February 14, 2008
More Reaction to Obama-Krugman Dispute
Earlier this week, I posted an item about New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's relentless attacks on Barack Obama. (For example, in his most recent column Krugman described an increasingly bitter Democratic nomination battle in which "most of the venom...is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody." He also warned that the Obama campaign seems "dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.")
In a letter to the editor of The New York Times, William Julius Wilson expresses both surprise and sadness that "a thoughtful public intellectual like Mr. Krugman would write such a careless and unfair statement at a moment of critical potential in national politics.
"Barack Obama is changing the way we think about race in America," writes Williams, a professor of sociology at Harvard. "His inclusive message is so refreshing that, in addition to strong backing from blacks, he is drawing unprecedented nationwide support from white voters. It is so upsetting that this remarkable and historic feat is belittled as a 'cult of personality.'"
Evan Goldstein | Posted on Thursday February 14, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Catholics for Obama
Next: February 15, 1908: A Student Uprising at Texas A&M
Obama will probably get the Democrat nomination, not because he is black, a terrific orator, and delivers a safe and “hopeful” message. He’ll get it because race trumps gender in the Liberal scheme of justice, because white America believes “it’s time” to show the world Liberal America has bridged the racial divide, and because Michell Obama won’t be having affairs in the oval office.
Even if the hero worship of Obama is a “cult of personality”, at least he has a good personality unlike Billory who comes off like a fish-wife.
— MUAP Feb 14, 11:50 AM #
Krugman is right. Misogyny is far more of an issue in this election than race. Hillary is always painted as the bad guy and everything she wears, says, and does is criticized while everything Obama says and does is praised by his upper middle class supporters (being a man, noone scrutinizes his hair, clothing, makeup, or laugh). And why is noone talking about Obama’s opposition to gay marriage? If he is the nominee then I, as a long-time gay democrat, am voting for anyone but this inexperienced guy.
— Lisa Micah Feb 14, 11:54 AM #
I agree with comment #2, about how Hillary is treated. Obama is opposed to gay marriage but supports civil union. Just want to point out that HILLARY HAS THE SAME POSITION AS OBAMA ON GAY MARRIAGE.
— Alan Feb 14, 12:33 PM #
MUAP and Lisa are shockingly ill-informed. That their wrong-ness does not preclude shrill earnestness is part of the problem. . . I’m a man and a Hillary supporter, and think her election would forward women’s social and economic position in this country, but that’s not why I’d vote for her, and moreover I would be thrilled to see Obama as president. Let’s not rehearse the same predictable pitting of the black guy against the white women—that sort of retrograde politicking is positively antebellum and morally suspect. It is possible to not vote for or even to dislike Hillary and not to be a vicious misogynist, just as it is possible not to be for Obama and yet not be a total racist or sellout African-American. . .If anything that is a lesson of Obama’s campaign, which I admire profoundly. Come on people get reconstructed—you’re about 150 years out of date in your sentiments.
— M Feb 14, 02:34 PM #
ANY comment about Obama that is mildly critical is taken as an attack. On the other hand, Hillary can be portrayed in the most vicious and misogynistic manner, and it is OK. It makes me wonder just how well Obama can stand up to the vicious attacks that will come his way should he win the nomination. So far there have been some very light criticisms of his campaign, and these have sent his supporters into a frenzy. We have already suffered eight years with a President who brooks NO criticism or questioning of his views. Let’s not make this mistake again.
— mary Feb 14, 04:19 PM #
What this election is bringing to the surface is the unfinished business we as Americans have to do on matters of race and gender. Yes, one can support Obama without being a misogynist but the fact is we haven’t really come to terms with racism and misogyny and heterosexism. When Senator Obama is criticized, which is seldom seen in the mainstream media, clarion calls of racism are heard. Yet Senator Clinton and a number of her supporters are subjected to the most blatant sexism I’ve witnessed in a couple of decades. Watching the seemingly endless criticism of her in the mass media has done one thing for me personally, however. It has helped me to better understand the treatment I received as a once rising academic star and, later, as an entry level academic administrator. If it looks like sexism, and sounds like sexism, it probably is. Senator Obama has yet to speak out about the sexist and often downright “hate speak” toward Senator Clinton. And yet his supporters, particularly young people, are among the worst offenders.
— mollyj Feb 14, 04:31 PM #
Oh, get a grip, folks. Vote for McCain; surely being a (moderate) Republican is not as bad as being a racist or a misogynist!
— Mac Man Feb 14, 05:36 PM #
First, political campaigns are not picnics; get used to tactics and dissembling almost on a par with that of faculty unions. Second, having two superior candidates vying for the Democratic nomination, one a woman and one an African American, is something we should celebrate, something that should lift us up, and something that should signal to the rest of the world that America has finally grown up. It should not be an invitation to any of us to compete for the gold medal in victimhood. Third, what matters is that we all close ranks in the general election to prevent “Bush Lite” and the same Republican gang from perpetuating the ruin and disgrace of the past seven years. Letting every perceived slight distract us into petty internecine catfights will only lead to a residue of hostile feelings that might well prevent our keeping together a winning coalition in November. Fourth, the disgusting trashing of Hillary Clinton that has been going on since 1992 is not the work of Obama supporters. Whatever else might be said of the Clintons, they have all the right enemies. Since 1992 they have had all the most despicable groups and individuals arrayed against them in a hate-fueled campaign of destruction. These, and not Obama supporters, are who must be held accountable. Finally, I strongly support Obama for reasons that transcend the usual concerns, and because of the conjunction of the man and the moment. If it were just another presidential election, I might prefer a policy wonk or a manager, but right now I want an inspirational leader, and I don’t care if he hasn’t memorized the Federal Register. I greatly admire Senator Clinton, and my heart aches for her, but this is not her moment, and nominating her is too great a risk for the Democrats.
P.S. Who really cares what Krugman writes?
— /case hardened Feb 14, 05:49 PM #
If we put race and gender aside, as we ideally should, this competition comes down to one between “experience” versus “change.” I won’t comment here on Obama, but would ask people to look deeper into just what kind of “experience” Senator Clinton has. (I consider myself a feminist, by the way, and have in my role as editor published many leading feminist books over the years by people like the late Susan Okin and Iris Marion Young.) Consider just two quick examples. 1) foreign policy toward Russia and Latin America. The Clinton Administration supported the “shock therapy” treatment of economic neoliberals known as the Washington Consensus that ended up wrecking the economies of both Russia and many Latin American countries, resulting in the former in the rise of Putin to power (with upwards of 70% support from the Russian people) and in the latter in the tilt to the left known as the Pink Tide. The Russian imbroglio is amply documented in NYU politics professor Stephen F. Cohen’s book, “Failed Crusade” (Norton, 2001). And check out what Columbia economist Joseph Stiglitz has to say in “Globalization and Its Discontents” (2002). Nothing that Senator Clinton has said or done since then indicates that she has learned any useful lessons from her husband’s foreign policy failures. 2) domestic policy. The late Maryland political economist Linda Faye Williams (a former policy advisor to Bill Bradley when he was running for president) studied the Clinton Administration’s policies affecting blacks carefully in her multiple prize-winning book “The Constraint of Race” (Penn State, 2003) and reached this conclusion (p. 277): “there is no gainsaying that by the time the Clinton years ended, the nation had witnessed the most conservative changes in social policy it had experienced in sixty years.” Perhaps there is good reason that blacks are supporting Senator Obama: the Clinton Administration did not actually do much to help them, despite all the rhetoric that seems to have annointed Bill Clinton as the “first black president.” So, while I’d love to see a woman break that final glass ceiling in America, I feel compelled to pay attention to what “experience” actually tells me about the likely mistakes that Senator Clinton would repeat if she were to follow in her husband’s footsteps.
— Sandy Thatcher Feb 14, 05:57 PM #
I’ll be honest. I don’t care that Hillary should really be in jail for obstruction of justice; I’m not voting for her because she’s too chicken to wear a dress while campaigning for President. Memo to Hillary: It isn’t crossdressing if you’re a woman.
— marci Feb 14, 06:08 PM #
Marci, your comment is indicative of the kind of harsh scrutiny that Senator Clinton undergoes; do you have nothing to say about the way Senator Obama dresses?
— Skeptical Feb 14, 06:46 PM #
Obama constantly, continuously and consistently uses the word “change”. Does he know the meaning of the word? If anyone, and I mean anyone, would really objectively listen to him, he gives absolutely no answers to what changes, how he would make the changes, when he would make the changes. It just seems ok that he will change America -period. “People don’t plan to fail, they just fail to plan.” I doubt that Obama worshippers would or could really listen and hear nothing. In several debates, when he is asked a direct and pertinent question, I have yet to hear him actually answer it. His gift is deiversion and camouflage with a smile and a joke. No answers. But then, who listens? It is more important the race, the gender, what one wears or doesn’t wear, sounds like, smiles like etc. Nor do most people obtain the voting record of these individuals.That’s an eye opener the Obama worshippers will not do.
Listen and hear the next time, America; he doesn’t say anything. By the way, I love my country. It’s not perfect, but it truly is the best there is. Change is needed, but don’t bash the country itself. If it’s so bad, get out. I have lived in 7 countries and I can compare with honesty.
rebecca
— rebecca Feb 14, 07:03 PM #
Evan Goldstein gives us two examples of Paul Krugman’s supposed “relentless attacks” on Barack Obama. Notice that neither is about Obama. Then, compare these examples of Krugman’s “visceral hostility” to recent columns on the NY Times op ed pages by Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd. “Dysfunction,” “pathology, and “white bitch” are among the bon-bons they’ve offered the other Democratic candidate. Goldstein’s blog entry is garbage.
— RD Feb 14, 07:14 PM #
“Obama or nobody?” That’s only true for me since it became a 2-person battle. I’d have been very happy with Edwards, Dodd, or Biden.
Are these “misogynistic” attacks on Clinton really anti-female, or just anti-HER? I’d be overjoyed to vote for a woman. (I am one.) I can think of several I’d have supported and given money to. But she’s not the right one.
If she is being picked on for positions that are the same as or very similar to Obama’s, that’s wrong, but I’d say it stems from dislike of her and her approach in general, not from the fact that she’s a female.
P.S. To Rebecca: please don’t tell people who “bash” America to “get out”. That is SO unAmerican. They love this country, too, and we need them to stay and keep criticizing!
— swish Feb 15, 09:44 AM #
What a range of responses! Who would have thought that there is some overlap between the Rush Limbaugh crowd and CHE readers? I appreciate the thoughtful responses and am surprised at the writers who imagine that repeating slogans is the same as thinking.
— Edward M. Whitee Feb 15, 12:08 PM #
Krugman’s so-called attacks on Obama are more than balanced by Maureen Dowd’s and Frank Rich’s attacks on Hillary. As noted by RD, Krugman’s criticisms are on policy; Dowd’s and RIch’s are on the person.
— Patricia Feb 15, 12:12 PM #
Interesting to note how much of the above commentary concerns identity politics, a specialty among liberal Democratic politicians, commentators, and academics.
— J A DeLater Feb 15, 12:32 PM #