Disappointing Krugman column

I know he doesn't like Obama. He wanted Edwards and now he's resigned himself to Hillary. And I respect that, as I respect everyone's opinions on the best presidential candidate. But today's column was just a little too dirty and undignified for him - I was a bit shocked. Read for yourself; here are my comments:

The biggest problem I had with this column was that, wouldn’t it have made more sense to demonstrate moving away from hate by examining both sides? Instead, he attacks Obama supporters (not even the candidate, but the supporters) without even speculating on Clinton’s troops. Yes, the Clintons are a dynastic political force and Obama (at least up to this point, though now I’m not so sure) was the underdog – of course the pundits are going to pounce on her. But that’s the media, not the people. Also, the comparison of Obama’s “personality cult” to George W. Bush’s was pretty insulting and a low blow for Krug. Obama is not a Republican and he's not manipulating a specific religious group in order to get elected. In fact, as far as I can see he's not going out of his way to appeal to any specific group (yes, he does have a stronger pull with young people and African-Americans - but that's partially because he is younger and he is half-African - he hasn't been actively trying to reach those groups, the way HC has with Hispanics, women, etc.). Considering the two Democratic candidates have very similar stances on most of the issues and are neck-and-neck in the race, why is Obama the only one with the "personality cult"?

Then Krugman says, “For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact. For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.”

Wouldn’t the same apply to his Obama remarks? Is he actually claiming that there is no "hero worship" in the Clinton campaign? Was it just me, or was the entire column innately hypocritical? I adore Krugman and economically/socially, we get along pretty well. But this leads me to think he’s taking this race too personally and letting it affect the quality of his work, which is a bit disappointing. I know he wants us to vote on the issues, and I agree of course, but health care is pretty much the only issue he brings up! If he truly thought Obama was unfit for the presidency, you’d think he’d prove it using more than his health care plan (because let’s face it, those plans have to make it through the House and the Senate, plus somehow integrate with the current health care system – they’re not going to look anything like their current state by the time they're enacted – plus, it’s not the most important issue to most Americans – Iraq and the economy are – but he never mentions them). I’m just disappointed that’s all – I know we’re young and idealistic, but that doesn’t mean we haven’t examined the issues and I find the insinuation offensive. Krugman’s going to need to back up his story a bit more to persuade me. And the fact that he hasn’t yet, is a BIG disappointment. I’d expect more from an intellectual, particularly an economist.


Follow-up from original post:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/on-race-cards-and-all-that/

This clarifies his position brought up in my last post and eases my mind... somewhat. I still don't think he explains fully why he believes there is a "personality cult" surrounding Obama whereas his positions are nearly identical to Hillary's. I think Krugman should have kept his criticisms of the media and his criticism of "Obama supporters" separate. I agree with him in the above-posted link, I think the media has blown a lot of the Clinton stuff out of proportion. But considering the Clintons' knowledge of the media's propensity to do so, and yesterday's announcement of Hillary's staff shake-up - it just makes her campaign look poorly run.

This troubles me though: "Folks, you’ve been played like a fiddle by people in the media who just plain hate the Clintons. They tried to take Hillary down over her clothes, her voice, her tears. When none of that worked, they invented a race war. There are some perfectly good arguments against Hillary — Iraq, the presence of people like Mark Penn, the big-money Dems in her circle. But this really is Al-Gore-says-he-invented-the-Internet stuff. And it’s deeply depressing to see so many progressives fall for it."

First of all, thanks for the patronizing tone, Krugman - that was necessary. Secondly, he has absolutely no proof that the media's portrayal of the Clintons has had an effect on the public - unless, of course, you count votes in the primaries and poll results. But why couldn't those results be reflective of Obama support based on the issues and his vision for the future? Why does Krugman assume the American people (the ones who support Obama, at least) have been duped? Why couldn't it be a result of those "perfectly good arguments" listed above? Who says progressives have fallen for the media's line? (Unless he's counting the people e-mailing him as progressives, which may or may not be true - but I'm guessing a lot of those who wrote him didn't give as much time and thought to their responses as he gave to his - which, yes, is their fault, but who is he addressing here?)

But back to the original column, two final things that just irked me:

1. "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." Proof? Please? Again, I think this is Krugman mixing up Obama supporters and the media (and who really knows who they support - they're just trying to sell papers or whatever).

2. "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." This has happened. In many forms, but most notably at the Los Angeles debate - where the two candidates not only profressed their support and admiration for each other, but refused to deny the possibility of an Obama-Clinton, Clinton-Obama ticket. I think this whole "venom" thing is a cheap shot at Obama supporters, when Krugman's real problem is with the media's coverage of the race. That, and his potential disappointment at picking the loser...twice.