Put me in your camp here too.

1. The repeated use of American exceptionalism as a justification for all kinds of misadventures abroad.  A current example of this is the "democracies are better judges of other countries" argument being advanced for attacking Iran.
   
2. There are 300 million people in the US. It's simply implausible to argue that a country that size is "exceptional" unless you mean that, say, China is more "exceptional."

As for American Exceptionalism, I think its a poorly chosen term that suggests a haughty superiority and feeling that we just don't have to play by the same rules.  To me, it's a simiilar paradigm to that which Bush uses to keep his mind free from actual thinking or feeling.  

I believe, for lack of a better grammatical bastardizing, in Free American Imaginationism.

The term was first used in respect of the United States by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1831.[1] American exceptionalism is close to the idea of Manifest Destiny, a term used by Jacksonian Democrats in the 1840s to promote the annexation of much of what is now the Western United States (the Oregon Territory, the Texas Annexation, and the Mexican Cession). The term was later used in the 1890s by Republicans as a theoretical justification for U.S. expansion outside of North America.

The term has also come to describe the belief that the United States has an exceptional position among countries, and should not be bound by international law except where it serves American interests. This position is driven by a (usually implicit) premise that the United States cannot violate international law (and in particular international human rights norms) because of the view that America itself was largely responsible for instigating those norms in the first place...

The basis most commonly cited for American exceptionalism is the idea that the United States and its people hold a special place in the world, by offering opportunity and hope for humanity, derived from a unique balance of public and private interests governed by constitutional ideals that are focused on personal and economic freedom[citation needed]. It is therefore used by United States citizens to indicate a moral superiority of America or Americans. Others use it to refer to the American concept as itself an exceptional ideal which gives the country a privileged position, and which may or may not always be upheld by the actual people and government of the nation.

Digby -

Responding to Glenn at #15, I think it's an extreme version of American exceptionalism, which is a concept that was bound to get us in trouble at some point.
A lot of use friends and family members who aren't super politcally attentive as bellweathers. I know you do, and so do I.

One of the most common questions people have is to really wonder why anyone would hate Americans enough to want to attack us and kill us. What they know about America is what they do in their own lives - work, raise their kids, shop, not hurt anyone, etc. So they can't understand why anyone would find that threatening or why it would provoke hatred.

And if it's explained what we are actually doing in the world, the countries we are occupying and bombing and interfering in and controlling - and how they would react if their country were occupied and bombed by one country that is the most militarized and powerful in the world -- it's as though that is new information to them. Those things are really done without most people thinking about it very much.

So "American exceptionalism" -- in its most dangerous form -- is really based on a complete lack of information and knowledge. It comes from the discrepancy between how Americans think about what we do/are and what, in reality, we do/are. I think that discrepency can be bridged as long as it doesn't come from a place of anti-exceptionalism (i.e, that America itself is the embodiment of all Evil and everyone else in the world its sanctified victims).

the idea BTD is expressing, whether it be called "american exceptionalism" or "higher expectations", is the basic framework of our country, that those born and raised here grew up with:

we expect our country to always do the right thing, period. what other countries do isn't relevant, nor is it an acceptable reason for us not doing the right thing.

does this mean it always has? of course not, don't be a twit. if that's your argument against it, go find a better one, it's pretty lame.

expectation and reality aren't, by definition, mutually inclusive. however, most of us continue to strive for that, knowing full well that it is probably unattainable.

He is a strong advocate for the philosophies of the left.   His critics try to tear him down by showing he doesn't really practice what he preaches but so what?  Is he loose witht he facts? Yes.  But he makes a point strongly and elegantly that many of the people of this country can't make for themselves.  

Like Rush his critics would rather shut him down or tear him down personally then argue with him and that is hypocritical.