican again.

  130. 130.

    Jake

    February 11, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    If you have the choice of a wide variety of flattering pictures and hag pictures, why choose the hag pictures? I know why I would.

    Yep. And posting “unflattering” pics of GWB shows a deep hatred of retarded people.

    John, please say this isn’t an example of the crap that’s been winding you up. You handle JWW with grace and humor, and this person is clearly on the same narcotics.

  131. 131.

    empty

    February 11, 2008 at 3:03 pm

    NonyNony Says:

    The weird thing is, when you look at the few polls that have asked, it looks like Obama and Clinton supporters are equally happy to vote for the other candidate in the general election, about 70-75% on both sides. So it’s not as though the Obama groupies are more numerous, they’re just louder. Or write more frequently in the blogospere.

    Obama’s supporters skew younger than Clinton’s. They skew a lot younger, in fact. So they’re more likely to be not only comfortable with this whole new fangled series of tubes we call the Internets, they’re also more likely to be in college and have the time to read a lot of blogs and post huffy comments about how they’re only voting for the guy with the Magical Unity Pony and no one else.

    I’ll fifth JGabriel and NonyNony. At our caucus the Obama group was very definitely the young crowd. Their representative said she was a republican who had just signed up with the democratic party because of Obama. One of her appeals to the uncommitted was on the electability issue. Her point was that she just didn’t see how she could vote for Hillary if Hillary won the nomination and that the same was true of her parents. That worked out well for the Hillary section as most of the uncommitted were older folks and the scent of blackmail sent them over to the Hillary camp.

    So TZ, what’s your excuse? :)

  132. 132.

    lectric lady

    February 11, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    Well, here, seems to be the truth, and TPM still “stand by their guns”

    Also note how Tapper deftly turned the truth into a Clinton negative?

  133. 133.

    Jake

    February 11, 2008 at 3:09 pm

    Where’s that Troll label?

  134. 134.

    El Cruzado

    February 11, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    I religiously read Krugman and I’d say he has toned down the anti-Obama stuff lately. As a healthcare policy wonk he’s pretty frustrated at his plans (and I actually agree with him). The expected internet reaction probably got to him more than he’ll admit. He probably agrees with him more than with Hillary in other areas like foreign policy (remember he was one of the few mainstream voices against the Iraq War back in the day).

    He doesn’t talk much about W or Republicans these days, I guess because he doesn’t see the point in doing so right now. But he certainly won’t go into McCain’s camp no matter what.

    We’ll see how he’ll evolve throughout the months, but if Obama wins the nomination I don’t expect Krugman to go on a screeching rampage in his columns/blogs against him. If the expected shit-flinging brigade starts its thing against Obama, I fully expect Krugman to be in the front lines of the defense.

  135. 135.

    TheFountainHead

    February 11, 2008 at 3:15 pm

    Well, here, seems to be the truth, and TPM still “stand by their guns”

    Also note how Tapper deftly turned the truth into a Clinton negative?

    And well TPM should. If this were about a broader issue at MSNBC the letter would have said so! The telling word here is “temporary”–it gives away that the subject is Shuster and not MSNBC as a whole. This is the Clinton camp backpedaling off of a meme that they only ever wanted to use to control the news cycle anyway! It wasn’t about their offense at the comment it was about the fact that Obama was going to trounce her that weekend and any other story they could work into the cycle they were going to!

  136. 136.

    TheFountainHead

    February 11, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    Oh yeah, and once again, hilzoy nails it.

  137. 137.

    Punchy

    February 11, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    starting with Armando

    that Armando? The lawyer dude from FL who went apoplectic when someone blogged his real name? Look up “fucking asshole” in dictionary, and his pic comes up.

    Also, I’m not Jen.

  138. 138.

    lectric lady

    February 11, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    Sorry I can’t respond, TFH. I am a troll now.

    Oh, here

  139. 139.

    myiq2xu

    February 11, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    Oh gee, two posts on the same subject, and on a day when I’m too busy to stick around and play pinata.

    On the other we have Democrat Hillary supporters saying “We support the Democratic party as a whole but if our candidate isn’t nominated we will purposely vote for a person we really dislike just to fuck Obama over!”.

    Can you give some examples of this? I keep hearing about these people, but so far I’ve seen exactly one such post.

    I think the pictures he posts of her are misogynistic.

    I’m gonna surprise a few people and disagree. i don’t think Josh is a misogynist, just a Hillary hater. He intentionally posts unflattering pictures because he doesn’t like her, not women in general.

    BTW – I think Taylor Marsh still has the pictures up somewhere, but you have to find them yourself.

    Compared to being a pundit, being a whore is a decent and honorable profession.

    Gotta agree with Dennis and TZ on this one, at least as it concerns pundits in general.

    There are few things more tiresome than being called “misogynistic” for criticizing Hillary. It may be a boy’s club over here, but dammit I’m a girl and I’ll criticize her too.

    I don’t recall seeing anyone automatically equating all criticism of Hillary to misogyny, but I’ve seen plenty of Hillary critics claiming it happens. Can you show me a few examples?

    And despite everything that’s been said about me recently, no one has called me a racist for criticizing Obama either.

    Regarding the major blogs, there has been a noticable bias towards Obama, but the bloggers themselves haven’t been particularly sexist. The bloggers can support whoever they want, it’s still a free country.

    The commenters are another story. Sometimes it’s downright putrid, depending on the site and their moderation policy.

    I keep hearing that Hillary supporters are just as bad as the Obama supporters for spewing venom, but I haven’t seen it.

    I sure have felt the love though. I’ve never been subjected to as many unprovoked personal attacks as I have the last few weeks.

    Well, like I said, I’m busy today. Later!

  140. 140.

    John S.

    February 11, 2008 at 3:39 pm

    I keep hearing that Hillary supporters are just as bad as the Obama supporters for spewing venom, but I haven’t seen it.

    Ironic POTD.

  141. 141.

    Z

    February 11, 2008 at 3:47 pm

    It is the 45-50 plus women that go for Hillary. They are typically baby boomers, like she is. In general, GenXers and younger are more for Obama.

    It is not surprising that the older (boomer) crowd were unaware of the generation gap. We haven’t been screaming in the streets. It doesn’t mean we have been happy (at all) with the way the older crowd has been running things.

  142. 142.

    Davebo

    February 11, 2008 at 3:51 pm

    Well, here, seems to be the truth, and TPM still “stand by their guns”

    So we should vote for Hillary because she, and apparantly no one on her staff, can write a letter that conveys the messsage they actually want it to convey?

  143. 143.

    DougJ

    February 11, 2008 at 4:01 pm

    At any rate, I just don’t see this as a particularly ugly race. I think there has been some appliation of the clinton rules- people keep claiming Bill is injecting race and what not, and the only thing I saw that was remotely suspicious was the Jackson remark following South Carolina. Other than that and the Mark Penn bilge, this has ben a pretty clean race, I think.

    I agree completely. Ben Smith had a piece up a few weeks about a “slime gap” — that the Democratic race has been so clean that relative to the Republican one. I’m not sure this was meant to be a good thing for Democrats (nothing is a good thing for Democrats), but he made a pretty convincing case that it was true.

  144. 144.

    jenniebee

    February 11, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    (beating head against wall)…I’m going to link you to two posts from today that have already said most of what I would want to write in response to the above statement:

    The first article is a complaint that nobody thinks that Obama is strong on workable policy details and gives as evidence that he is in fact strong on policy details the fact that Obama… graduated from a law school with high name recognition. I may have missed it – did Matt make sure to tack on “just like, I went to Harvard, which guarantees for double-infinitity plus one that my thoughts on politics are spot-on, however little I may have researched them?” And we know that W is an expert on foreign policy because he went to Yale. Don’t ask questions, little people, just look at the diploma and be awed…

    Well, let’s give the man a fair shake and check out his Blueprint for Change. OK, he doesn’t like lobbyists and he’s going to “fight” to give them more hoops to jump through. Maybe this has an effect, maybe it doesn’t. Next section is health care. OK, so what’s the nitty gritty on the health care proposals?

    The Obama Plan will have the Following Features:
    …
    Affordable Premiums, Co-Pays and Deductibles.

    any details on that? Like, affordable to whom? Are the rates going to be something that somebody on the poverty line can afford, or would they be scaled by income, or what? And with a federal guarantee that everybody qualifies, what’s the federal guarantee on pre-existing conditions? Can people wait to sign up until they get sick or hurt? If so, how would we pay for this? Well? Anything to say about that?

    Affordable Premiums, Co-Pays and Deductibles.

    Nope, that’s it.

    My concerns about health care suddenly shift; now, I just want to know, under whose plan for comprehensive coverage can I obtain a valium, like right now? Because I needs it.

  145. 145.

    tas

    February 11, 2008 at 4:04 pm

    lectric lady:

    Well, here, seems to be the truth, and TPM still “stand by their guns”

    As I mentioned before, read her letter. What the Clinton campaign says about it now does not discount what she actually wrote in the letter — a fact which you don’t seem too apt to discuss.

    Since I imagine you hate Bush as much as anyone else here, let me try to frame this with a different example: You know when Bush (or any member of his administration) says one thing, but then either Bush, someone from his administration, or one of his conservative attack dogs tries playing damage control? You know… Oh, we NEVER said that Saddam had nuclear weapons!, or, We NEVER said that Iraq would be a cake walk; etc. etc. Essentially, this is the game that the Clinton campaign is playing right now. Oh, we NEVER said that Shuster should be fired!

    Like I’ve said before, read the letter. And to even give Hillary the benefit of the doubt and believe that she didn’t mean to say such with her letter, how can you honestly say that JMM is not only lying about her, but his words are — your exact description, again — “dripping with vile, misogynist, spewing Hillary-hate.”

    Your wild claims and abject refusal to even give face time to the other (more plausible) side of the story is why you’ve been labeled a troll, btw.

  146. 146.

    DougJ

    February 11, 2008 at 4:05 pm

    I think the fact that Hillary has a better health care plan is a perfectly good reason to vote for her over Obama.

    But I think that Obama’s plans are, in general, no less vague than most past candidates’, including Bill in 92. Hillary and Edwards, to their immense credit, ran campaigns very long on hard, factual policy proposals. Obama has not. But neither have any of the Republicans.

  147. 147.

    grumpy realist

    February 11, 2008 at 4:49 pm

    Hmm, as a 47-year-old female, I wonder what my support for Obama means…?

    If Hillary becomes the Democratic candidate, I will vote for her, but not with the enthusiasm that I will if Obama is the torch-bearer. I find HRC far too weasel-wordy, far to willing to triangulate an issue into non-existence, and unable to say: “I was wrong with my vote on Iraq.”

    I’m also worried (after the NC debacle) that she’s not going to be able to squelch Bill enough and he’ll be leaving footprints all over everything–WHO is it that we’re voting for? A double-headed presidency or one solitary person?

    Finally, I really, really, don’t want to go back to the Culture Wars of the 1990s…if HRC gets elected, there’s going to be a knee-jerk reaction on the part of the media and the right to refight all of it all over again. The US has enough problems with the deficit, the continued war in Iraq, the continued hollowing out of the US’s basis in science and technology, energy problems, etc., etc., and so forth. We really have to pull together, not apart. And I’m pretty convinced that the Village idiots will be having far too much fun playing their verbal mud wrestling to realize exactly how much damage they are doing to this country. Whoever is the next president will have a lot of clean-up to do.

    (On the other hand, I’m almost tempted to vote for McCain simply because if the Republicans get back into power they will finally, completely and totally trash the place. Maybe it’s not worth it trying to rebuild–let China or India take the lead while we degenerate into further financial bankrupcy, anti-intellectual sloth, and the economy of Africa. )

  148. 148.

    dslak

    February 11, 2008 at 4:53 pm

    Oh, Jesus Christ. I’ll throw out there the serious observation that homosexual men seem to have a problem with powerful women. Maybe that explains Sully’s CDS.

  149. 149.

    Pb

    February 11, 2008 at 5:09 pm

    I don’t recall seeing anyone automatically equating all criticism of Hillary to misogyny, but I’ve seen plenty of Hillary critics claiming it happens. Can you show me a few examples?

    See here and here for your talking points–if you don’t support Hillary, you hate women, even if you’re a woman, and especially if you aren’t. As for black men supporting Obama or white men who supported Edwards… obviously, they hate women, too. I can’t believe you missed this.

  150. 150.

    Hypatia

    February 11, 2008 at 5:11 pm

    Here’s the basic idea as I understand it, that it would be Reagan Democrats, but converse. The Reagan Democrats didn’t move Reagan’s policies to the left. But they liked him. They moved him. They felt good about voting for him.

    The ‘Reagan Democrats’ – and I question how many of those there actually were – could not have moved his policies to the left even if they had wanted to, but they didn’t want to – that’s why they were for Reagan in the first place. There were people fed up with the incompetence and anomie of the Carter years, but those aren’t necessarily the voters we’re talking about when we use the term.

    If Hillary’s so fragile that she can’t take any criticism, then she shouldn’t be president.

    Clinton has taken more criticism in better stride than Obama has been able to do so far. I can understand that, because he has had so little experience with it – after all, he didn’t have to deal with the press much running against the likes of Alan Keyes – and he’s never had to cope with the kind of hostility Hillary has been handling since she insisted on using her maiden name back in Arkansas in the long ago. He’s had a charmed career, no question. Perhaps it will continue so.

    Krugman is dead right about the Clinton Rules.

  151. 151.

    DougJ

    February 11, 2008 at 5:25 pm

    I’ll throw out there the serious observation that homosexual men seem to have a problem with powerful women.

    Perhaps, but Sully’s got lots of problems that aren’t typical of gay men. He always looks like a slob, for example.

  152. 152.

    buzzrd

    February 11, 2008 at 6:29 pm

    Check out Hillary’s own remarks on 60 Minutes. She has called this election “very civil”, totally be-lying Krugman’s view.

  153. 153.

    Mike Alexander

    February 11, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    I think the stuff about the Clinton rules is accurate. But we must consider the cause of the Clinton rules. In general the members of the election media are upper-class individuals who follow politics for a living. Most of them went from suburban homes to college and then to their media jobs. They have little in the way of real-life experience nor did then tend to obtain academic training any of the practical arts and sciences.

    Since they know little and have little life experience, policy doesn’t really hold their attention. Since they cover politics, which will always go on, their likelihood is unaffected what policies are pursued. Thus, they will direct their bias for superficial reasons (e.g. one of the candidates “rubs them the wrong way”).

    To the extent the favor of the media is based on shallow-minded, emotional factors, they will be like cult followers. A “cult-like” attachment to Republicans creates the Clinton rules.

    So if its Clinton against McCain, media will remain in the McCain cult and the Clinton rules will apply to Clinton and she will have an uphill battle this fall.

    But if its Obama, then our guy has proven cult-leader abilities. Here it is not so clear which cult the the media will join. Will they go with the aging straight-shooter or the hip, wave of the future black dude?

    The media may be sexist, but its not racist (racism has simply been uncool for too long). So they might choose the Obama cult *because* he is black and hip.

    Thus, I suspect that in an Obama-McCain contest, the Clinton rules may well be applied to McCain, whereas in a Clinton-McCain contest they will be applied to Clinton.

    This in fact was one of the two reasons I shifted my support from Edwards to Obama last December.

  154. 154.

    Chris Andersen

    February 11, 2008 at 8:21 pm

    I really don’t think Krugman has been all that hard with Obama. As you suggest, the Democratic race has been mild compared to the Republicans. And the criticism of Obama by Krugman has been mild compared to criticsm all the various GOP frontrunners have received from various GOP pundits.

    I happen to think Krugman has some legitimate criticism of Obama, but said criticism has hardly been so bad as to justify some of the derision some have sent Krugman’s way in response.

    He’s expressing an informed opinion about something he cares deeply about. What’s wrong with that?

  155. 155.

    myiq2xu

    February 11, 2008 at 11:26 pm

    I can’t believe you missed this.

    Two obscure websites, neither of which says anything to support the thesis that all criticism of Hillary is misogyny?

    I can’t believe I missed them either.

    I’ll make it simple – show me some comments here at Balloon Juice were someone actually claims that all criticism of Hillary is misogyny.

  156. 156.

    myiq2xu

    February 11, 2008 at 11:30 pm

    The ‘Reagan Democrats’ – and I question how many of those there actually were – could not have moved his policies to the left even if they had wanted to, but they didn’t want to – that’s why they were for Reagan in the first place. There were people fed up with the incompetence and anomie of the Carter years, but those aren’t necessarily the voters we’re talking about when we use the term.

    Reagan Democrats were basically conservative Democrats. I doubt we will find many liberal Republicans these days.

  157. 157.

    myiq2xu

    February 11, 2008 at 11:33 pm

    Check out Hillary’s own remarks on 60 Minutes. She has called this election “very civil”, totally be-lying Krugman’s view.

    I’ve seen a meme at several blogs that Kruman suggested the candidates were conducting a vicious campaign.

    He never said that, his column concerned the supporters, not the candidates.

  158. 158.

    myiq2xu

    February 11, 2008 at 11:37 pm

    The media may be sexist, but its not racist (racism has simply been uncool for too long). So they might choose the Obama cult because he is black and hip.

    Perhaps the media will push the meme’s that their employers tell them to push.

    Employers like Rupert Murdoch, Rev. Moon, Time Warner, Disney and General Electric.

  159. 159.

    Randolph Fritz

    February 12, 2008 at 12:17 am

    Policy-wise, Clinton and Obama are two peas in a pod; Obama is running slightly to the right of Clinton. And Obama is trying to compromise with the radical right and everyone who’s tried that has gotten thoroughly screwed; maybe Obama will get away with it, but it’s not a good bet. So why is Obama a successful campaigner? Charisma. Strikes me as a poor reason to pick a chief executive, m’self; only a bit better than picking someone on looks. Obama is still looking better than any of the Republicans, though.

  160. 160.

    Pb

    February 12, 2008 at 12:36 am

    myiq2xu,

    Two obscure websites

    Um. You don’t know any real Clinton supporters out there, do you? Do you live in a box?

    I’ll make it simple – show me some comments here at Balloon Juice were someone actually claims that all criticism of Hillary is misogyny.

    Have you been watching lectric lady’s posts in this thread? So far, so good…

  161. 161.

    myiq2xu

    February 12, 2008 at 1:59 am

    Have you been watching lectric lady’s posts in this thread? So far, so good…

    That’s not what she said.

    That makes three times your evidence did not say what you claimed.

    Three strikes, you’re out!

  162. 162.

    4jkb4ia

    February 12, 2008 at 2:23 am

    Mike Lux weighs in on this question at Open Left: Democratic Voters and Elites Have Different Emotion Levels About This Primary

  163. 163.

    4jkb4ia

    February 12, 2008 at 2:24 am

    Krugman has been the center of great vitriol between Hillary and Obama supporters on several blogs because healthcare is an important Democratic issue with differences between the two candidates.

  164. 164.

    Gay Veteran

    February 12, 2008 at 8:36 am

    “A true economist would have compared the counts of so-called vitriol spewed by supporters of both candidates, controlling for a whole lot of other factors such as race and gender. Instead ,by relying on a few select instances, he is only trying to confirm a hypothesis he holds personally without taking into account facts that bely his claim.”

    What a load of horseshit! How precisely is Krugman going to find out the race and gender of people posting on his blog?!?!?!?

    “As a psychologist, I study instances of irrational behavior for a living – Paul Krugman is now a prime candidate as a subject of my studies.”

    Wow, you must be the best psychoanalyst in the world with your amazing ability to analyze someone through their column in the N.Y. Times.

    “Oh, Jesus Christ. I’ll throw out there the serious observation that homosexual men seem to have a problem with powerful women. Maybe that explains Sully’s CDS.”

    Gee, thanks for smearing all Gays just because of Sully.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • hueyplong on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 1:52pm)
  • Geminid on Take the Fucking Win (Apr 15, 2024 @ 1:52pm)
  • Wapiti on Monday Morning Open Thread: The Tariff We Pay for Civilization (Apr 15, 2024 @ 1:51pm)
  • Mousebumples on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 1:51pm)
  • SiubhanDuinne on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 1:51pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!