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.That seems like a pretty venomous comment in and of itself--comparing Barack Obama to George Bush is a pretty low blow, and the connection here is tenuous at best. Does he mean to say that Obama will begin to show George Bush's narcissism because many people love him? Maybe that will happen, but the point is not proven in any way. Not to mention that, in a lot of ways, the Clintons' supporters could be considered a cult of personality as well. And why, exactly, is this comparison made? Because Obama has some fanatical supporters? I'll admit the point. Notice how this is all generalized, though: no specific examples, no statistics, no acknowledgment of some of the also-ravenous anti-Obama voices that have popped up on comment boards on blogs everywhere. At least he's honest about not being evenhanded.
The article does make some good points about the need to not just let unjust anti-Clinton smears stand, but Krugman is evincing a disturbing pattern here. For ages, he criticized Obama for being insufficiently left-wing, or something. Then that National Journal piece said that Obama was the liberal senator. So Krugman continues attacking Obama, but this time he starts using some new Beltway-tailored CW about the "cultlike" Obama campaign. Well, Obama inspires strong emotions in people. It's true. So what? The most charitable reading of his article is that he's worried that some Obama fans might sit out November if Obama is not the nominee, thus depriving Democrats of a victory. This is worrisome, I'll admit. But he cites no statistics or polls to back this up, it's just something he intuits. A more realistic reading is that Krugman has developed an intense, personal aversion to Barack Obama, most likely because the senator offered some muted criticism of Krugman months ago, and since then Krugman has been on the attack. Since he can no longer creditably attack him as insufficiently liberal he's now going to town against the guy on whatever he can find, even if the argument is riddled with generalities and conventional wisdom. I don't mind hearing criticism of Obama if it's correct (I suppose I'm not part of the cult), and I think that Krugman could be in a position to impact the campaign in a positive direction. Krugman, however, doesn't seem to get that he's destroying his reputation by writing these kinds of poorly-supported hit pieces. Let's reverse his hypothetical: what if Obama becomes the nominee? Then right-wingers will be able to quote "left-wing New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman" on how they're right to say that Obama's support is cultlike. He doesn't get it--he's committing the very sin he's condemning. Do as I say, eh...
Ultimately, I'm not sure this is even a good faith argument from Krugman--didn't Dean supporters say that they would bolt the party if Dean didn't get the nomination in 2004? And didn't they wind up being drawn back into the fold in the end? This is getting a little tiresome. If you don't want to be an Obama fan, that's fine. All I'm asking is that he adheres to his (usually) high standards.
