Well, they're going to hit him with something, it's just a matter of time. But in re: Krugman, see this post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/18/krugman-has-met-the-enemy_n_87297.html

I agree that an Obama backlash is probably looming, but I don't think Krugman's column is proof of that. When it comes to Obama, Krugman has just as big an axe to grind as Brooks does.

Where's the McCain backlash then? He's been getting great treatment from the DC press for far too long. Please don't let people get away with only attacking Democrats and their bubbles....

All this assumes Obama is incapable of handling the backlash. Which, considering his considerable talent, may not be the case. If he truly is a liberal Reagan, he won't let anything stick.

Way I see it: As long as Obama refuses to do a John Kerry and ignore his detractors, he can smoothly kick their touchois with the same judo he's been using on Hillary. In Iowa he showed himself very skilled at reversing Hillary's attacks into potent counter-arguments. If anything, the general should free him up to use even fancier judo.

You're effing kidding us, right, Kev?

The leader of the anti-Obama untruths squad, Krugman, is worried about an anti-Obama backlash?

Surely what he meant to write is that he is worried that his efforts to foment an anti-Obama backlash won't bear fruit in time to save HRC, and that he is lamenting his misfire now in order to build an alibi for himself against future charges that he is one of the lying MSM jackasses who gave the general election to the GOP.

Btw, we'll be seeing plenty of the crap as all the pseudo-progressive crypto-racist anti-Obamaists are confronted with reaping what they have sown.

It's funny that Krugman seems to be surrendering to BS right wing big media narratives.

If Obama-mania, whatever that is, is the best that Obama's opponents can come up with, bring it on.

Kevin, It should be Wisconsin AND Hawaii (we have just as many or more delegates and Congressional votes and electoral votes as Alaska, Deleware, D.C., Idaho, Maine, Montana,New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming).

This is the first time we've been able to participate in a presidential primary when it still mattered. Stop raining on our parade (actually the weather's great!). At least NPR occasionally remembers to mention Hawaii in the same breath as Wisconsin.

Regarding the Krugman piece, I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm disturbed by the comments of others on this blog. If the bubble bursts, it will be largely due to their attempts to turn his candidacy into a personality cult. Honestly, some of Obama's fans sound more like Paultards than progressive Democrats.

Who is seriously going to buy this cult stuff anyway, which is really just recycled hokum from the elitist campaign against Ron Paul?

It's funny that Krugman seems to be surrendering to BS right wing big media narratives.

Surrendering? Krugman is an effing co-architect of the BS narrative. He's not surrendering -- he's fleeing to Argentina.

Thanks for the confirmation, Jimm.

Regarding the Krugman piece, I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm disturbed by the comments of others on this blog.

Translation: I'm an HRC supporter.

You guys really need to come up with a new come on line.

I'm not an Obama or Paul supporter, thanks.

I'm actually beginning to wonder if, barring some huge turn of fortune, the bubble is actually burstable. And, by the same token, I'm wondering if the Clintons aren't inherently screwed. What got me thinking along those lines? This article:

http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/44211/

Maybe it's overstated to a degree. But - damn - if there's isn't some truth to it too!

Oh, and one thing I forgot to mention: Jerome's point above (wonder "Where's the McCain backlash then?") is exactly right. There's none and never will be. Obama might very well have the same advantage.

But I just have a very bad feeling about the way things are going.

Good grief. A Hillary supporter with a bad feeling about the way things are going.

This was worth a column in the NYTimes?

Disputo, I've spent a lot of personal time and professional skills (uncompenstated, thank you) working to get people to precinct meetings throughout the state for tomorrow's caucuses to vote for Obama. You don't know WTF you're talking about, so lose the attitude.

I do know that you're an example of just the kind of person whose sanctimonious attitude and hostility are going to hurt his campaign.

First, let's remember:

1. Krugman is SHRILL!
2. Hillary killed Vince Foster!
3. Tonight, Obama was able to get Castro to resign from Cuban President.

Woohoo!

This backlash meme is already widespread, and you can almost feel in the air that it's about to explode into a feeding frenzy. In other words, it ain't over yet. Wisconsin and the two weeks after it should be interesting, shouldn't they?

Some smell feeding frenzy, I smell wishful thinking.

Guess they're kinda similar.

Wow, I was going to mention something about how Krugman had a hand in launching the "cult" meme, but it looks like that would be piling on at this point. Instead, then, I'll say in his defense that what he actually said was "cult of personality," which is fairly different in substance, although he of all people should have known that the distinction would eventually be blurred.

Meanwhile, though, I'm a little skeptical about this "bubble's about to burst" thing. Sure, people are going to start criticizing Obama more and more, and irritating memes like the "cult" one will circulate, but the press loves him in a way that they haven't loved a Democrat for ages. If he makes a major gaffe, sure, things might change, but in a general election I'd say McCain is by far the more likely candidate to do something embarassing.

I and many people I know have actually become Obama supporters quite reluctantly. It has gotten hard to believe that as a citizenry we could actually have goals and aspirations beyond tweaking a percentage point here or there in some already existing program.

The Bush regime and the congress that has abetted it have left so many of us feeling helpless, and disappointed in ourselves for that helpless feeling. It is nice to have someone recognize that core feeling, that somehow it might be too late to fix any of this mess and after eight years we are a fundamentally different people than we were before. And then say "Fuck it. We can do something about this awfulness and move forward if we work together."

It is an inspiration to action and a denial of helplessness.

It will take much more than DLC bean counting and percentage tweaking to achieve any of the goals Obama and Clinton have set out for themselves. Having inspired public support will help a lot.

I hope Krugman can bring himself around to seeing that adding a little dreamy aspiration to his wonkery would make it much implementable, unless his careful critiques and thoughtful writing these past few years has all just been an exercise in self-aggrandizement for him.

I'm less sanguine than Callimaco. I think that the press will turn on Obama and that they will call their "support" of him a bubble. On the other hand, I don't see the DC press turning on McCain.

I do know that you're an example of just the kind of person whose sanctimonious attitude and hostility are going to hurt his campaign.

Look in the mirror DevilDog, you already insulted me within minutes of arriving in the thread, and you know what they say about assumptions...

The public may turn on McCain enough that the press will have a hard time keeping the blinders on. I think McCain is going to do some very weird shit over the course of this campaign, he is just to cantankerous and self-satisfied to always reflect enough on what is about to come out of his mouth before he says it. I think that "there is going to be more PTSD" speech and its ilk will haunt him.

The fact that McCain actually has a voting record for the past 8 years of the Bush debacle, and I'm not even talking about Iraq, is going to make him a sitting duck for smart framing by the Democratic candidate.

For instance, let's look at the reality that the Bush administration ended National Guard deployments at 729 days so that education benefits wouldn't kick in for them. I would highlight this and other mendacious examples like it over and over again, and ask John McCain what he was doing about it at the time, whether he spoke out about it, and I'm just using this as one example because Yglesias just mentioned it, I know there must be handfuls of even better stuff that McCain has a vote on.

Just for amusement, imagine the McCain/Obama (or Hillary, but the thread is about Obama) debates in the fall, through the lens of A Few Good Men. McCain is Nicholson and Obama is Cruise. Obama is the young upstart who just batters McCain rhetorically for some obvious contradictions and failures to take action, while the cantankerous McCain coached to be on his best behavior finally bursts into indignation and contempt over it all.

Of course, one goal in such a strategy would be beyond just winning, but actually luring McCain as the GOP presidential candidate to basically repudiate President Bush and the GOP Congress, validating our criticism of them to everyone including Republicans and reinforcing the obvious agent and catalyst for change.

Worst Backlash Ever

In a sense, the Backlash has already started and it's insanely lame: Obama is too popular, too well-liked. Some of his supporters are too enthusiastic, too motivated.

Or is the criticism, that someday someone will find a good way to attack Obama? Not now, but someday someone will go negative on Obama and on that day, he will probably cry.

In recent years, Paul Krugman has been one of the few political commentators to tell the plain truth about the evil the Republicans have visited upon us. I respect his questioning of Obama, but must disagree. The backlash he expects will be fueled by Republican smears, not Democratic doubts. We can only hope Obama can respond effectively unlike Gore or Kerry. All it takes to destroy the Republicans is the simple telling of the truth - naming names, dates and places. The truth is damning enough. If Obama and other Democrats can learn to fight back, the Republicans are toast.

What, no comments on Brooks insinuating that Obama is bribing super delegates?

Heaven forbid a democrat spread his money around to help out other democrats up for election! I take comfort in knowing that Hillary would never do something as awful as helping other democrats get re-elected, and her and Bill have a long record proving this.

Krugman was helping the backlash along last week calling the Obama campaign "dangerously close to a personality cult".

Media matters documented the follow up

I do know that you're an example of just the kind of person whose sanctimonious attitude and hostility are going to hurt his campaign.

oh please. welcome to the goddamn internet. been here before?

Right on cue, here's David Brooks tonight:

Until recently, Krugman has been noted not for issuing "cues" to his conservative NYT colleagues, but for undercutting their premises of their columns the day of publication.

"...he can smoothly kick their touchois..."

Honest, Abe, are they French?

Of course there will be a backlash, and then it will die down. There will be criticism of McCain as well. Today's WaPo has a couple of critical pieces. None of this will really matter until the fall, which is when average people will start paying attention again. By that time the cult-of personality schtick will be old news.

By the way, could be worth mentioning that Fidel Castro resigned today. Just sayin'...

Another boogieman down.

The backlash will begin when the media want it to, basically. If we are concerned about this, we should probably nominate a candidate who seems best equipped to handle the media. Judging by the way they treat her, that would not be Hillary Clinton. She's still riding out a backlash that's been ongoing since 1992.

Disputo, I've spent a lot of personal time and professional skills (uncompenstated, thank you) working to get people to precinct meetings throughout the state for tomorrow's caucuses to vote for Obama. You don't know WTF you're talking about, so lose the attitude.

And I'm King of the Planet Zircon, so watch how you address me you impertinent scum.

Seriously, dude, some friendly advice -- if you want people to buy the story that you are an Obama supporter and precinct worker, you might want to stop obvious Obama trashing like promoting the "Obama Cult" meme and just stick to more subtle stuff like dog whistling. The HRC campaign has lit explaining the diff.

Just saying.

Yglesias felt an anti-Obama backlash was coming a week ago. Was there ever a doubt that most of the conservative Obama fans would turn on him once he became the frontrunner? Some of his Republican fans favored Obama because they clearly want a post-partisan era so they can escape accountability for the last seven years. Other conservative supporters are for Obama for the same reason many voters are - he is not Clinton. On the Dem side this is usually about the AUMF, foreign policy, triangulation or Mark Penn. On the Republican side, it just that he was not Clinton. Obama is their last chance to defeat the Clintons who some how sullied the White House, survived the VRWC, won two elections and left office with an approval rating higher than Reagan.

Once Clinton is out of the way, the conservatives and many in the press will move on to tearing down Obama. If he continues to limit the press' access while Saint McCain is joking around on the bus, all sorts of unflattering stories will begin to appear. Obama and Axelrod are not babes in the woods (The Chicago Tribune has admitted that in 2004 his campaign pushed the Hull divorce story very hard) but it remains to be seen is how the campaign will hold up under a hail of negative ads and a hostile press if they decide to give him the H.Clinton/Kerry/Gore treatment.

Not wrapping up the nomination until the convention might be the best thing for Obama as he can avoid the spotlight, the media will focus on Clinton and superdelegates, and he can continue to use primary funds to poke McCain and fight any negative stories.

Kevin,

Next time read Brooks’ column to the end.

Here is how it concludes:

"The victims of O.C.S. struggle against Obama-myopia, or the inability to see beyond Election Day. But here’s the fascinating thing: They still like him. They know that most of his hope-mongering is vaporous. They know that he knows it’s vaporous.

But the fact that they can share this dream still means something. After the magic fades and reality sets in, they still know something about his soul, and he knows something about theirs. They figure that any new president is going to face gigantic obstacles. At least this candidate seems likely to want to head in the right direction. Obama’s hype comes from exaggerating his powers and his virtues, not faking them.

Those afflicted with O.C.S. are no longer as moved by his perorations. The fever passes. But some invisible connection seems to persist."

It's a wonderfully written and very sympathetic piece.

On the Krugman watch, it's amusing to see some folks here distressed and tormented by the K man. When Obama is President and Krugman is back on the bus, please remember how you felt.

I see that Wayne Pierce has the following view:

"In recent years, Paul Krugman has been one of the few political commentators to tell the plain truth about the evil the Republicans have visited upon us."

It's interesting how people's views can differ. While I do think that there are honest and effective critics of the current administration on the left, I think that Krugman is a toadying churl. He eagerly takes the daily talking points that the left secretariat provides him and runs with them. He never hesitates to lie or grotesquely distort to push the point in question. In the old Soviet Union you had a chance to get a city named after you if you could keep up such a performance for ten or fifteen years.

Brooks is a highly articulate imbecile, a good little right wing propagandist who grinds out Republican talking points with numbing, robotic predictability. He doesn't have either an honest or an original bone in his entire body. My God, does the Times publish a lot of trash on its Op-Ed pages!!

The "Under God" column in Washingtonpost.com's On Faith section asserted yesterday that Barack Obama has a Messiah complex and all his followers are pretty much creeping cultists. Nice. I am assuming that Claire Hoffman, the perpetrator of that column, is a Hillary gal.

There were at least three attacks from the National Review last week, which I posted at the end of an Angrybear post. All of them in line with that LA plush meeting of the GOP's Usual Suspects.

Why would Brooks assume that Obama would do something that no one in his party ever did - take on special interests? What a putz.

Disputo:

Good point, dude! I mean, like, obviously anyone who disagrees with you, or has even a single less than adulatory thing to say about Obama simply has to be a Hillary supporter. Plus, they must be totally bogus. Like, there's no way someone from the state where Obama grew up could support him, and still find that some of fellow supporters look like they're signing on to a cult of personality. No way! Everyone who supports Obama has to support him totally, and exactly like you do.

"Lit explaining the diff"?? Catch a clue, you pretentious twit.

Just saying.

Seriously, dude, some friendly advice -- if you want people to buy the story that you are an Obama supporter and precinct worker, you might want to stop obvious Obama trashing like promoting the "Obama Cult" meme and just stick to more subtle stuff like dog whistling. The HRC campaign has lit explaining the diff.
Just saying.
Posted by: Disputo on February 19, 2008 at 5:11 AM |

This is a lot of hand-wringing over something that hasn't happened yet, and may not.

Obama, and his relationship with voters and the media, is a unique case (at least in my lifetime).

We don't really know how this will play out.

I mean, like, obviously anyone who disagrees with you, or has even a single less than adulatory thing to say about Obama simply has to be a Hillary supporter.

No, dumbass. As should be clear to even a stupid prick such as yourself, I was not taking your doppleganger to task for disagreeing with me.

I was taking him to task for propagating wingnut memes. Assuming he's merely a HRC supporter is being generous.

Now maybe you would care to explain why you're propagating the same meme with the added Rovian bonus meme that Obama supporters are "pretentious"?

Oh, and yes, I plead guilty to propagating the meme that wingnuts are dumbass pricks.

I don't know why folks seem to interpret Obama's promise of bringing Republicans and Democrats together as equivalent to bringing the GOP and Democratic Party together. I think Obama is really talking about attracting Republicans (and independents) to rally around good solutions/approaches to national and international challenges. If those solutions have "progressive" roots (i.e., fact-based, discovery-based, participatory approaches, etc.), then all the better. But I think of Obama more as a pragmatist first than a "liberal" in an ideological sense. That's why it's "easy" to find apparent contradictions in his positions. But the consistency is in common sense, inclusive approaches that yield solutions to problems that have broad support and thus better chance of long term success. If Obama is idealistic, it is about who we are as Americans and our ability to solve big problems by working together; his idealism is not some laundry list of liberal Democratic (government as the only solution) policy proposals.

To be sure, Obama has a moral compass that tells him that government is an important partner in any big, national challenge, and that we are "in it" together. But that compass is not unique to a particular political party. And that compass does not betray naivete but instead demonstrates confidence; confidence in America and Americans. I think that's part of Obama's appeal.

If you look very closely at his background, his record, and most importantly, his approach to solving problems, it's hard not become enamored with the promise. Is it a roll of the dice? Sure. But nothing worth having is risk-free. And America is great (and distinct from other nations) because we are risk-takers.

"And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?"

He will take the side of reason, which will be easy since he will have a majority of both house of Congress with him. If the Executive Branch admits what happened with surveillance during the Bush Administration, which will be easy for Obama to do, then telecom immunity will cease to be an issue.

Or is Brooks really concerned that Obama will be unable to work with Pelosi? If so, we thank him for his great concern.

I'm not certain, but wouldn't Krugman qualify as a concern troll?

And BTW, I though Obama fans were cultists, so how are they supposed to turn on him? I'm so confused.

I'm not certain, but wouldn't Krugman qualify as a concern troll?

Not really. He is pissed that he is not a member of Barack's inner economic advisors, and that Austan Goolsbee is.

Never underestimate the smallmindedness of an academician. They are like "elmo" on books...

Is America really ready for a black leader? The question remains. Is Barack the answer to our prayers? I do not know, But I think Barack Obama represents all that we have accomplished in over 50 years of working towards becoming a sensitive nation and a fair nation. One book -- 'Obama: From Promise to Power' did tell it: http://dealstudio.com/searchdeals.php?deal_id=84830&ru=279 , a Black President? Maybe his ambition will make him big chance.....

This is why they gave the Superdelegates discretion and autonomy, and why they should keep their powder dry.

I want the best candidate to win the nomination, the most electable, etc... I'm undecided but leaning towards Clinton. Maybe. I don't know. I just don't have that Obamania. He doesn't seem that progressive to me and doesn't seem to know how to wage the kind of fight we'll need to push through a progressive agenda. Reaching across the aisle to find some mythical center won't bring about progressive change. I don't buy the idea of transcendent politics and post-partisanship.

But what also worries me about Obamania is that for so many it's premised on shallow naivete: Politics will be different. Uh, no. When reality descends--politics are by definition agonistic, and the right will stymie progressive change at every turn, because that's what they do, and Obama makes ugly compromises too--will the will to fight evaporate?

One certain thing you can say about Clinton: Her bubble of hate won't ever go away.
Hate just tends to grow and grow. It never shrinks. Never pops.

Imagine the rage if this thing gets put back in the White House:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClfpG2-1Bv4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs&feature=related

Talk about a hate bubble!
You'd have to have the conscience of a Krugman liberal (no sexual morality) to not see what Billary means to the future.

Is Obama being bouyed up by a bubble? That's the first question to ask. Obama is not perfect, but many people have a plain reason to support him: his position is fundamentally different from either of the leading candidates. Clinton can talk about change, but she is invested in the old version of Democratic Party politics, the part that has so far seemed more interested in playing it safe with the out of power Republicans than in fulfilling the promises of the 2006 campaign.

But what also worries me about Obamania is that for so many it's premised on shallow naivete: Politics will be different.

I have a message for all those on this thread (and blog) who have been repeating this meme ad nauseam. You are assuming that the country is the same as the one you grew up in.

But the country is changing rapidly. It is not the country that you or I -- or Krugman -- grew up in. We are in the fucking minority now.

Yes, conservative old white men will continue to obstruct. But that will become harder and harder -- across all the major issues. Yes, there will be setbacks. But making progress could be easier and easier with the right politics -- with a new politics.

If Billary deserves to lose for any reason, surely the greatest one is their ill-advised warning against "false hope."

Totally UN AMERICAN.

Obama is unelectable. Out here in flyover land, there is a huge contingent that would be very uncomfortable with a black man with a Muslim name becoming president. They may not show up in polls since they don't want to admit what could be construed as racism, but on election day, in private, they will stop Obama. Electing him would be a very risky proposition and most people don't have an appetite for that much risk.

krugman has lost all creditability. a hillary man who drink the kool-aid of envy. krugman is starting yo sound like brooks. two short men wana be heard like spoiled brats.

Gosh, I'm very worried that an even-handed, rational mind like Paul Krugman who has been completely neutral on the Democratic primary up til now might be worrying about an anti-Obama backlash.

I love politics.
Almost all americans realize there will be no change in government regardless of who is elected, be it a republican or a democrat.

krugman has lost all creditability.

Yeah, like 10 years ago. Thanks for paying attention.

Obamania, like that portmanteau Beatlemania, implies the supporters of the fab one are irrational star-struck teenagers not mature enough to appreciate the shallowness of their adulation. A darker and more absurd slander against Obama is that he is the demagogic leader of an irrational mob. In contrast Hillary Clinton is a candidate of substance and experience supported by people with equally sound and mature judgment.

We expect the DLC “moderates” to side in true bipartisan form with Republicans as they have sided with them on so many issues. It is just this alliance that has wittingly or unwittingly undermined the American middle class. Their common policies of economic neoliberalism and liberal imperialism have been responsible for this.

I don’t mean to imply Krugman is part of the forces of evil. He is not. But any backlash against a formerly marginal political personality who many win the presidency will come from all branches of the established order. In part, Obama’s popularity is a repudiation of a government that does not represent the desires or the needs of the people. It does great things for the few who are rich but it is market logic for everyone else. Krugman knows perhaps more than anyone that we have come to this because the political establishment is stacked against the interests of the many.

There is no Obamania. He is just the alternative. Anyway Hillary Clinton is unacceptable to the left and to Republicans.

Let's understand that the money the Obama and the Clinton PACs have "sloshed" to "superdelegates" was contributed to democratic members of, and candidates for, congress. But for Brooks or Krguman to include such a fact would not further their purposes.

So there is something improper about national democratic leaders, adept at raising money, contributing money to other democrats to ensure democratic majorities in congress?

Who knew that his concern at the lack of "mandates" in Obama's health insurance plan would render Krguman to the realm of journalist hack. As for Brooks, well he's David Brooks.

I have some [very] anecdotal evidence that does support Krugman/Brooks "backlash' claim.

Driving into work this morning and flipping through the radio, I tuned into one of my stations and heard them talking about Obama. Three hosts - one is very progressive, and an avowed Obama supporter, one is hard-core conservative, and one is a moderately progressive guy. They were talking about the Obama rallies that have all those people fainting, and he stops down to get them some water/assistance, etc. They laughed about that, then start on the Obama as a faith healer or a messiah, and had a chuckle about that too. It then progresses into his speeches about "change" and being for "change" and what is "change" exactly. They were making fun of the vagueness, although they also agreed that all politicians are vague, and they really preferred it that way, because in-depth political talk gave them tired-head (one of their catch phrases). All in all they had a big laugh about exactly what Krugman/Brooks are saying.

Now, while it is just three guys on the radio, it should worry Barack supporters because, 1) this was happening on the radio in Dallas, Texas (there's a huge Reunion Arena rally Wednesday for Barack, which is how this came up) and the Texas primary vote is soon, and 2) this was on a sports talk radio show - KTCK 1310, "The Ticket". It also highest male listenership in town with males 25-55. So there may be some legitimacy to Krugman's thoughts, no matter what you think of him personally.

And note, I've got no dog in this hunt, as my dog was shot long ago. Just paraphrasing what I heard.

Tom said:

"Obama is unelectable. Out here in flyover land, there is a huge contingent that would be very uncomfortable with a black man with a Muslim name becoming president. They may not show up in polls since they don't want to admit what could be construed as racism, but on election day, in private, they will stop Obama"

Tom is exactly right. Conservative Democrats and Independents will defeat an Obama candidacy. They will have an acceptable alternative in the moderate Republican, John McCain.

Hillary Clinton will not be able to win either. It is utterly amazing how the Democrats have screwed up a sure thing.

Get use to it - John McCain will be our next President.

OK, full disclosure, I am an Obama-skeptic, though I sort of voted for him (in Illinois we vote separately for delegates - is this how everyone does it? so I voted for Kucinich, but also the slate of Obama delegates; I got to have my cake and eat it too).

But Brooks is an idiot. His complaints are tired rightwing talking points. I don't see them resonating as issues with many Obamamaniacs. He totally undermines his own argument by assuming from the beginning that the core of Obamamania is liberal ("Berkeley, Cambridge, and Chapel Hill") and then babbling that people are losing faith in Obama because he is liberal.

Also, Brooks wouldn't know independent thinking if it bit him in the "touchois."

It's certainly possible to be sincerely worried about backlash but the implicit argument seems to be:

At some point in the future, Obama will collapse when faced with opposition. Therefore, it might be better if he stopped opposing and beating Clinton because at some point in the future, she will succeed when faced with opposition.

I'll tell you who's in a bubble. Paul Krugman and David Brooks, that's who. They are enveloped in the self-referential and self-perpetuating bubble of narrative creation. At least Krugman is straightforward; Brooks remains the smarmiest and slickest media slut of them all.

Earlier this week Brooks co-opted several of Obama's education proposals for "Fresh Start Conservativism". Today he turns around and introduces a new meme: "Obama Comedown Syndrome". Wow! Brooks sure has his finger on the pulse of the nation! We may never have encountered anything resembling this phenomenon among actual people in the real world, but if David Brooks says it's happening, damn, bring on the Xanax!

Brooks then tosses around a bunch of disingenuous assertions about Obama that he knows damn well are junk. For example, he knows that the public financing "pledge" has been deconstructed, but does he care? No, because he is an irresponsible shill for the GOP.

Krugman: I hope I’m just a cynical baby boomer who has never really trusted any politician since 1968.

Great campaign slogan. Second only to "My mandates are better than your mandates."

Stick to economics, Paul.

Granny Bee pointed out the bubbliciousness of Obama mania weeks ago.
http://makethemaccountable.com/index.php/2008/01/29/granny-bee-bubbleheads/

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Folks,

I keep looking for these "Obama cultists" and except for an occasional cartoonist I can't find any. Obama does seem to have millions of serious supporters eager to go to work in the service of America. What Obama is tapping into is Bush's failure to call Americans to action after 9/11. Telling everybody "we will protect you, now you be good little sheep and go to the mall" demonstrates Bush's essential failure to understand the American character.

Obama seems to understand that every generation of Americans needs to be called to action--be it FDR during the great depression, FDR again at the start of WWII, Truman at the beginning of the cold war, Kennedy's call to go to the moon, and Reagan to end the cold war. None of these Presidents were cult leaders*, but they were all messengers of change. Right now America hungers to be challenged. That is why Americans are chanting "Yes We Can" instead of "No, You Can't."

The real challenge is figuring out exactly what needs to be done.

*FDR was called a cult leader by Republicans and some of Reagan's supporters still worship the ground he walked on.

Hey, it's off-topic, but I came upon this site at htt://obamawill.com and it's wonderful and funny. And...my wife, a Clinton supporter, read it and said it's the first thing she's seen that inclines her towards Obama. Go figure.

I don't see the bubble bursting with the MSM. Why?

Obama = Ratings

His oratory skills and simply his "stage presence" make his appearance great television. The TV news networks will always love someone who can pay their bills. True, they will revel in airing any dirty laundry that comes out because America loves to watch an idol fall, but they'll also stay glued on his 1 hour response explaining why the attack is unfair or inaccurate. He'll win that fight in the end because they can't keep their cameras off of him. Obama is liberal teflon.

I've gone from Kucinich (again) to Edwards to Obama over the past several months. And now I'm 100 percent committed to Barack's inspiring vision for us and our nation and his call for us to join in manifesting this vision. Unlike the other candidates still standing who offer the "same old, same old," Barack is the transformational leader that times such as these call for, and those who think that this phenomenon is merely a bubble are in for a big surprise.

Wishful thinking, dude. The horserace is over!

Fine.

He's still a much better candidate than Hilary or McCain.

This Obamamania thing is just a distraction. Both McCain and Obama will be seen to have the personal gravitas to be President in most people's minds who don't have their minds already made up. Who the undecideds will vote for will be determined by what kind of appeal they are more inclined to accept - McCain's appeal to fear and military solutions and dislike of taxes or Obama's appeal to more use of diplomacy and more reliance on solutions to economic issues involving government programs. Of course there will be many nuances of personal strengths and weaknesses of McCain and Obama that will play a significant role in many people's minds, but I believe those appeals will be the predominate factors. I think McCain's appeals will be more affective with older swing voters and Obama's with younger swing voters and new voters. I think turn out of young voters may be the key to this election and whether you want to disparage much of their enthusiasm by using the term "Obamiamania" or not, I think it is just such enthusiasm that would bring an election victory to Obama.

I also think Clinton will beat McCain if she is the nominee, but she would win for somewhat different reasons - though the war and the economy would be huge factors in either a Clinton or Obama victory.

Are you joking, Obamamania end? David Brooks, and the whole conservative cabal deciding, we've had second thoughts, we just don't want to be brought together right now and returning to their partisan roots. Does this mean No we can't? Who'd have ever thunk it.

I noticed someone mentioned the "roll of the dice". The Clintons define everything for us. Will the Democrats ever believe that no one but a Clinton can beat the Republicans? Obama's the best pure politician I've ever seen, and certainly the most confident. I became convinced he was definitely our best bet on the night he lost New Hampshire. He graciously congratulated Clinton and then moved forward with that speech. He dwarfed her that night and not with spin, but with conviction. He has yet to react to disappointment with defensiveness or petty crap, unlike his opponents. What we as Democrats have to face is what Obama understands. We are afraid he can't win because he is Black. We are afraid to find out that our own party, the party of Civil Rights and equality isn't so enlightened after all. He thinks we are enlightened enough, and he is willing to put himself on the line to prove it. When he talks about ending the politcs of fear he isn't just talking about the fear tactics used by the Bush administration, he's talking about our own fears as well. When you listen to the talking points of the Clinton people who talk about his lack of experience and substance you know for many it's a cover for something else. One thing I know for sure that breaks my heart is that if a candidate of Obama's gifts, talents and experience were a Republican, they would nominate him in a New York minute and he would get elected.

The right-wing and their temporary allies in the Clinton camp are pushing the cult meme hard. Seemingly it's all they have. But just as with Clinton demeaning the states she has lost it's a loser strategy.

There are tremendously good reasons for Democrats to support Obama over Clinton. No irrational thought needed.

Where Kevin finds evidence for his assertion that Obama has been riding a bubble I have no idea. He's been behind for most of the race. Gaining ground steadily is now to be defined as a bubble?

Get real. Obama is our best candidate to defeat McCain. Furthermore, there is great reason to believe he will be an excellent President.

This backlash meme is already widespread, and you can almost feel in the air that it's about to explode into a feeding frenzy. In other words, it ain't over yet.

WTF? To borrow a line from Apocalypse Now: "The bullshit piles up so high in this place, you need wings to stay above it."

Obama is ahead by more than 130 pledged delegates and Hillary has very little chance of netting many delegates out of Texas. The very best Hillary can hope for is to get within 50 pledged delegates of Obama by the end of the primaries and then use her political muscle to tear away the nomination at the convention in late August. This would be a train wreck for the Democratic party. Hillary's only path to the nomination is to tear the party apart two months before the general election.

McCain is out because he is a WarHawk just his buddy Bush, and Obama is going to be out after Texas and Ohio vote only One left. LMAO

I think a McCain-Obama race will be a whole lot more interesting and better for the country than a McCain-Clinton race. Clearer choices, better break from the past. Not so many obvious mud-slinging targets on either side, although both sides' oppo will dig. I look forward to some great debates. I sent $$$ to both.

....Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party — the trial lawyers, the teachers' unions, the AARP?

The "special interest" or the people's interest, I mean, what exactly is a changemaker suppost to be doing different from Bush? Would be to put people first and big interest aside?

Hell, does McCain have the guts to take on the "special interest" of the GOP You know, like big Oil, big Pharma, and all the other "Charles Keating" type of people that Repugs ONLY ever cater too? So with McCain's recent torture vote I say hell NO he doesn't. McCain is just another *ucking Bush, and that is why the Bushies love him so. That is why Huckabee is being to told to shut-up and get lost.

Every time I hear Hillary say something like, "I've got a 37-point plan to improve inspection of beef and keep the food supply safe," I cringe. Sorry, but it's so. I think she would be a great head of the FDA, but she's not running for that post -- she's running to be President. My bet is that lots and lots of people, even those prepared to like her, will respond the way I do, and she won't be a very formidable candidate in the general election for that reason. I guess I'm looking for a candidate with general ideas about how to improve things, and Obama is more that than she is.

And what if more than 50% of the country wants to join the cult, as it seems to now? What then?

And here i thought you were going to say to "fasten your seatbelts."

What bothers me about the "Obamamania" meme is that it attempts, and to some extent succeeds, in painting Obama's popularity as being based on showmanship and charisma. When in actuality, much of his appeal is that he's so sober minded and thoughtful, and normal.

Perhaps he should call Hillary's bluff and do more debates. He really shines in those and it would negate this silly "he's a speech maker" line of attack.

You know - I was forgetting why I refuse to read the tripe that spews forth from Krugmann's keyboard everyday and now you've reminded me once again KD. Thanks.

David Brooks usually starts out semi-rational and then very cleverly tilts way right. Today was different, "start with RNC talking points and add a dose of jealousy" was my reaction to his article.

"And what if more than 50% of the country wants to join the cult, as it seems to now? What then?"

Which half of the country has all the guns?

Civil war much?

The most Hillary and her supporters can hope for is that Obama is a bubble they can somehow burst.

They spend all day trying to think of ways to sow seeds of doubt. If you won't question him (and buy false hopes, flip flopping, phony memes being floated), perhaps we will question ourselves - We've been taken over by a sly cult leader and we didn't know it. We need an intervention to break the spell. And it will come too late to save us from ourselves!!! Great meme, huh.

There is going to come a period of intense vetting I suspect - but come the Fall the cycle will have passed and the media will be back to building Obama back up.

It's not an overinflated bubble - it's a cycle -like any other. Ride it out.

Obamamaniac has 6 syllables. As the majority of pundits will have trouble saying it without tripping over their tongues it's unlikely to catch on.

Billary has three and is a clear contraction of the 7 syllable phrase Bill and Hillary Clinton. Much easier.

Ah, yes, the old Brooks line that you're only an independent thinker if you're a rebel against "liberal orthodoxy." Because, in Brooks' world, only the conservatives are the insurgents, rebelling against those evil liberals who control everything.

Saw this coming a mile away. For some people any examination of Sen. Obama's ... you know ... actual record and positions on issues as he runs for President is somehow a "backlash" or a "meme" that the press is turning on him. And I thought the press gave W a pass. (They did.) Call me crazy, but how about we vet a guy with three year's experience on the federal stage (one spent running for Presidet) just a teentsy bit before we give him the nuclear launch codes? Is that OK? I'm sure he won't be offended.

I can understand Krugman with his wishful thinking desire for Obama to self-destruct. Also, being an economist brings the bubble analogy to this. Remember, analogic reasoning is more often than faulty (no Ob book reference here, maybe someone else can help). Economic bubbles form because of an intersection of greed and fear - something like that. What we have here is hope - I think a hope driven bubble can go on much longer and will only burst when the hope is not sustained or destroyed by subsequent behavior. Look how long the hope of the conservative base was sustained by the current crop of Republicans.

So, I would discount Krugman (no need to say anything about Brooks - his MO currently seems to be to dig up as much dirt as he can on Dem. candidates, alternate as best as he can) and maybe even Kevin with his fence-sitting on the Hillary-Obama line.

-- r

If the Bush presidency teaches anything it's that weak men supported by a divided public is a dangerous combo. With Obama we get the natural leader; the man who brings all types into the fold, bears a message that reflects reason, and delivers it in a way that make crowds smile. He makes everyone else look like a sourpuss.

I've been around this campaign in seven states traveling with the press. As a cameraman I get to stare straight into all kinds of people eyes: let me tell you there is a joy in Obama events that is absent HRC's. If there wasn't so much security at these events you've thought you'd joined a grassroots movement.

I have no dog in this hunt either.

I'd like to offer some advice to the Obama supporters. If you truly are his supporters then you must answer, politely and firmly, the slurs against him every time they appear.

Calling them "memes" won't work with the general population. Getting defensive and angry won't work either. You will face a relentless, non-stopping repetition of those slurs over and over and over again.

In order for the 'big lie' to work it must be constantly repeated. It is simple marketing really. Why does Budweiser repeat its commercials so much.

When you become discouraged, frustrated and angry take if offline and have someone else push back for awhile.

Believe me, the repetition stuff can work and the money people know how to use it. Hell, after eight years of Bush's dismal results which followed eight years of Clinton's general success we all are convinced Clinton was such a bad president we cannot think of electing his wife.

Through repetition positives can be turned into negatives and that is what you will be facing.

Well, Clinton's camp is certainly trying hard enough with its "plagiarism" charges and other attacks on the eve of the Wisconsin election.

Ironically, a large part of Obamas appeal was the very thing he's about to destroy,Hillary Clinton. Unable to shake the role of Marie Antoinette, assigned to her by the blogoshpere/MSM, she allowed Barack to frame his campaign as a Revolution on behalf of the people. Jeese, that's a nice little campaign narrative. How do I get one of those? The second her head hits the basket he'll become the very thing he revolted against. At best, he drops three levels of "Coolness". At worst, he becomes Jimmy Carter.

Cult? Cult without any staying power?

Please.

I guess economists don't have a need for Occam's razor:

Barack is winning because more people favor him as the Dem candidate. Period.

Get over it bearded one. You are starting to look seriously silly.

Hillary's strategy is to paint Obama's support as fleeting. And cultish? I don't like Kevin enabling that campaign's memes right on cue either. I feel that strange doings are ahead as Clinton tries to reassume inevitability. She is the ultimate insider. That is the reason I cannot support her. I love Obabma's message, but I support a repudiation of the past policies even more--like most of us. Tsunami. Not bubble.

I was under the impression that the Obama bubble burst after New Hampshire. There was a bubble after Iowa. What a surprise that the likes of Krugman and Brooks are pushing this idea. I'm amazed that you are too naive to see through it: they long for an Obama "backlash," so they are trying to create one by saying, "Look! An Obama backlash is coming! I can feel it!"

Bubble Smubble. He's too slick and Bush sucked so bad it would take a crack whore incident to stop him now. The press is too scared of the race card to really dig in. Hey have a little faith, the press is nothing but lap dogs with nothing to sink thier teeth into anyway. He is going to kick thier stupid republican ass. If not there's always Canada.

I think that's as irresponsible of Kevin as it is of Paul Krugman. Krugman, usually an admirable and informative columnist, has been pretty bad lately. Disputo (@2:33am) has it exactly right. Krugman is trying to build a fire.

Now Kevin is throwing logs on it, spreading the slop to the Washington Monthly. I don't think it's just Krugman's choice of Hillary that's driving this as much as his need for some attention-getting columns.

Look at the NYT op-ed page! With Bob Herbert as the lone standout, it shows that the Times editorial board is reaching for a new low. There comes a time when all "pundits," most media, many journalists, and far too many bloggers fall in love with themselves and out of love with reality.

The naive true-believers have been played well by the conservatives on this one. The conservatives picked the weak of the litter, nursed him and protected him until they were ready to put him in the ring and be demolished by one of their own.

David Brooks started this off with his article "Run Obama Run" telling Obama that he was the man, the One and Only, feeding Obama's narcissism and swelled head and promoting the cult of personality. While the competitive candidates one by one were eliminated by either ignoring them or giving them the Gore treatment, the conservative msm has been promoting Obama. Now Obama remains and the naive who fell into the trap still don't get they were played and stupidly are blaming the people who tried to warn them.

But Obamazooid has only four...

Btw, lou: The plagiarism thing with Obama has been known for a long time. It was just ignored by the msm until it was convenient. The following from 4/07:

In The Senate, Obama Repeatedly “Lifted Ideas And Text From Clinton’s Bills And Repackaged Them As His Own.” “Obama has liberally lifted ideas and text from Clinton’s bills and repackaged them as his own when filing legislation in the Senate, a review of congressional records show. [In April 2007] Obama unveiled a sweeping measure to help veterans, titled ‘Homes for Heroes’ - similar to Clinton’s older plan, ‘Heroes at Home.’ … Obama has cribbed ideas from Clinton’s bills on everything from voting rights to improving medical treatment, homeland security to helping veterans.” (Ian Bishop, “Barack’s Bills Hint Of Clinton Pinchin’,” New York Post, 4/16/07)

Some people should ask themselves why they feel such glee in "seeing" and predicting the darkening of the light.

It's not about Obama but something much, much larger. If you want to live your lives in a self-defined hell of negative expectations, fine. But I used to be that way about pretty much everything, and it's a crock. Personally, I'm not afraid of sailing off the edge of the world...

It's a-coming.

Spoken like a true wingnut. I hate the truth too...

Let's just point out that Kevin is part of any backlash -- and for exactly the same reason.

He's bored with Obama winning. He needs something to write about. And thus he hops on the bandwagon.

I think I've seen two or three "Obama is over" posts from him. They always come after a period of positive news for Obama and they all have the same underlying dynamic: The Story Must Change.

From a commenter above
"First, let's remember:

1. Krugman is SHRILL!
2. Hillary killed Vince Foster!
3. Tonight, Obama was able to get Castro to resign from Cuban President.

Woohoo"

I've been a lifelong dem. But I have been thinking about sitting out this election although I am squirming over the potential change in the supreme court.

Honestly, the commenters response above is just one example of why I feel so disenfranchised by the Obama supporters.

I'm thinking that's part of his strategy/plan. There's a natural flow to campaigns. That's why now we hear the soaring words, the true wonkishness will happen closer to election day

"Now Obama remains and the naive who fell into the trap still don't get they were played and stupidly are blaming the people who tried to warn them."

Do you, perchance, realize just how much contempt you're displaying in this post? It's quite revealing.

"Honestly, the commenters response above is just one example of why I feel so disenfranchised by the Obama supporters."

Man, I hope you're joking.

"Reporters will start wondering why Obama doesn't like to talk to them very much"

I know this is a blog but should there be some minimal expectation of reporters doing their homework?

These two statements are false:

"Obama doesn't talk to the media much"

"Obama is all style and no substance"

The steps needed to look into these two issues are childishly simple. But it is harder than doing nothing. If you're on a deadline, simply accepting or reacting to media reverb is a pretty easy way to bang a few stories out.

The announcement of the backlash will head the backlash off before the pass.

When newspapers printed facts that were hurtful to Reagan, readers complained. This is what we're seeing and will continue to see for at least four years.

"The naive true-believers have been played well by the conservatives on this one. The conservatives picked the weak of the litter, nursed him and protected him until they were ready to put him in the ring and be demolished by one of their own."

Out of curiosity, do you really not see how supremely silly this is?

"Call me crazy, but how about we vet a guy with three year's experience on the federal stage (one spent running for Presidet) just a teentsy bit before we give him the nuclear launch codes?"

No objection from me. Now how do you propose to "vet" him? Neither Krugman's column nor Kevin's post appear to help.

Taylor Marsh embarrassed herself this morning. And if that wasn't enough, Pale Rider took her to the woodshed.

Honestly, the commenters response above is just one example of why I feel so disenfranchised by the Obama supporters.

I live six blocks from Ob