![]()

Economist and columnist Paul Krugman continues to rile his natural liberal allies by filing anti-Barack Obama screeds. On Monday he delivered the ultimate sanction, comparing Obama supporters to Clinton haters and even (gasp!) Richard Nixon in "Hate Springs Eternal."
In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.
The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party's grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.
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.
Krugman is feeling the heat from Obama supporters and addresses it on his nytimes.com blog. He truly seems to think the media would prefer a Republican over a Democrat in the fall election:
It really makes me sad to see so many people get played by the media on this. If you prefer Obama, fine -- but the evil, race-card-playing Clinton campaign is no more real than Al Gore's claim that he invented the Internet.
And to Obama supporters, just remember: these people are not your friends. After they take down Hillary Clinton, if they can, your man will be next.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
In fact, these days even
Tue, 02/12/2008 - 10:10 ET by SMGalbraithIn fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.
This is a very odd comment coming from Krugman since he is vehemently critical of Obama's appeals to bipartisanship. Krugman wants - no, demands - the Democrats to use a scorched earth approach in dealing with the Republicans. No compromises, no outreach, no comity. He thinks Obama's won't use those tactics. That's why, in part, he's opposed to the Senator's candidacy.
The truly Nixonian character in this contest is one Paul Robin Krugman.
Of course, any reader of his has known this for more than half a decade.
Krugman is the embodiment of a fanatic
Tue, 02/12/2008 - 10:18 ET by RJ.....right down to his creepy burning eyes.
Krugman is vulnerable in a
Tue, 02/12/2008 - 10:28 ET by NL207Krugman is vulnerable in a debate. Watch him sometime, especially the way he processes information. He is a classic liberal. He filters data according to his beliefs, rejecting any fact that conflicts with his world view. Such facts are simply lies to be discarded. If he is pressed on them, he will tell his oponent he misunderstands the data, that it really means siomething else.
No, Krudeman has been in the
Tue, 02/12/2008 - 11:45 ET by docbNo, Krudeman has been in the bag for the clinton's...Remember he was with ENRON and someone knows where his bodies are buried. WHO COULD THAT BE?
Oh, please
Tue, 02/12/2008 - 10:22 ET by WhoIsJohnGalt"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."
Yet, when the Bush administration has never been proven to torture anyone, or illegally spy on anyone, it's permissable to perpetuate that myth ad infinitum?
Or when Joseph McCarthy has never "ruined" anyone's career in Hollywood (or anywhere else, for that matter), that screed is safe from discredit?
But you know, I'm actually surprised that he took as long as he did to eventually tie this issue back around to Bush! He's slipping...used to be, he could do it inside of two paragraphs flat.
No Evidence
Tue, 02/12/2008 - 10:39 ET by mattmWith Bush there was never any evidence because there was never any wrongdoing, but with Clinton it was because all the witnesses somehow died before testifying and all the documents somehow wound up in the shredder.
The Left continues to attack Republicans, Nixon in particular, because deep down, they know that Clinton was more Nixonian than Nixon, and they're covering for him.
If they look far enough and
Tue, 02/12/2008 - 14:15 ET by danboIf they look far enough and deep enough, they may find where someone bent the rules.
Yet, how many confidential FBI files on individuals were found in the Clinton White House?
One of Nixon's men went to jail for just 2 or 3. Far fewer than the Clintons had.
Again the media is dishonest.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Speaking of Nixon....
Tue, 02/12/2008 - 10:24 ET by Prester John....there was a program just a few days ago (History Channel?)describing how Washington refused to run for a third term and simply went back home to Martha. The narrator wondered if someone else, say Nixon, would've done the same thing. Now besides the fact that the narrator obviously didn't have a clue about Nixon's refusal to contest the 1960 election, he also apparently didn't even think of the one person who would've stayed forever if he had had the chance, one William Jefferson Clinton.
Frontline had a piece last
Tue, 02/12/2008 - 10:47 ET by mattmFrontline had a piece last night where it seemed they were blaming Nixon for the bad stuff that happened after he got us out of Viet Nam.
As I said above, they attack Nixon to cover the fact that THEY are the guilty, corrupt and criminal ones.
Wah wah wah wah Hillary is loosing
Tue, 02/12/2008 - 12:35 ET by Lame CherryI just laugh at the Krugman racists who want white Mommie Dearest to suckle them from their nipples and respond as 3 year olds against that scarey boogie man Obama in the closet.
It is pure ranting racism by Krugman in nowhere are any of the Obama people acting like haters, but then Krugman in bigotry thought people hated Bill Clinton or that Richard Nixon had some scheme to destroy the world of leftists.
If one looks at a real example of Clinton ravaging and then saving his enemies to Andy Jackson the first Democrat turning the courts and ruining all his enemies........yeah that is real.
Obama though has not stooped to the hate. He can not help it if the HuffPo loons hate Hillary as that is the Democrats at their typical response.
Krugman is having his nappy head moment and should be fired over this like Don Imus as it is pure racism in his juvenile psychopathy and no where is anything he has written is it based in historical fact.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Poor Paulie is pouting.
Tue, 02/12/2008 - 12:36 ET by bigtimerPoor Paulie is pouting.
Krugman - you girl you!
Tue, 02/12/2008 - 12:54 ET by okiehawk44Obama is a man. You should be so lucky, you pansy. If your eyes ever stopped darting during a debate you'd stop breathing. We all remember your type from our school years - now you're all grown up and still creepy.
Nixon
Tue, 02/12/2008 - 16:03 ET by iveseenitallI voted for Nixon--twice.. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. If one man has been vilified beyond reason, it is Richard Nixon--- mainly because he outed the commies, Alger Hiss and his pals.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Every time this
Tue, 02/12/2008 - 15:44 ET by fitzfongEvery time this economically illiterate "economics professor" crawls out of his hole to shill for the Clintons, McCain becomes a bit more appealing. If I need any motivation to get out and vote in November, this arrogant creep will certainly help.