Letters to the Editor
-
The irony ....
is that Paul Krugman's column is more divisive than either candidate (lately) or their supporters.
I'm an Obama supporter. My initial reaction to this column was defensiveness -- I face scrunched and I mouthed the words "oh please." the temptation is to go off on a litany of all the reasons this column is wrong and stupid.
Which just distills the point: do we really need to get in a pissing match over who's supporters are meaner? I mean, really? Is that good for democratic partisanship?
The candidates are setting a good tone right now. And we have what could be a long slog ahead -- one that could be good for the democrats, if it highlights our issues and the excitement over our candidates. But it will be bad for the democrats if we start sniping at each other. Especially over something so stupid and subjective as who's meaner. Thanks Paul.
-
I think everyone should just stop pointing fingers.
I am a huge Krugman fan on economic issues, but I'm not sure he always calls the political issues right. And to accuse one side of more finger-pointing seems ludicrous to me: Hey, who's been pointing fingers here? Why, it's [pointing finger] YOU PEOPLE!
But, regardless of one's allegiances, I think it's appropriate to ask both candidates for a strong statement that they will support each other so WE can win. Anyone who believes in ending the war anytime in the next ten years, in keeping reproductive choices open for everyone, and in making one final, desperate attempt to lessen the effects of the global climate crisis needs to be voting for a Democrat this year. I don't want to see the party self-destruct in this all-important election, especially over two candidates who, policy-wise, are virtually identical.
-
Cutting off erroneous memes at the knees
Even Michelle Obama said she would have to consider voting for Clinton if she were the nominee.
No, that's not what she said. She said she would have to think about working to support Clinton, not voting for her. Look it up on the War Room for Feb. 4.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/02/04/michelle_obama/?calendar=200801
You may not like her answer, but that doesn't give you the right to distort it into something very different.
-
wow, one more way Barak is like RFK
I seem to remember that Bobby Kennedy's supporters were also a lot of pushy, arrogant types that backed him with the same messianic zeal -- primarily due to his anti-war stance(in reality,was a lot more ambiguous than Obama's record on Iraq).
I also remember they failed to rally around Humphrey at the disasterous 68 Chicago convention, or during the election -- with the result that Nixon squeaked in, and the Vietnam War went on about 5 years longer than it had to.
Heck, you can even start to draw Hillary -- Humphrey parallels -- the 'establishment' candidate who's 'entitled' to the naomination, a record of early war support the candidate refuses to repudiate, etc., etc.
-
Humphrey and McGovern agreed on a lot too
The anti-war constituency in the Democratic Party is fairly strong, and it has certainly helped to boost Obama.
Unfortunately, that's a loser in the general election. McCain will be promising "victory." Obama will be trying to talk himself back on his anti-war position. It won't be pretty.
-
Krugman critique
Since Krugman usually does not sound as half-baked as he did in today's Times, it may be that his biased remarks are factually correct: Perhaps he personally does see more venom from Obama supporters than from his own camp. This may have distorted his ability to reason.
If he were to calmly read his own words, he may see some bile, if not actual venom. Those of us who prefer Obama's policies and his economic and national security advisors to Clinton's do not react well to being called venomous cult members. We think it is actually possible that we have the better candidate and the better reasoning.
One thing I can guarantee, is that none of us will be persuaded to change our views by a column such as the one that appeared today.
-
Dear Ethel M...
Arrogance, they name is Hillary. The Clintonista seem stunned that anyone would dare to challenge her victory lap to the nomination.
Maybe arrogance is there, but at the Obama rally I attended in Virginia, what I saw...for the first time in twenty years in campaign politics...was unbriddled enthusiam and hope. It was an excitment that is rare, an excitement that things can be different, better. Yes, it may have been naive as well, but it wasn't the cycnical "Trust me, I'll say anything to get elected but you should hope that I share your core beliefs" that I get from HRC.
BTW...true arrogance is claiming "experience" when it really doesn't exist...everytime I hear the "experience" argument, I wonder: what decisions did she make? What programs did she run? Oh, wait, she was an advisor to her husband. Hmmm...that alone may say something about arrogance and what is wrong with Washington.
-
Interesting reaction
Wow ... interesting to see how people who usually would be 100% behind Krugman suddenly turn on him when he says something they disagree with.
You can be sure that your negative comments about Krugman's credibility will be cited by rightwinger's for years to come in their efforts to discredit him.
For the record I am pro-Clinton and pro-Obama. I think Obama would probably be a better President, I'm not sure who is more "electable" (these things are hard to predict so far out), and am hoping for a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket.
But I think Krugman's point is on target. Yes, it is true that at the grass roots you can find irrational supporters on both sides. And it is also true that the elite in both campaigns have taken unfair pot shots at the other. However, the Obama campaign's elites have taken to embracing the right winger's anti-Clinton distortions on issues such as the LBJ comment, and *that* is the problem Krugman mentions.
For, as of now, the right wing has been relatively mild about Obama (the notable exception being the email and whisper campaign about Obama being a secret Muslim) while being their usual venomous selves about Clinton. In fact, many right wingers have been positively complementary about Obama. This won't last, of course. If Obama gets the nod as either the President or VP nominee he'll get the full brunt of the right wing Swift Boat machine.
IMHO (and in Krugman's too), it is important that Obama's close friends not feed the right wing attack machine against Clinton, but instead create a united front by repudiating such attacks.