Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Krugman in "Nixonland" "Clintonland"
Posted by: McQ on Monday, February 11, 2008

Paul Krugman uses a 1956 Adlai Stevenson quote about Richard Nixon's campaign style to go after Barack Obama and his followers in an op/ed piece entitled "Hate Springs Eternal".

If you're wondering, Stevenson was decrying what he perceived as negative campaigning and warning against it:
“a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”
What you'll not see Krugman do is admit that Nixonland was renamed "Clintonland" long ago, because you see, his article is all about shilling for Clinton. It is they, the Clintons, and especially Hillary, who are the victims of this sort of campaigning, not the perpetrators. The irony, of course, is while complaining about the campaign style of Hillary's opponent, Krugman ignores the Clinton's use of the same sort of tactics (is it because they've used them for so long it's just expected of them?) while excoriating Obama:
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.
Consider this attempt to hide the scrutiny of the Clintons by the media behind a term, "Clinton rules", to imply that such scrutiny has no foundation in fact. You want hyperbole, there it is. Obama and his campaign and followers, along with their lackies in the MSM are taking "any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent"

Evil intent? Who is it out there that has talked about Obama's desire to be president all of his life based on a paper written in kindergarten? Or, on more than one occassion, floated the fact that he's used drugs as a kid? While the intent may not of been "evil" it certainly was clear, at least to most observers - "a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win."

Clintonland to a tee. It may be that we've become so used to it on their part that we don't remark on it anymore, but to pretend that the Clinton campaign is the victim of such tactics while ignoring the campaign's use of them seems to be what most people would consider shilling. And, for some unknown reason, it comes as no surprise to find Paul Krugman doing exactly that.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
So now the circle is complete (*evil Darth Vader laugh inserted here)

Obama is Nixon!?

Krugman has become the ultimate shill for the Clintons. I read that article with great amusement.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I love it!


As Hillary sees momentum shift solidly to Obama, she’s in total panic mode. Playing the victim card to the hilt over a silly harmless remark about Chelsea (the most protected and coddled white house kid in history. If only the Bush twins had received such kid glove treatment!), crying at the drop of a hat, firing her campaign manager. Oh my oh my, it is WONDERFUL to behold! And now watching as her minions like Krugman slowly go mad as it dawns on them that the annointed one may just lose.

So much being made over the Limbaugh/Hannity wing attacking Johnm McCain by the media, who are more than gleeful to try to throw dirt on the grave of talk radio (think again fools) but this Dem split is ever so much bigger, badder and nastier.

Oh yes, if Hillary wins based on backroom dealings and loopholes, it is going to be very very nasty.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
To paraphrase an old musical (Li’l Abner), "What’s good for Senator Clinton is good for the USA!" What takes a village is only true if the village is run by the Clintons. The Clintons could care less what happens to the party so long as their power is continued and assured.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
The man who defines the term Bush Derangement Syndrome writes a piece titled "Hate Springs Eternal." Ironic.
 
Written By: JAMES AMENT
URL: http://jrament.blgspot.com/
This was supposed to be HER election. I demand something be done about this...this....upstart!

All that money behind the scenes used in destroying Kerry, so poorly spent it seems.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"What you’ll not see Krugman do is admit that Nixonland was renamed ’Clintonland’ long ago, "

Really? When? By who?

But the best thing about the blog is the mental breakdown at the end. After months of the Clinton campaign being reamed for its real sins and a ton of imaginary ones, Mr. QandO wants us to believe that "we" just don’t notice all the terrible, ghastly things the Clintons do because "we" are so used to them.

I guess, in this context, the term "we" does not include any right-wing blog ever, since their stock in trade is to huff and puff about the Clintons’ supposed awfulness.

Of course, Clinton-slanging is not the wingnuts’ only function. Conservative blogs serve a valuable purpose by keeping alive the venerable term "Bush Derangement Syndrome," thereby reminding us that the Republicans are the party of no ideas. So let me say thank you to James Ament for being today’s BDS frother.

Of course, what the wingnuts call Bush Derangement Syndrome, the rest of the country now calls "public opinion."
 
Written By: Kyle
URL: http://
Of course, what the wingnuts call Bush Derangement Syndrome, the rest of the country now calls "public opinion."
So you don’t notice the difference between low approval ratings and thinking Bush is a liarkillerwarmongerforhalliburtonandthejooosvampirekillerofchildrenmurdererofgaia?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Now sit back and watch your brokered convention turn into a mess.....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Mr. QandO
... will be so hurt by those statements ;)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
The New York Times is no longer considered a legitimate news source.

 
Written By: N. O’Brain
URL: http://
... will be so hurt by those statements ;)
Heh ... devastated.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net
Of course, what the wingnuts call Bush Derangement Syndrome, the rest of the country now calls "public opinion."
Yeah, right. Most normal people, even those who vote Democratic and dislike Bush, don’t have the same crazed, unreasoning hatred of him that is found among the BDS-infect Left. Just as they’d have no idea exactly what you meant by when using the term "wingnut."
 
Written By: David C.
URL: http://
Not that I’m not still a big fan of Paul Krugman, because I am - but I basically agree with you on this one, Q. I mean, I agree with Paul - the media has very little tolerance for H. Clinton. But yes HRC accusing Obama of dirty tricks is a pot/kettle situation.

So, an appreciative comment.. what the hey, why not.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider