Do Obama supporters hate Hillary Clinton or is their choice based on a genuine preference for Obama and / or unease with Hillary's past and current record? I won't go into the details of my opposition to HRC which I have explained in detail in several posts and comments. Anna too made a persuasive case for not voting for Hillary. Both of us expressed our wariness and disappointment with the Clintons and a lack of enthusiasm for their return to the White House. Hillary supporters continue to believe that informed choice such as ours is not informed at all. They suspect it is based on an "irrational hatred" for their candidate whose easy path to coronation has been made bumpy by our lack of co-operation.
In an earlier post I had argued why accusations of misogyny hurled by Robin Morgan in a slightly unhinged diatribe against Obama supporters are unfounded. In the comments section of the same post Dean linked to an article by Stanley Fish who makes a similar point as Morgan but in a more didactic manner. But Fish does not clarify whether he is lumping the truly misogynistic anti-Hillary sentiments of the right wing with the liberal voters' opposition to her. The latter, as I pointed out, is not based on hatred but a healthy skepticism born out of past and recent experience with the Clinton (both Bill and Hill) mindset, their inability to stand by principles and proclivity of playing both sides of the field. Another commentator, Paul Krugman, whose recent pro-Hillary and anti-Obama outbursts have surprised many of his fans, unequivocally fingers Obama supporters as "Hillary haters." In fact he labels them cultish venom spewers.
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.
Is this unexpected "venom" the result of the Obama campaign forgetting to call Mr. Krugman for policy advise or is he drinking the Kool Aid he accuses Obama supporters of ingesting? Not surprisingly, nine out of the eleven letters to the editor published in the NYT in response to Krugman's article take him to task for making these silly, unfounded charges. Krugman, whom I usually like, deserves the brick bats.
The supporters on both sides of the isle would belong to what Krugman suggests - this is part of any campaign. However, Obama, in general, has tried to run a positive campaign more than the clintons - that is a fact. See this intelligent analysis for example:
http://blip.tv/file/647623
Posted by: najeeb | February 15, 2008 at 04:42 PM