The only place in the United States where Barack Obama had close to the name recognition of Hillary Clinton going into this thing was in Illinois. He won his election to the US Senate against a weak Republican by a record for senatorial elections. He had served two four year terms in the Illinois Senate and run for the House of Representatives. He's got 70% approval ratings. And he won the Illinois primary by a wider margin than Illinois native Hillary Clinton won New York by.

That's no cult of personality. That's the people that know him best, in a state that matches the demographics of the country most closely, vouching that he's done an excellent job and they want him as their president over "Ms. Inevitable."

...make such incoherent arguments. I have read two of the guy's books and find him to be quite dead on a lot of the time. He must owe the Clinton crew some favors. I am an ardent Obama supporter who is very anti-Clinton because:

1. She voted for the war.

2. She is despised outside of (and increasingly within) the Democratic Party.

3. She would very like lose to McCain.

4. She has run for president, knowing how divisive she is, and knowing that she would have a much easier path to the nomination (thanks to Bill's establishment connections) than to the White House.

It has nothing to do with a personality cult or anything like that.

Thank God it is looking likely that Obama will beat this egomaniac. If Hillary got the nomination, I would vote for only with the greatest sadness, knowing it was probably hopeless for her, but that at least if by some miracle she won, she would be less insane and appoint better judges than McCain.

I am an Obama supporter (converted from Edwards). I also love Hillary Clinton and wish she hadn't decided to run. Another age (four yrs, eight yrs, whatever) of having a president who is so widely hated (regardless of how unjustified it is) just feels intolerable.

I yearn for a president who really has a chance of drawing Republicans and Democrats together to discuss and focus on what is best for America (I believe Edwards was the best hope). Clinton, as she did when she was acting vice president (oops) had to fight tooth and nail for every point she made, and ultimately couldn't get bipartisan support. I'm tired unto death of that fight. Did I appreciate her? Yes, you betcha. Did I support her? Completely. Do I wish she could have every little thing her heart desires? Yes. She's awesome.

But Clinton winning the primaries, is just Clinton getting the nod from Democrats. We've seen a very small turnout in the Republican primaries ... but mark this well! IF Clinton gets the nomination, you will see record numbers of disgusted, furious, venom-filled Clinton haters voting for McCain during the election. I want Republicans tromped at the polls. I am sick of them, in ways my moderate little heart never considered in its previous 62 years of beating.

Krugman, you need to wake up. We are exhausted from trying to fight the Republican machine, and you want us to support someone who mainly gives it more steam. You might as well just admit that you want McCain to win.

Look, Matt Gonzales wasn't some nutty liberal. He had some smart, straightforward plans about mixed-use outer neighborhood creation, public/private developments around new rail ines, etc. His Transbay redevelopment plan was very interdisplinary and would have been good for developers and middle income familiies. All good stuff. You see, his views and ideas were pretty resaonable, but if you went to a Gonzales rally or saw the home-made signs unfairly bashing Newsome, you'd think he was a nutty liberal. Obama is in another league altogether -- I get it. But the Gonzales campign is, at least, a cautionary tale.

I'm an Obama supporter - proud of it. As such I realize that I have to represent the man and his ideas to some degree.

He lost me back when he used a radio ad than not he, but a friend of his several states away sort of heard once in Iowa as the basis for an attack column on Obama.

I've deleted my bookmark to his column. Maybe it'll go back after the convention if he gets it together.

I understand where Krugman is coming from, though I think fingers could be pointed in both directions. I've seen rabidity coming from both sides, and that's sad.

What is really at stake this year is whether or not the Democrats take back the White House. Whether you support Hillary or Barack, one of them MUST get in. The next President will undoubtedly appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice. John Paul Stevens will be 88 years old in April. Supreme Court decisions can effect many generations. Look how long it took to get the Jim Crow laws over-turned. They were in effect from 1876 to 1965! A Republican president will give us another Alito or Roberts. Deomcrats simply cannot afford the Supreme Court to move any further to the right.

While I would have preferred to see Paul Krugman address rabidity in general, rather than showing his own preference for Hillary, I think all voters who want a Democrat in the White House will take heed not to damage a Democratic candidate needlessly, and will plan on uniting behind whoever the eventual candidate is.

I was part of the cult of Howard Dean, another candidate who attracted too many young whippersnappers and independents to be taken seriously, as opposed to the calm, serious, reasonable, foresighted supporters who supported Kerry. On top of that, Dean was angry and was once heard to scream, which made him a fascist, and me a fascist sheep. Kerry supporters were so right about how unelectable Dean would have been. Thank goodness Kerry (whom I fully supported after he won the nom) saved me from myself.

I don't know who Krugman has been talking to or what websites he's been reading, but on Salon it's very clear that Clinton's supporters are no less vitriolic then Obama's. I personally think more so, but then again maybe pro-Clinton vitriol is more obvious to me because I am supporting her opponent.

Regardless, I don't expect that Salon readers represent the majority of Americans, nor of voters, nor even of Democratic voters. So unless Krugman is really suggesting that at least half of all Democratic voters are unwitting slaves to a cult of personality, he needs to rethink his blanket statement.

I agree with Krugman on most things, but being a brilliant economist does not make him all-knowing on politics. I happen to agree with him that Clinton's health care plan is superior to Obama's, and it is one thing I have seriously considered in deciding whom to support. But it is not the only thing, nor necessarily the most important thing. Nor is charisma -- though it would be foolish to discount charisma as factor, especially after Kerry, and also after Gore (whom I love cultishly).

The Rebecca Traister article from a week ago expressing unsureness about who to vote for garnered a lot of sympathy from like-minded readers, proving that a lot of us really do like things both candidates have to offer, and most of us will likely end up supporting whoever the Dem candidate ends up being, as we always do.

I would also point out that in an exit poll after the Louisiana primary, 50% of Obama voters in Louisiana said they would be unsatisfied if Clinton won the nomination, whereas 66% of Clinton supporters said they would be dissatisfied if Obama won it. Based on that, it's not fair to say that more Obama supporters are more blindly devoted than Clinton supporters.

But the idea that it is a bad thing to feel inspired and passionate about a political candidate, and that somehow equates to Bush-worship or to fascism... jeez. I'm a thirty-something grad student in the humanities with a boatload of debt and even I'm not that cynical.