Cranberry Saw Us
Seattlest Pix 09Nov07
Around the Sound: The Week in News
Sasquatch! Tickets Go on Sale Today
Seattlest Pix 09Nov08
Down here in the Seattlest newsroom, we rarely find time to pay attention to the upper echelons of the American chattering classes, what with their myopic focus on the other Washington (as they relish in referring to us as, in the rare event they mention us at all). But this morning, as the astounding news of Obama's four-peat trouncing of Clinton over the weekend percolated through the commentariat, we noticed an increasingly shrill response from Clinton-supporters like Paul Krugman.
In his column in this morning's NY Times, Krugman seemed a bit...hyperbolic? Drawing a comparison to Adlai Stevenson's principled criticism of Richard Nixon, Krugman wrote:
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.
Really, Mr. Krugman? Really? By all accounts, this weekend's Washington caucuses were an outstanding success, drawing in record numbers of voters to the democratic process. For the first time in many people's lives, the presidential race is an exciting and open field, and average Americans are realizing they have a real say in who their party's candidate will be. And it's a truly bipartisan event: when was the last time neither party's candidate was a sitting president or vice-president?
The media, meanwhile, seems hard-pressed to create its own story, and Mr. Krugman's column is one of the ways in which they're doing that. Which is sad, because it means the real story, of Americans re-engaging with the political process, is being overlooked. Obama's victory here in Washington on Saturday wasn't just his, it was all of ours, and for Krugman to start accusing the voters and particularly Obama supporters for being Nixonian is just plain shameful and mean.
So don't listen: Congratulations, caucusers! You done well, no matter who you supported.
The pic of kshuyler's caucus came to us via the handy Seattlest Flickr pool. Much thanks to those who contribute.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I got an email from Barack Obama himself this morning, telling me that I personally was the one who did what all the cynics said we couldn't do. Apparently I created some momentum, and set an amazing standard, and also provided a huge boost. It's all me, bitchezz.
Gifts, flowers and cards can be sent to my caucus location up at Prospect Church. They know how to reach me!
Im glad someone else mentioned national news' lack on mentioning anything at all about WA caucuses.
Somewhere around fifteen percent of eligible voters participated in the caucus. It was recordbreaking and fun and inspirational, but it is a process that is by design exclusive and not especially efficient.
Is this the hyperbolic part:
I don't know, Jeremy -- you're reaching. People keep labeling Krugman a Clinton supporter when he was more admittedly an Edwards supporter. Also, while you may not have seen much venom at WA caucuses, I think Krugman probably sees much, much more without leaving his Inbox.And of course there's Josh's point about the 15% of eligible voters. I'm glad they turned out, I had a great time myself, but listening to Obama supporters try to persuade me to vote for him was an education in cult of personality itself. Not that there are not good things to say about Obama, but a good deal of people are voting who seem to believe that Mr. Smith Goes To Washington was a documentary.
I appreciate the caucus process for its exclusivity, in that the people who actually leave the couch to participate get to have the most say.
On one hand, I'm glad the primary doesn't mean anything to the democrats because it's a flawed system wherein any nut with a crush can vote for their candidate with the simple lick of a stamp.
On the other hand, the caucus-only preference by the Dems does unfortunately leave seniors and others with mobility issues out of the process.
I don't know what the right answer is.
Interesting because my experience at my caucus was that the Hillary folks were VERY defensive and very sullen. In fact, this whole season, it has seemed that they are quite against the thought of anyone else taking the presidency from their girl.
Admittedly, many Obama fans are the same. Espeically the young ones. And I AM afraid that if he loses (especially because of super delegates) they will skip voting and we'll have another bat-shit insane R in the office.
Michael--of course that's not the hyperbolic part, the hyperbolic part is suggesting that Obama (or his supporters) are as vitriolic as Nixon or as cultish as W. and his followers. That's not to say that Krugman wasn't a big Edwards supporter, and on that I fully agree; Edwards drove the policy discussions in the run up to the primary, and that had a positive effect on the overall campaign. I count myself an Edwards supporter and would still like to see him get a v.p. nod.
And yes, of course people feel vehemently about their candidates. I far prefer that to the lukewarm response we've had in the past. Shouldn't people care strongly? Isn't this important? Isn't it a bit disingenuous of Krugman to suggest we should all be happy with either as a choice (a fair enough statement) then turn around and accuse one of them of fear-mongering a la Nixon and strutting like a puffed-up Bush (the lowest insult a liberal could throw)? Would Krugman be happy--really--with someone of whom that was true?
It's a political broadside. And given the suggestion that the supporters might be the ones really to blame strikes me as unfair, and an uptick of vitriol that was largely absent from our caucuses.
Perhaps its Krugmam who step back from his inbox and look at things with a bit more perspective. The op-ed pages of the Times and they furious, enraged email fussilades he's accustomed to don't really seem to represent the reality on the ground, I'm sorry.
I suppose it depends on the ground as you define it, Jeremy. Aside from the vitriol that Krugman has come in contact with, you seem to be saying, there's not that much vitriol.
I'd like Krugman to have specified the provenance of this venom, sure. I'm just assuming he's talking about what he's personally run into. (Washington may be a little isle of civility compared to NY and the Beltway.)
As for it being absent from our caucuses: that may be. He doesn't reference them. That's what I mean about reaching, and mostly in reference the post title.
It was my first caucus, and despite the perception that it is exclusive and wasteful... Well, it's not exclusive, it's just that most people don't bother to put in the two hours on a Saturday to make a bigger difference than a pen mark. Really, it wasn't onerous at all. In fact you don't even need to stay there the whole time.
But the best part of the caucus for me was getting to share opinions and make impressions on people. While my precinct was already majority Obama, we convinced enough people to switch to make it a total win. I spread what I thought about my candidate to others who were listening, and it had results. Granted, I might have not been so successful in outcome if it had tilted the other way. But it was still an important process for me.
So it's neither onerous or wasteful, its involving.
Krugman's argument is... well, pointless. He's arguing that the two candidates are equivalent in order to suggest, I suppose, that we should all therefore support HRC. Well, I don't at all believe the candidates are equivalent, and neither do the rest of Obama's supporters.
But to see Hillarites publicly going on a sort of whiny defensiveness like this... Ehhxcelent.
My little knothole on this whole process in southwest Seattle was that everyone agreed to support whoever the Dem candidate is because we don't need any more republicans (w)recking the republic.
Kids, there's always more venom out there. Perhaps you've been in the Seattle kindness bubble for too long. I'm not saying Krugman is right, but I wouldn't doubt that supporters of any of the candidates have gotten up in his grill.
As for those "people don't bother to put in the two hours on a Saturday to make a bigger difference than a pen mark": I'm the only member of my family, all WA State voters and hardcore Dems, to caucus on Sat. Everyone else had to work. Oh, and did I mention that we're Mexican-American? It's been said in the MSM that Clinton has won in the primary states (all those pen users), while Obama has won big in the caucus states (non-lazy democracy participators). Any correlation between that and the fact that Hillary has been getting the Hispanic vote in larger proportions than Obama? I know, I know, my case is a purely anecdotal one. Just sayin'.