Blue on Blue

For what it’s worth, unlike many of his peers, Krugman has steadfastly resisted entering swooning mode when it comes to the Obama campaign. To date, no charges have run up the columnist’s leg. And if they have, Krugman has shown admirable discretion and kept such private moments to himself. Krugman’s complaint echoed a line of thought that drifted around the Netroots for the first year of the campaign until they collectively settled on Obama as their guy after John Edwards retired from the field and repaired to his humble North Carolina abode. Before Edwards’ exile, liberal bloggers often angrily noted Obama’s refusal to build his campaign around progressive issues. They also didn’t much care for his lack of anger and his willingness to reach out to such contemptible creatures as Republicans. Even this weekend, prominent lefty blogger Matt Stoller took a swipe at Obama for appearing on today’s installment of Fox News Sunday, having the audacity to reach out to millions of voters who don’t get all their news from the Daily Kos and Keith Olberman:

I’ll admit the last paragraph isn’t entirely decipherable. And I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge the utter soundproofness of the left wing echo chamber in that it somehow concluded that the most watched cable news network somehow needs legitimizing. More on point, it seems that the Obama campaign has gotten under the Netroots’ skin. Indeed, the relationship between Obama and the most vocal progressives has been testy since day one. So what’s this all mean? For the moment, probably nothing. Although it’s become trendy in some parts to say Clinton actually has a chance of wresting the nomination from Obama, Obama remains the prohibitive favorite. But the Krugman column and the Stoller critique illustrate the flimsy foundation that the Obama campaign rests on. Obama has created a campaign whose appeal is almost entirely based on personality. Too many conservatives spend too much time idealizing the Reagan era while sorrowfully disparaging the present, but Reagan’s example is actually quite instructive when it comes to Obama. If you think back to the Gipper, his popularity rested as much on his clear stances on the issues as it did his attractive personality. One could say the same for John Kennedy. Those men were identified with specific issues that were bigger than themselves. The Obama movement is different, as the movement and the man are one in the same. Therefore, when some of the shine comes off the man, some of the shine also comes off the movement. Here’s something I don’t say everyday: Krugman and the Netroots have been right all along. By shooting for a cult of personality and eschewing the more quotidian task of using his soapbox to seriously address the country’s critical issues, Obama has sewn an enormous vulnerability into the fabric of his candidacy.