Most Americans dread Mondays, as do I, because it seems like every Monday we see a new, lightly reasoned and generally unsupported article that criticizes Barack Obama. Enough already.
One of my favorite little bits from this article concerned Krugman's assertion (among Democrats) that there is much disappointment over Obama's impending victory. No names are mentioned, although this is rarely seen on political blogs, nor has it tamped down attendance at Obama's rallies. And the idea that Obama might get "Dukakisized" seems possible, but unlikely and not really a legitimate point against him. Unlike Mike Dukakis, Al Gore, or John Kerry, Barack Obama is a talented speaker and is, well, likeable. All three of those guys were already a bit odd and alienating to begin with--it wasn't like the press had their work cut out for them. In any event, it makes little sense to vote against Barack Obama because he might get some bad press in the future, especially since the Clintons can't seem to stop inflicting damage upon themselves via their surrogates and Bill "Jesse" Clinton. And the idea that Barack Obama is an untalented politician is silly. If he does reasonably well on Tuesday and knocks Clinton out of the race, he will have managed to defeat Hillary Clinton in a Democratic primary--doing that ought to leave little doubt as to his abilities.
This is perhaps the most objectionable article to date, and its egregiousness is breathtaking. The article implies that Obama has been light on criticizing George W. Bush and his policies, when the opposite is true. I've seen many speeches when he slams Bush for the Iraq War, the Bush worldview and the mindset that led to Iraq. Hillary Clinton's argumentation along these lines has been far more muted. He's talked forcefully about the need for a more equitable distribution of wealth, strong unions, a strong welfare state, and gay rights. The article makes him out to be a mushy-mouthed centrist, when he is, in fact, not only undoubtedly more liberal than Hillary Clinton, who seems yet to have met a war she didn't like.
Unlike some of the previous articles in the "Attack Barack" series, this article has to be regarded as intentionally deceptive, or at best merely uninformed. And this line is beyond redemption: "But Mr. Obama, instead of emphasizing the harm done by the other party’s rule, likes to blame both sides for our sorry political state." Not even close, and it is rather bizarre that the worst epithet that Krugman can dream up is to compare Obama to Michael Bloomberg. It is reminiscent of the story I once heard about two hobos fighting in San Francisco, who traded insults between each other like "conformist", "fundamentalist", and "Republican". The insults a person uses tell us a lot about where they are coming from. It is telling that Krugman's ultimate bete noire turns out to be a fairly liberal guy, albeit one who is disenchanted with partisanship. With Krugman, being a liberal is less important than being the object of hatred of conservatives, and in particular conservative Republicans. Why else champion Clinton over Obama, despite the latter being demonstrably more liberal in many ways? Why else champion the rather pathetic John Edwards, a few months ago, who was prone to making statements about eliminating SUVs while owning one himself? I just cannot continue to pretend that this man speaks for me. He has finally lost me. How could this man be so naive? How can he not see the opportunity presented by Obama? He is so blinded by fear and hatred of Republicans that he can't even get his prejudices straight anymore. I'm no fan of the Republicans, but if he's willing to write off a perfectly good liberal just because he doesn't want to engage in the penny ante bullshit that has come to define politics in the past few years, I'm done with him. I've finally had it. I'm through.
