The great majority of Sen. Barack Obama’s supporters are rational and realistic, but there is a faction within them that confuses devotion with piety. Devotion to Obama isn’t a bad thing. He is inspirational, exciting, and charismatic. He also seems to be the real deal. He’s worthy of the people who believe in and support him. But he’s also human and, most likely, not the second coming of Christ, and there’s no reason why he should be exempt from people taking his name in vain. The slings and arrows of political fortune, the proud man’s contumely, and that other stuff Hamlet mentions are part of life, and even more a part of politics.
He Who Must Be Read explores how some Obamamaniacs have contracted Clintonitis. As usual, he’s right on:
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.
What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” – the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.
During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.
And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign – as adult children of presidential aspirants often do – asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.
I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons.
Mark
I’m glad you posted this. Not being part of this whole primary cycle has given me a new perspective on the rhetoric. What I’ve seen since the Dean days (and before) is that newcomers and beginning activists are abused by campaigns. They are encouraged to become emotionally involved in the campaign, but they are seldom given perspective by either the campaign or the candidate. In the Barack case, I see the inspired reactions, but I don’t see the candidate using experience in cautioning his followers that this is all about a Dem win rather than a win for Barack. There is very little that separates the Barack issues from those of Clinton. At this point and under the current situation, it’s time for both candidates to talk about unity against McCain. I don’t see that happening, and the end result for many of the newbies will be a disconnect from the process and a bitter lesson. Both candidates need to dispel these notions now and encourage supporters to fight no matter whom the nominee will be. This whole cycle needs to end soon for the sake of unity.
I think the bile is shared plenty. If I spent any more time on DailyKos, I’d be convinced that Obama is somewhere between a groundbreaking candidate whose opposers should be won over, and a messiah whose opposers should be dispatched. On the other hand, there’s some less than rational love for Hillary on MyDD.
<
p>I would guess that Obama’s supporters are more enthusiastic, so the whole spectrum makes more of an impact, which means that the crazies are louder.
<
p>I much prefer numbers though, and here are some exit and entrance poll numbers. The second column indicates the percentage of Obama primary voters who say they would be “not satisfied” if Clinton won the nomination, and the third the percentage of Clinton voters “not satisfied” with Obama as nominee:
<
p>
State% Obama-ites unhappy with Clinton win% Clintonites unhappy with Obama win
Massachusetts85%91%
California76%81%
Missouri88%89%
Louisiana79%70%
Alabama90%89%
<
p>If there is particular enmity coming from the Obama camp, at least it hasn’t reached his voters.
The harshest rhetoric I’ve seen against Obama has been from … Paul Krugman. You know, Obama’s the “anti-change” candidate. I’ve seen plenty of nasty stuff against Hillary from, say, Andrew Sullivan, but I don’t really think he’s representative of the general feeling of Obama supporters out there, as Sabutai demonstrates. So Krugman got some nasty emails? So what?
<
p>Krugman’s been kind of a freak about this primary. He should sit it out — or get some seasoning, post on the blogs, take his lumps and learn not to take the back-and-forth of a protracted campaign so seriously.
<
p>In any event, I could imagine much, much less civil primaries than this one. I’d say that with a few exceptions, the two candidates have treated each other pretty well.
He always seemed very sensible and reasonable to me … up until the last month or so, when he seems to have pounded a few shots of something strong and started a series of very aggressive anti-Obama pieces. At first I thought he was just pro-Edwards, and I applauded his vigorous support for his candidate. But now it seems he is just anti-Obama, which I find less useful since it seems to be only, or mostly, negative. Am I missing something?
I don’t know. I don’t know if Krugman has a problem with Obama’s economic advisors that he just hasn’t spoken about. I read Krugman carefully, and I think he’s been right on Obama, particularly his lack of mandates on his healthcare plan. Robert Reich has argued unconvincingly and dismissively against Krugman’s healthcare position on his blog. Krugman’s criticism about Obama’s lack of health care mandate and his continual overtures toward the center and unity are, I think, right on target. And if Obama is the nominee, he’s better for the criticism now.
<
p>I wouldn’t characterize Krugman’s columns as “very aggressive anti-Obama,” however. Like John McCain, Obama has had a long, largely free ride in a very nice car from the media. If I were Obama, I would offer the same ride to Hillary whose experience with the media has been more like Grand Theft Auto. He would seem very magnanimous and above the fray if he would take on the media’s continually shabby treatment of her.
<
p>As lolorb said about DailyKos, the mania can be disturbing. I don’t recall who said it here, but someone said they wouldn’t campaign for Hillary if she beat out Obama. I can imagine some of the vitriol Krugman is receiving in the mail, maybe Charley’s right and he needs to toughen up. However, I don’t think that Krugman was complaining because his feelings were hurt. I’ll have to check out MyDD to see the pro-Hillary stuff.
<
p>Problematic is what seems like the inevitable mess at the convention this summer. Sabutai’s poll refers, I think, to the general election, not the convention. How will Obama’s devout supporters handle the almost certainly inevitable mess there? Perhaps I’m wrong, but Obama himself seemed pretty thin-skinned when it came to criticism from Bill Clinton.
<
p>Mark
….really summed up for me this quote….
<
p>
<
p>While Obama got the warm and fuzzy interview (and while I agree he is warm and fuzzy this is about electing the leader of the free world and not the new Prince of Camelot) Hillary got the snarky Couric treatment when Katie finished her interview with the question;
<
p>“So I hear your nickname in school was Frigidare ( blink, blink, toothy smile)”.
<
p>To Hillary’s credit she didn’t slap Katie but smiled back, answered well, once again enduring another blast of the Double Standard that is the hallmark of the Democratic race.
Tell me she didn’t do that. To think, she is in the position held by Dan Rather. How utterly pathetic she is.
Titled the worst 60 minute interview ever
<
p>Includes some of the other inane questions asked.
Don’t you think at least a part of if could just be karma? Hillary doesn’t miss the opportunity to take a dig too often either.
<
p>The day after the Super Bowl she told a grieving Massachusetts that on Tuesday they can “vote for a winner”. (The comment certainly wasn’t meant to insult people, but a little common sense would have predicted that it would not go over well)
<
p>Last week Obama thanked the independents and moderate Republicans who voted for him. Hillary did the same but couldn’t resist adding that they had finally “seen the light”. Again, probably not meant to be insulting or condescending, but it was. Bill’s comments on Obama and his campaign don’t need mentioning, but it’s safe to say that the comparison he made between Obama and Jesse Jackson certainly wasn’t meant to flatter. Shouldn’t they expect at least a little of this to come back?
<
p>The media definately plays games, but they can also only use what you give them. Just my two cents. I guess it’s all about our perspectives. Personally, I think they get a free pass on a lot of things.
It’s the ten tons of it that is the double standard
objectivity. Personally, I think the media hyped the South Carolina Jackson/Obama comparison. Was there a comparison with a white candidate that could have been drawn instead? Was Clinton supposed to not make the comment because both guys happened to be black?
<
p>And if there’s blow back, shouldn’t it come back on the exact issue, not Hillary’s nickname in high school? This has been going on since Bill was president. How did Hillary earn 15 years of karma?
<
p>Mark
“This has been going on since Bill was president. How did Hillary earn 15 years of karma?” – Mark
<
p>I’d say she earned it when she started her “35 years of experience” campaign and cherry-picking the good parts of Bill’s career that she wants to make her own.
<
p>We are all entitled to our own opinions and we are ALL obviously biased in some way. Personally, I just don’t see it the same way. She gets a lot of advantages because she’s a Clinton. Then when people don’t hand just her softballs or have the audacity to oppose another candidate, she and her supporters whine about how tough it is to be her.
<
p>Add up the reasons why it’s good to be a Clinton versus the reasons why it may not be so good. I bet the first list is much longer.
From an AP poll: While Obama has done better than Clinton among independents in their fight for the Democratic nomination, that advantage does not show up when each is pitted against McCain. Each Democrat gets four in 10 independent votes to McCain’s one-third with those voters, who will be a major target of both parties’ campaigns this fall.
<
p>In a finding that underscores both McCain’s cross-party appeal and the bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination, about one-third of Obama’s supporters picked McCain when asked their preference in a Clinton-McCain general election matchup. Nearly three in 10 Clinton backers said they would vote for McCain over Obama.
<
p>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…
<
p>Mark