read Obama's books? A good friend (Kucinich supporter and writer) is reading his first one and is very impressed with his writing style and substance. Also his history. Obama didn't come from a wealthy family. His dad absconded shortly after his birth.

^{“Is not our first thought to go on the road? The road is our source, our vault of treasures, our wealth. Only on the road does the ‘traveller’ feel like himself, at home.”
Ryszard Kapuscinski}

... Fresh! New! Lemony Squeezy! approach to picking our leaders. Same ol' sh*t, new bottle.

leads nowhere. It's exactly akin to attributing disagreement with George Bush's policies to Bush Derangement Syndrome. Words like "cult" and "enthralled" dismiss and trivialize without debating on the merits. It is a tautology.

worded poorly but I'm not sure if there is a way to say it w/o ticking someobody off.

... Krugman's mail bag? I think he speaks from empirical evidence.

yeah, empirical, highly selective evidence. Krugman writes a dozen broadsides against Obama over a couple of months, and guess what the overall slant of his inflammatory mail is going to be?

Krugman gets no hate mail from Hillary lovers, ergo Hillarybots are eminently more tempered, reasonable souls.

Please, Krugman, keep your reasoned, "empirical" analysis coming!

You too, peon. Your anecdotes about grad-student parties at Berkeley (or wherever) really expose the misguided thinking behind Obama's surging national popularity for what it is...what is it again?

Oh yeah, he's just too personally impressive. His rhetorical skill keeps clouding our ability to evaluate his positions in a rational manner.

Cluck, cluck...

... don't take it further than it was meant. That was me talking, not Krugman.

As for your other reasoning, of course he's going to attract email from BHO supporters. But it was my guess --and thats what it was, obviously-- that it was the content of the email, not the fact of the email, that buttressed his opinion. And that's not to say Krugman based his column solely on the email bag, or even on any of it. I said "imagine" Krugman's mail bag. I suspect few had any trouble doing that.

I swear, the non-thinking, non-critical approach of Obama supporters being described is epitomized in your post. Not to worry. There's plenty in all camps.

that the mail bag thing was just speculation. But it is a reasonable guess that this is helping to fuel Krugman's vendetta. Either way, I don't need your comment to springboard off of to show the fact of the vendetta. It's obvious from the highly selective examples of "hysteria" on Obama's side but not on Clinton's.

The rest of my point is that Krugman has jumped the shark. It was apparent that PK was headed this way back when he first starte shrieking about Obama's comments re Social Security - not because those comments were inaccurate per se, but because per Krugman, any discussion of problems in social security, whatever the context, is in and of itself a "right wing talking point" that undermines all progressivism.

But it's not progressivism writ large that is so fragile that we have to revise the political dictionary to protect it. Krugman's personal conception of the progressive gestalt, and his ego along with it, apparently are.

What on earth has Barack ever done to Krugman? Vendetta? Not so much.

Krugman is all over Obama and somebody got their feelings hurt.

or, supporting Hillary could also mean that you have a 'mental' problem.

I don't want Hillary in the job.

1. I don't think it's good for the country to have yet another Clinton in the job. Smacks of royal lineage.
2. Her husband brought us NAFTA (bad), and I believe the Clintons are responsible for bring the Democratic party to the right by imitating the Republicans and going after the support of lobbyists.
3. From what I've read, there appear to be many skeletons in the Clintons' closet, some having to do with their connections to the Rose law firm.

Why I think Obama might be good:

1. It would be good for the country to have a well-spoken non-white person as the face of the country...great contrast to the recent disaster with mumblemouth Bush. Other countries might actually think we've come to our senses and their leaders might once more take us seriously. Because we are in deep sh.. as a country and are going to need all the good will we can get (peak oil, climate change, financial ponzi schemes which have devolved into, perhaps, a coming depression).

2. He was president of the Harvard Law Review and is obviously a very smart man (though Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, so scholarly "smart" is not necessarily all it's cracked up to be).

I guess I am hoping that he will be able to grasp the realities of what we are up against. (I realize his financial advisors are of the Friedman school, and that doesn't make me very happy.) On the other hand, Obama has taken a position against lobbyists.

I do have friends who are diehard Democrats (Kucinich and Edwards supporters...as was I) who have said they will not vote if Hillary is the nominee. I wonder how representative they are of others.

Thoughtful piece, thank you. Obama or Clinton or McCain or Ron Paul or Huckabee each vary in how much they reveal about specific issues. As long as a large bulk of the electorate demand near-unanimous agreement between their own positions and those of any given candidate, the USA is in trouble. I'll never forget GW Bush the day after he won in 2004 when he claimed a mandate from the "political capital" he gained by winning over Kerry. So the 50 million people who voted for his opponent get nothing? They eat garbage? This is the American mentality: winner take all. I have not decided who I will support between HC or BO, but if you read his bio, you know which side he will come down on if he has to deal w/ a "position" on gays. As for health care, ordinary people with some gray matter and the ability to discern have been waiting since The New Deal, and certainly since Harry Truman tried in 1949. ANYTHING we get from anyone in the year 2010 will still be short of just about any other developed country. I expect Obama would not even be in contention on February 11th were it not for starting with the premise of a somewhat demogogic generalized theme, because way too many Americans ignorantly demand almost total agreement right down the list of platform policies. You will always hear pundits and interviewers allow the candidate of the moment to speak of their narrow interests, but I have not heard The Tim Russets of the media world ask: "well, Mr. Huckabee, so all those who feel abortion is a complex issue but still want it to be legal, will be criminalized under your Presidency"? We all know Evangelicals received great patronage under GW Bush's reign, but why was everyone who felt birth control was an important policy for global social justice told "too bad"? It is the American way that "winner takes all". When Romney withdrew last week, he disparaged his "silver" place positions as though it was sub-par to win a "silver medal". Any rational human being will realize that performance @ those high levels is ALL extraordinary. But, not enough Americans do; to them, winning and being #1 is "it". No wonder Obama does not want to publicize all his human rights positions any sooner than he has to.

But are Dukakis' and Paulsen's failure as an electable candidate a reason to vote for Barack?

Some people are honing in on Barack's charisma as the reason why others aren't supporting him. But it misses the point. Charisma is fine, but unless its backed with integrity and substance its just a device used in a con.

Barack's all peaches and cream and if he is the nominee I will vote him. But it won't be because I was conned into it.

The ball is in Barack's court, not Krugman's. Let's see what he does with it. I sincerely hope 'he's all that.' But honestly, I suspect not.

Pat Paulsen was a comedian. And I know you missed the point.

not see Obama as a messiah. I've been equally dismayed and have posted on Hillary hatred too. I'm equal opportunity here and still not taking sides. So don't make my post into something it is not.

^{“Is not our first thought to go on the road? The road is our source, our vault of treasures, our wealth. Only on the road does the ‘traveller’ feel like himself, at home.”
Ryszard Kapuscinski}

I don't mean to offend you but all I asked for was a ? after the headline. I know you intend to be fair and I appreciate that.

I used to not be. Slings and arrows of outrageous fortune I guess. (Or something to that effect.)

^{“Is not our first thought to go on the road? The road is our source, our vault of treasures, our wealth. Only on the road does the ‘traveller’ feel like himself, at home.”
Ryszard Kapuscinski}

that you portray Krugman as having simply questioned Obama's credentials. How innocent.

Would it upset your point too much if I pointed out that Krugman, shooting from the hip without any objective evidence, tarred Obama supporters as a cult?

I have a much more limited stage here on this thread, but perhaps I should reward him in kind with a Bush comparison, for loudly making such blinkered, self-serving arguments without a trace of embarrassment.

don't believe Obama supporters are a cult. It is not wrong to notice that some followers portray cultist behavior.

As a baseline (and w/out any special expertise on the subject), I would say irrational behavior, against one's own self-interest and for the aggrandizement of a religious figurehead, might qualify as cultlike.

What I know is that a lot of people give strong praise to Obama, especially after seeing him firsthand, and are fervent in their political support of him - sometimes quite noisily. But it's still politics, not religious. The "cult" meme is more a function of Clinton supporters hitting dead ends in their more substantive political criticisms of him, and becoming frustrated at his political success, than it is of Obama supporters crossing the line into anything even resembling cult support. In other words, "cultlike" = "too successful for my taste."

Losing is grating. It does not, however, mean your opponent's supporters have been brainwashed. If Hillary could get any fraction of that intensity of support, she would take it and never look back.

Every time you hear the words "savior", "messiah", "kumbaya", etc., in the same sentence as Obama, it's being uttered sneeringly by an anti-Obama, usually pro-Clinton commentator, not by anyone speaking earnestly. It's all a game of casting aspersions when all else has failed. No one is actually saying Obama is any more than a politician or saying he is qualified for any station higher than the earthly on of President. Think about that before you start talking about cults.

My comments have nothing to do with Hillary or her supporters. When I see someone blindly following someone without any idea where that person stands or what they stand for, it is cultish behavior.

As best as I can tell, you are asserting that some Obama supporters "have no idea" what he stands for. Evidence? Or is "cult" just the latest inkblot in a field of amorphous attacks on various candidates?

What I see is a lot of Obama critics loudly complaining that they have no idea what he stands for, because they have never tried to find out. It's not hard by the way!

Obama has only himself to blame and his supporters for the 'Cult' designation.

Tina, for the last 45 minutes I've been trying to copy and paste the proof biwah is asking for but everytime I get to this site, my computer acts up. Can you try, please. The name of the article is "And Obama Wept" by Jake Tapper from ABC.

There is plenty of evidence that the cult phenomenon has been actively promoted by his own campaign. And, it has proved to be an effective campaign strategy judging by Obama's success so far. I just hope it doesn't all come crashing down when he makes his first step into The White House. That's why Obama requires serious scrutiny.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/and-obama-wept.html

And Obama Wept
February 07, 2008 9:43 AM

Inspiration is nice. But some folks seem to be getting out of hand.

It's as if Tom Daschle descended from on high saying, "Be not afraid; for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people: for there is born to you this day in the city of Chicago a Savior, who is Barack the Democrat."

Obama supporter Kathleen Geier writes that she's "getting increasingly weirded out by some of Obama's supporters. On listservs I'm on, some people who should know better – hard-bitten, not-so-young cynics, even – are gushing about Barack…

Describing various encounters with Obama supporters, she writes, "Excuse me, but this sounds more like a cult than a political campaign. The language used here is the language of evangelical Christianity – the Obama volunteers speak of 'coming to Obama' in the same way born-again Christians talk about 'coming to Jesus.'...So I say, we should all get a grip, stop all this unseemly mooning over Barack, see him and the political landscape he is a part of in a cooler, clearer, and more realistic light, and get to work."

Joe Klein, writing at Time, notes "something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism" he sees in Obama's Super Tuesday speech.

"We are the ones we've been waiting for," Obama said. "This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you."

Says Klein: "That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is. “

The always interesting James Wolcott writes that "(p)erhaps it's my atheism at work but I found myself increasingly wary of and resistant to the salvational fervor of the Obama campaign, the idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria. I can picture President Hillary in the White House dealing with a recalcitrant Republican faction; I can't picture President Obama in the same role because his summons to history and call to hope seems to transcend legislative maneuvers and horse-trading; his charisma is on a more ethereal plane, and I don't look to politics for transcendence and self-certification."

Then there's MSNBC's Chris Matthews who tells Felix Gillette in the New York Observer, “I’ve been following politics since I was about 5. I’ve never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament."

And behold, Obama met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.

The Holy Season of Lent is upon us. Can Obama worshippers try to give up their Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities for a few weeks?

At least until Easter, or the Pennsylvania primary, whichever comes first...

- jpt

UPDATE: Let me be clear: I'm not saying there shouldn't be enthusiasm in politics. I'm merely touching on the fact that some Obama supporters' exhuberance seems to be getting a little out of hand. Obama himself joked about this at a Hollywood fundraiser, as noted in Men's Vogue:

“When Morgan Freeman comes over to greet Obama, the senator begins bowing down both hands in worship. ‘This guy was president before I was,’ says Obama, referring to Freeman's turn in Deep Impact and, clearly, getting a little ahead of his own bio. Next, a nod to Bruce Almighty: ‘This guy was God before I was.’”

February 7, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (1262)

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

Thanks, Nymole - eom

Seriously - did you read the article? It's an echo chamber of pundits expressing concerns over the pro-Obama zeal. Where's the evidence? It's a classic specimen of concern-troll journalism from the so-called "villagers".

That's part of what offends me, now that I reflect upon it. It's the faux concern for the well-being of our "discourse" that it comes disguised as.

Your argument partly charges that Obama lacks substance, but "tone it down, you're too zealous" isn't a substantive political criticism either. If we're really concerned about the discourse, which (let's admit) will always be rough and tumble, why not ask everyone to stay on real topics? Oh yeah, we generally do, although it doesn't always work out that way.

We've all strayed from pure substantive topics at times, but this is an interesting way of shoehorning it into anti-Obama alarmism.

That's part of what offends me, now that I reflect upon it. It's the faux concern for the well-being of our "discourse" that it comes disguised as.

"Inspiration is nice. But some folks seem to be getting out of hand."

That tells you it's a Solomon-style hit piece. You know, a gotcha without the gotcha.

"It's as if Tom Daschle descended from on high...". A straw man, except they couldn't afford straw, so they used cotton candy. Without the sugar.

"Obama supporter Kathleen Geier..." criticizes other Obama supporters. While that's damned convenient, it kind screws up the implied all about Obama supporters.

Joke Line. While he does sometimes make good observations, I've felt for 20 years he wasn't worth the effort.

Now Wolcott I respect. But I'll bet he avoids crowds of any sort.

Chris Matthews. Yeah, one day he tells Huckabee (to his face) that he's just like Martin Luther, then the next day he wonders why the "liberal" media is always giving the guy a pass. And McCain bathes in Tweety slobber every night. And gee, what were those nice things he was saying about HRC just before NH?

"Can Obama worshippers try to give up their Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities for a few weeks?"

Oh, yeah, great Manson reference. How appropriate. Lets slaughter some movie stars and start us a race war for Obama!

I take it back. Solomon is better at it.

with no religious connotation. Liking to be part of a scene does not mean that no thought has been given to what it means, but that political ideas are not the only driving force.

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

There are certainly people who are way caught up in the excitement. But it's hard to wring your hands over the existence of groupies, or to denigrate a celebrity, just because they have [gasp] groupies. That's just not crazy enough.

That's exactly why you're not hearing about "groupies". You're hearing about "cultists".

I am going to agree to disagree with you. I don't think you understand what I'm saying, nor do I think you really want to. We are not talking about what critics think, we are talking about the behavior of SOME of Obama supporters. cheers

I thought you were talking about every single one of us. So just some of us are brainwashed and see obama as a god.

Thanks for clarifying how reasonable and measured your concerns are.

part of human nature is that we read into other people what we want to read into them. this is especially true of public figures, who have a reasonably large impact on our conciousness yet whom we don't actually know. i can use myself as an example. my candidate of choice was john edwards. he had, like bho and hrc, a bullshit neoliberal voting record in the senate. however, he talked a good talk about organized labor, fair trade, and making the american government work for all americans, and offered a somewhat class-based social and economic analysis. i reflected into this my own political beliefs, even though these beliefs are incompatible with living in the largest house in NC or with working for a hedge fund. in my own defense, i based my support of edwards on the concrete things he talked about in his speeches and statements, although i read into him a more progressive viewpoint than was warranted by an objective view.

obama, however, is very thin on the concrete statements. his policies are very similar to the neoliberal, socially somewhat progressive policies of kerry '04 or gore '00, although his stump speeches make little reference to these. i saw a lot of his campaign literature in NH - the concrete policies listed on the pamphlets were very minor bills, didn't really make sense why anybody would care. his oratory, however, is full of the soaring idealism and optimism of a kennedy. and many liberals read into this their own ~progressive idealism. there's precious little progressive policy behind the rhetoric (don't tell me about his moral opposition to Iraq - his voting record differs from clinton's only in a few votes where she voted yes and he didn't show up). i've seen the man speak, i've heard him on TV, i've talked with his staff and with his volunteers and with his supporters. i've got a great idea of what he stands for, and i don't like it. most of the supporters i've talked to can't give a coherent answer when asked about his positions. that's why his support is cultlike.

and for the record, i decided over a year ago that i'd never vote for clinton under any circumstances. (more recently, around the time of his reagan comments, i decided the same for obama.) this criticism of obama doesn't have anything to do with clinton supporters, and insisting that obama critics are just mean-spirited clinton supporters just isn't true.

Frustration with lack of hard policy proposals I understand. Ditto concern over too many compromises in the name of centrism. Those concerns are being raised all over, not just from the Clinton side. My point is that these complaints do not support the much thinner, meaner, and to some degree anti-youth attacks on Obama's momentum as cultish.

Is there the same snowball of enthusiasm that goes with massive celebrity? Sure. Is it sudden? Sure, but not THAT sudden. Is it justified? I say, mostly yes. Some say, no.

So, it's not obama critics en masse that I'm talking about, but the meme du jour that Obama = cult. (Oh excuse me, it's just concern about some obama supporters, who we won't name but will cite to anecdotally... ) Myself, I support Obama but think anyone who doesn't have some concerns about their candidate is unrealistic. I don't necessarily tag them as brainwashed, or accuse their candidate of usurping godlike status. I genuinely hope that distinction is clear because there are some rabid pro-[candidate] people out there, I am not one of them, but for the moment, am enjoying seeing my enthusiasm vindicated.