Krugman is losing it.

I HATE YOUR FACE!!!

OBAMA 08!

Sadly he provides ZERO objective evidence to underscore any of his points. So, it's basically a venomous rant against Obama supporters (who I assume have been taking him to task in his email and blog comments). Shocking....

Has he been promised a position in fantasy Clinton Administration III?

Not offering any counterpoints (Hillary and her strategists insistence, every day that "Michigan has spoken and its delegates should be seated"), the guy clearly has lost all objectivity.

He needs a sabbatical.

Krugman needs to take his medication, put down the talking points Hillary faxed him and STFU.

Note that he provides no examples of this "venom" coming from Obama supporters.

I'm guessing he's referring to blog comments. Bob Herbert got some heat for doing the same, but at least bothered to cite those comments and provide a specifice example.

This has always been Krugman's biggest flaw. He develops conclusions and accusations without providing any evidence to back it up.

Paul has a lot of economic expertise, but when it comes to politics, I don't think he knows what he's talking about half the time.

I'll comment on it.

Its bullshit. Simple.

I saw Obama speak 3 years ago and thought he was in danger of talking over everybody's head. but at the same time he could be talking about the philosophical tenants of the constitution and still have everyone in the room - young and old - completely captivated. Obama talks about this in his excellent piece on 60 minutes. He is a very substantive and deep thinker.

I don't know what Krugman's deal is. There has been shit said on both sides.

The last part of Krugman's column:

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.

At the Jefferson-Jackson debate on Saturday night, Obama forcefully stated that the Democratic party would be united in November, regardless of the candidate. So either Krugman doesn't get cable or he's just being a douche. Hmmmmm.

As for the Clinton punditry rules issue? Yes, there does seem to be a willingness to believe that the Clinton campaign orchestrated, in some way, the "attacks" on Obama...I'm not a pundit and initially thought, in the case of Obama, that there were genuine slip-ups that weren't meant to be malignant. However, I became disillusioned about the tone of the Clinton campaign when all these incidents kept accidentally occurring. Maybe that means I'm not being skeptical enough for Mr. Krugman. I don't know.

I think it would be fair to provide a link to some response to prof. Krugman's article, this one for example:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/11/krugman-claims-obama-supp_n_85999.html

One little remark: Frank Rich's anti-Hillary column received 718 comments from readers, Krugman's anti-Obama column received NO comments.

Why? Because it is NOT possible to comment on Krugman's article.

Seriously, does every single poster here not get it? Look at what YOU have been saying. One of you called Paul Krugman a douche for having a different political opinion than you. Another you claimed to have looked in the soul of Paul Krugman and apparently was not a fan of what you saw... insanity. This is why someone as respected and intelligent as Krugman would say this. Look at Chris Matthews, look at Frank Rich, everyone has just gone totally overboard.

I don't mind Obama, he'll be a good president some day, I just don't think he's ready yet. However, if he's nominated I will certainly vote for him because I prefer liberal principles over individual people. I have seen things said on these here internets about the Clintons that are lies, unsupported assertions and downright meanness from people in this party. I may not mind Obama and a lot of people who support him I also respect, but there is a fringe group that is disturbing and somewhat despicable and Paul Krugman has every right to call them out on it.

http://www.airingofthegrievances.blogspot.com

I'm glad I don't have to work to make people notice he is nothing but a shameless pathetic tool, a Clinton-lapdog. He pretty much lays it all out there.

I lost all respect for him quite a while ago. Such an asshole.

Krugman started with insinuating that Obama supporters are naive. This latest is just pathetic.

All Democrats and progressives are aware how the media operates and manipulates regardless who they support. None of us reasonable people want to see unfair media bias. Nor do we want to see manipulation of the media by the candidates. Of course, there are plenty of unreasonable supporters on both sides that want to win at any cost. On these last two counts it sure seems like Hillary has the edge.

I would suggest there are as many uninformed Clinton supporters who like the name Clinton and Hillary's tough-talk as there are Obama supporters who like to hear him talk about Hope and Change.

Many of us have determined that his stance on any number of issues makes him the better candidate. And, we might even like his health care plan better.

Krugman ignores all the specifics that are readily available and make these general and ridiculous statements. Why, because his ego is so caught up in his views about mandates and his wanting another President Clinton. I wish he would just stick to cheerleading, but he's part of the campaign now and they are desperate. I fully expect more ugliness from their side, hopefully I'm wrong.

I would agree that Krugman is on the receiving end of a lot of venom. Just read this thread. As the most prominent and strident Obama critic, he's become the bete noir of angry Obama supporters. I agree with Greg D (as usual) that people should tone down their character attacks. Otherwise, they're doing exactly what Krugman accuses them of.

That said, I wish that he would have perspective enough to realize that his inbox is not a representative sample. There's plenty of venom to go around on all sides, as is quite apparent at TPM. He gets the bulk of the rabid Obama response, but that entails neither that most Obama supporters are rabid nor that most of the rabid Democrats are Obama supporters.

I have emailed Mr. Krugman links to www.taylormarsh.com and www.hillaryis44.com

If he wants to see venom...

It's a sad day at the NYTImes columnist page when both David Brooks and Bill Kristol offer better analysis and opinions than Krugman. He is as bitter as the Hillary campaign!
Krugman knows exactly what he is doing: he is trying to reinject sexism and media bias back into the news.

So, it is unnamed Obama supporters who supposedly applaud "Clinton Rules" that are the problem? Krugman is in his usual shill form. He fits in well at the NYTimes.
It is funny how he can take issue with unnamed supporters and say nothing about things Hillary's campaign has done to warrant the ill will that let's certain people applaud the media raking her over the coals. Why are the Clintons claiming her recent losses as a "proud moment for blacks"?
Its called Clinton Rules because they created them when they started their no-holds barred political tactics back in Arkansas. Pointing fingers at the media over mistakes like the pimp incident are totally hypocritical. I still hear nothing about the Gandhi gas station remarks.

It's unfortunate that Mr. Krugman has tried to link the Obama campaign with the comments made by David Shuster.

I think he's referring to Oprah. She is really spewing rabid venom. Even more hateful than those Will.I.Am video participants.

But here's the real point: When it comes to the Clintons, many pundits have simply stopped requiring themselves to adhere to the most basic evidentiary standards. It has become acceptable, even normal, to say whatever the hell you want about the Clintons, and if you insist on anything approaching real evidence, you're just a party-pooper. The "Clinton rules" governing punditry about them are that there are no rules. Yep -- Krugman was talking about his own colleagues.

These people are not necessarily supporters of the Obama campaign. They will turn on him in a heart beat. Just like you they make they living by the word.

If Krugman is so touchy about email, he should find another job. Clearly being a NYT pundit is right in the line of fire on hot button issues. I thought he knew that. Getting all pissy about it is foolish.

I think he also comes off as a little intolerant of dissent. People criticized his transparent bias for HRC, and he flips out. I think they have just as much right to their views, without being slandered as rightwingers or mindless or whatever.

And if Krugman truly wants to see venom, he should visit Oprah's message boards, where angry Hillary supporters have been flaming away for weeks about "OSAMA IS A MUSLIM" and "OPRAH IS A TRAITOR" ...

http://www.oprah.com/community/community/world/news?view=discussions

Krugman: "Blah blah blah, blah blah Hillary good blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah Obama bad blah blah, blah blah blah."

OK, read the Frank Rich column. I agree with Greg Sargent that Rich went too far in his accusations with too little evidence. There is some truth to Krugman's notion of "Clinton rules". That said, I think the campaign bears some responsibility for the way the media responds to them. First, Hillary Clinton positions herself as fighter who will do what it takes to win the election. It's not a big jump from there to the expectation that she will do whatever it takes to win the election (and the primary). Second, Penn, Bill, and others, from calculation or foolishness, pushed the envelope. Why they would do that when people are already ready to hit them for underhanded tactics? In other words, the "Clinton rules" are an overreaction, but they're not without foundation.

I voted for Obama.

And Krugman has a point.

Bill Clinton in particular has taken some digs. Obama has taken some digs. But, particularly on camera, the candidates (and that former President spouse) have behaved quite well.

Among supporters, on the other hand, there are an awful lot of people who seem to embrace Obama without question and think those who support Hillary are to be derided, ridiculed or belittled. Who think any argument that cuts Hillary's way is to be avoided.

We're about to enter a general election. Obama will likely, but not definitely, be the standard bearer. It's time to be realizing that we're all in this together, and that Hillary has fought a good fight for a lot of years, and remains one of our greatest assets in the Senate.

Well, as a long-time admirer and attentive reader of Paul Krugman's popular writings (unfortunately I'm not educated enough to understand his work in economics), what amuses me most is the convergence of Obama and Bush cults as related to Krugman. As a mental exercise, go through most of the comments in this thread and substitute Bush for Obama - presto, you get CW circa 2000-2003, sometimes up to direct quotations (inadvertent of course). Remember that Brad DeLong has long ago acknowledged Paul Krugman as the Grand Heresyarch and Universal Supreme Commander of the Ancient and Hermetic Order Of The Shrill. Remember also that Krugman has been very lonely in his shrillness back around 2000. Now we shrills are legion, and Krugman is still the Supreme Commander.

This op-ed was embarrassingly dumb. Obviously there is venom flying around, and Krugman is backing Hillary, of course he's going to see more from Obama backers. But he should check out Hillaryis44.org and see what Hillary supporters really think. It ain't pretty.

One of the funniest things I saw today was the Krugman post at Taylor Marsh's site. You can't write comedy like that.

Well, I say phooey to the conclusions drawn by Krugman.

There are zealous supporters for both candidates. I have heard plenty of ridiculous, irrational, unsupported vitriol from both camps. Trying to quantify the amount of "venom" each side is responsible for seems unlikely, if not impossible.

What offends me about Krugman's statements is his generalization of the group "Obama supporters," lumping them all together, and concluding that they are responsible for a disproportionate share of ill will, and that they resemble cult followers. That's terribly insulting and unfair to the many fair-minded and civil Obama supporters.

Here's what conscientious, well-intentioned supporters of EACH camp should strive to do: (1) try to avoid generalizing the supporters of the competition, lumping them all together, and insulting the entire group; (2) avoid engaging with anyone who makes overtly hostile statements about your candidate and supporters--it needlessly escalates hostility on both sides; and (3) try to remember to empathize with people who support the competition. Their desire to see their candidate win is likely as strong or even stronger than yours.

Let's say Krugman's right that there are Clinton rules. His implication is that this is just what Republicans and the media do, and it will all be turned on Obama if he's nominated.

I agree with the first point and disagree with the second. The Clinton's have, to an extent, provoked perceptions of them. First, as I mentioned above, Hillary Clinton positions herself as fighter who will do what it takes to win the election. It's not that big jump from there to the expectation that she will do whatever it takes to win the election. Second, from the early days of Bill's first war room, it's been clear that the Clintons run very strategic and disciplined campaigns, so it's not crazy to take offhand remarks as calculated political attacks. Third, a number of Clinton people, from either calculation or foolishness, pushed the envelope. Penn's drug comment and Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment may not have been intentional race baiting, but given that people are already prepared to view the Clinton campaign as politically exploitative (and since Bill had already received flack about the race issue), you would have thought that they would have showed better judgment.

It's not that the Clinton rules are justified nor that people who employ them are innocent, but there is a sense in which the Clinton's have brought this upon themselves in a way that Obama, so far, has studiously avoided. We Democrats can't help ourselves much by whining about Republican tactics or media unfairness, but we can elect a candidate who is better able to avoid provoking such responses, which Obama has thus far been able to do.

"Re-evaluate everything you've thought all these years, so that Obama is right."

I'm making my choice based on Hillary being wrong.

Maybe the problem is that TalkLeft, MyDD, Taylor Marsh and Hillaryis44 are Hillary-loving, Barack-bashing communities, whereas The Times, TPM, WaPo, etc., are supposed to be open forums. Is there a Taylor Marsh equiv for Barack? God, I hope not!

In terms of columnists, I guess they have to stick to journalistic standards, but they are opining. If they don't trust the Clintons, if they see patterns of deception and manipulation, they should call it as they see it. Let's see what the market will bear.

For a good take on the Krugman piece and some excerpts from Rich pieces take a look at Bob Somerby's post today. He has been howling for years on the "Clinton Rules" and a turn through his archives will give you even more examples. One of his biggest gripes is that those such as Krugman, who are stating the truth about the ugly bias of the media and others, don't name names. Somerby has no such qualms.

By the way, I did the Google search too and found 555,000 hits for Clinton devil and 509,000 for Hillary b____.

I really think that krugman has lost it. I thought that months ago. Total loser and no credibility like his candidates the clintons.

I appreciate the poster Greg for his level views. I am fairly new to these blogs and posts, but since I have been reading I am amazed. I have yet to find one that is totally Obama bashing like some I have found with such hatred towards the Clintons. I am not saying they are not out there, I really don't care to read those either. As far as this article about Obama supporters spewing venom and acting like a cult, I offer this article from Media Matters. These writers are not fanatics for one candidate or the other as far as i know. Some people need to learn to be more mature and humble on here

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802080014?f=h_latest

Well, someone is keeping a watch on Krugman ... and it's not very pretty.

Krugman is demonstrating exactly what's wrong with the "liberal establishment" which sometimes behaves as badly as the "conservative establishment" and frankly isn't all that liberal or progressive. I think what Krugman's really afraid of is that his supporters on the left figure out he's actually a bit of a wolf in sheep's clothing, and far more of a laissez faire, Wall Street Democrat, free market type, than any sort of progressive.

When one looks at Krugman's actual policy recommendations and record, where's the progressivism? Sure, he gives Bush a much deserved hard time. But then he turns around and endorses Clintonian, 3rd Way, DLC, type economic policies, which are really just lifted straight from Reaganomics and Wall Street, with a little social liberal tokenism.

Keep in mind Krugman was also a big ENRON booster, and fully supported deregulation of energy markets, and later took a $45K paycheck for "consulting" from ENRON. Krugman was also a major NAFTA booster, for Bill Clinton, and helped convince the left that it would be a net positive for working people, as opposed to large corporate interests. There's a long list of Krugman backing deregulation and espousing laissez faire ideology.

What's Krugman's beef with Obama anyways?

1) Obama's not a Clinton, and Krugman has all his chits invested in the Clintons, and has since the 90's, when he was almost given a post in the Clinton admin, but was deemed to be more valuable remaining an "independent" editorialist.

2) Obama prefers to emphasize lowering HCI costs to make it affordable to more Americans, and allow time for government plans (medicare/medicaid) to become competative and popular brands via opt-ins. While Krugman, Hillary, (and a lot of "liberal" establishments types) beileve government should mandate HCI for adults from day one. Which was one of the major problems with "Hillary Care" in 1992, which killed HCI reform for 16 years. Also, mandates have been passed in Mass with disastrous results, a HCI costs have actually increased due to captive consumers, and tens of thousands of waivers have been issued, meaning it's absolutly not resulting in "universal care." It's also been a huge politcal disaster and really soured people on HCI reform. Again, same problems as Hillary Care in the 90s.

That's what's wrong with the establishment on both sides. Too much ideology, inbreeding, and incompetence. Too few real solutions.

"Evidence of "venom" is all around us at TPM."

Calm down. This is the internet. The internet is full of venom. Nothing personal.

If that's what Krugman meant, he should have said so. There is a huge difference between, say reallife Bob Kerrey chattering about "secular madrasses", and some blog postings or rude emails.

Hm. I had to erase some earlier drafts of this post. A case of needing to write it out but not posting it. In the end, all I have to say is this:

Mr. Krugman makes an assertion without any supporting evidence or hard numbers which is quite unbecoming an economist.

I have no doubt that most of the venom he has received through his e-mail has been from Obama supporters, but that is hardly substantive evidence of a more general trend since Mr. Krugman has been quite critical of Obama and would therefore prompt such a response.

My personal anecdote is the exact opposite: most of the intelligent and intellectually honest posters here on TPME seem to be Obama supporters.

The other observation I could make is that Clinton supporters are by far more likely to just recite talking points instead of engaging in analysis or, indeed, a discussion.

The simple truth, though, is that these are just anecdotes coloured by our respective biases. There are a whole lot of idiots on both sides.

If we do in fact want to scientifically measure the ratio of venom, I am certain there are statisticians just biting at the chomp for the opportunity.

Obama supporters are asking where is the venom. It's right here in this website and at Daily Kos. I expect Republicans to lie about the Clintons. However, I used to believe liberals were rational people until the Obama supporters go a hold on this web site. One thing as evidence of policy differences that he cites is that Senator Obama does not require mandates for universal healthcare. He is absolutely correct.
So why do many liberals support someone who won't get us to universal haelthcare? Because of Hillary hatred. I have never seen such vile crap thrown at any one like has been thrown at the Clintons first by the Republicans (no surprise), but by so called progressives. Hillary may not be the nominee, but like many Obama supporters, I will have to consider not voting for him for the vile campaign of lies and smears that he and his supporters have thrown at the Clintons. Many Obama supporters have said they would NEVER vote for Hillary if she were the nominee. That works two ways!

My personal anecdote is the exact opposite: most of the intelligent and intellectually honest posters here on TPME seem to be Obama supporters.

If you run a Red Sox fan site, who are you going to attract? Red Sox fans of all kinds, thoughtful and assholish, and Yankees fans spoiling for a fight. Does that prove that Red Sox fans are better than Yankee fans, or does it prove something about the environment of the site?

Mr Flip your whig,

If you call many of the posts by Obama supportes intelligent and honest, then you have a definition of intelligence and honesty that is at variance with mine.

This is not about baseball, it is about the future of our country. What has Obama changed? Oh he talks about it, but in comparison to Senator Clinton (yes she has been around longer). What changes has he made and what will he do on day one, complain that the Republicans are thawrting his agenda? That's what Republicans do and he is NOT READY for it.

Pablo,

Hillary did not ruin Healthcare. Many people who are Obama suppoters today sat on their hands and did not do ANY grassroots work to pass universal healthcare. Press bias against the Clintons is a fact, not an excuse. Can't you read. Off course it's not biased to you because you believe the lies in the first place. No, the Clinton's did not get ugly. Statements of fact that were twisted to firm up Obamas support in the black community is the Obama campaign going ugly, not the Clinton's.

Alan,

Many people who are Clinton supporters sat on thier hands and did not do ANY grassroots work to pass universal healthcare. Why bother, since Hillary knew it all and was going to do it all for us? The fact is that she took too long, was too secretive, and thought she knew all the answers and wouldn't listen to anyone else (her current meme about listening to people is a crock!) She blew it. And they both blew the Congress. Election Day '94 was one of the most depressing nights of my life.

Like most other people here, you're a partisan and you see only what you want to see. Yeah, I can read. I've been reading about the Clinton's for 20 years. I can separate the truth from the bullshit after all this time. If you don't want to believe that the Clinton's will do anything to win, then don't - but it's pretty apparent to this unbiased eye:)

Paul

As someone who was a small-time volunteer (phone-banking, etc. for Bill Clinton in 1992, I also did my "fair share of grassroots work to pass universal health-care" once he took office. Hopes were high for significant health-care reform and they were dashed by what happened in Washington, not what happened at the grassroots. As someone who reads voraciously, I spent several quite a bit of time afterwards trying to research why the Clintons failed so miserably to achieve the goal that, to my mind, surpassed all others when Bill Clinton ran for president: making health care more affordable and available to all. In the end, yes, the insurance industry pumped huge amounts of money and efforts into stopping the Clintons' attempt at meaningful reform. But from every account by insiders that I have read of what transpired back in 1993, Hillary Clinton definitely shoulders a huge portion of the blame.

So, today, when some see her experience as a bonus, I point to her health care fiasco as the main reason that I do not support her candidacy in the primaries.

In addition, I have been home sick with the flu for almost two weeks and have spent an embarassing amount of time surfing the political blogs as well as Clinton and Obama campaign sites. I haven't kept any official tally, but I see no evidence that the Obama supporters' vitriol is worse than that of Clintons' supporters. I am also dismayed that Paul Krugman is showing what I consider to be a shockingly intellectually dishonest side of himself that I truly never imagined existed.

Since I have decided to support Obama, this former investigative reporter finds it more than a little amusing that I am now officially a member of a cult. If you knew journalists like I know journalists, my tribe can rightly be called many things, but "optimists donning rose-colored glasses" is not one of them.

Alan Dem,

You said that

What makes me believe mandates will get us there is that every modern country has universal healthcvare but us. And they are required to have it.

Your argument is unfortunately completely incorrect. Most modern countries have single-payer healthcare. That means that the government pays for it, and in many cases it also means that the government provides the medical services itself. This has nothing to do with Clinton's current plan which is just force-purchased insurance. Two completely different things.

Both Obama and Clinton are on record saying that the eventual goal for the progressives is single-payer. The plans given are transitionary.

I do not think that a mandate is politically as feasible as a non-mandatory program in the immediate future. If you disagree, I would like to hear a counterargument.

the comments to the effect that TPM is Obama-biased are asinine. Sargent is one of the more read bloggers actively supporting Hillary, and Josh Marshall himself has allowed he is an admittedly less strident Hillary supporter as well. Kleefield is admirably neutral.

however, the very fact that it is a liberal online blog/news site makes it a magnet for Obama supporters, who are (generally speaking) more internet-accustomed and more vocal or enthusiastic in their support than Clinton supporters.

so while the managers at the site lean Clinton, the frequent comment contributors probably lean Obama, thus achieving some measure of balance for those of us who read it on a daily basis. so long as the balance stays roughly even, TPM won't get out of control and will keep its fine reputation.

He lost me at hello.

It's funny how HRC claims she's been toughened up by her White House years and that Repub's attacks on her won't work but has her surrogate float this piece claiming Obama supporters have venom for her simply because they don't want to return to the Clinton years of divisive politics or the Bush years of 50%+1 partisan battles.

I've said it before and will say it again. If HRC wants to claim ANY of her years as First Lady in her experience then she needs to take as much blame for the Clinton WH faults.

If she's been toughened up by her WH experience then these disagreements should not matter to her or anyone else.

Krugman is not less substantial, you just disagree with him. He cites specific reasons and studies that back up his assertion that Obama's health plan is inferior. There's nothing insubstantial about that.

He's not turning into Joe Klein, your support for Obama is overly uncritical. I am leaning to supporting Clinton for policy reason, but am never going to drink the Kool-Aid. She's a politician, she is not the Second Coming. That more than anything is the problem with Obama supporters. You don't know him or his policies, just some idealized version that will inevitably disappoint. Will you then loathe him with the same vigor as Klein loathes the Clintons?

Much of his animus is driven by betrayed love. Too many voters seem to fall in love with candidates and then come to hate them when the inevitable compromises happen. I don't love Clinton. I don't hate Obama.

You Obame lovers need to chill- He's a politician. He's charismatic and charming and a good orator. He is not superhuman. He will fail you sooner or later and disappoint. Don't build up false expectations that are unfair to him and to all of us.