BTW, when the Cult Attacks, from John Cole's community:

Also, iirc, he's pretty damn sexist - it's been a long time, but one of the things that ticked a lot of us off at him at dKos was his fierce defense of Larry Summers against all the quotes demonstrating not only the man's gender-essentialism but also various hoary ethno-religious bigotries: such as Summers' arguing that some groups are just better suited for some professions, as Jews make the best bankers, blacks the best basketball players, etc.

The realities that the Cult will create are similar to John Cole's realities.

Cass Sunstein wrote an article about Obama, calling him a "Visionary Minimalist." Savor that image, change-seekers.

Amberglow at Corrente posted about this.

"... Some public officials are minimalists. They do not like to reject the fundamental commitments of their fellow citizens. On environmental questions, sex equality, national security and economic policy, they try to bracket our deepest disagreements. They seek to obtain a consensus on what to do -- not on why to do it.

Minimalists favor their approach because they think, as a pragmatic matter, it is most likely to work. They also insist that their approach, putting fundamental differences to one side, shows respect to their fellow citizens.

...

Above all, these visionaries seek to alter the nation's self-conception. In changing policy on the economy, or on national defense, they are entirely comfortable with asserting that their vision is the superior one and that alternative visions should be rejected. When they succeed, they transform how the nation understands itself.

Our greatest presidents -- including Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- have been visionaries. In recent American history, President Ronald Reagan stands as the leading visionary.

Obama is something new in American politics -- and not just for the obvious reasons. He is a visionary minimalist. This is a key both to his extraordinary campaign and to his unique promise. It even helps explain his conception of public service.

...

Obama shows unfailing respect for those with competing views. In designing policies -- on climate change, tax reform, energy conservation, foreign policy -- he attempts to produce solutions that will accommodate, rather than repudiate, the defining commitments of his fellow citizens. Even on the most divisive issues of separation of church and state, Obama favors approaches that will attract support from all sides. ... (My emphasis. Link for entire article at link above.)"

Whoa! Good luck with that approach, President-Elect!

And the comment about Reagan reinforces that not all change is good, even "visionary" change. Reagan's "vision" lead to the stagnation of real wages for middle class Americans, to the drastic weakening of labor unions (uh, oh: Obama did call unions "special interests."). Witness all the changes BushCo has wrought. Like them apples? Well, change can be good and it can be bad. Which is why it's important to understand the kind of change a pol wants to achieve. Sunstein seems to say Obama will bring about change by...accommodating all sides?

Cass Sunstein is a close adviser to Obama and possibly really does know how he thinks, how he plans to act as president. He writes this piece as if he does know this. I find his take highly disturbing--and it's right out of the MCM call for Obama to be a good little president and not listen to those DFH's with those silly and dangerous (can they be both, yes, I suppose so) liberal ideas. There's no money! Must keep fighting the War on Terra! What dangerous executive powers? And, above all, Mr. President-Elect, make no waves which might swamp the uber-wealthy boats or those of their hirelings!

In my comment on Amberglow's post, I asked what FDR would have accomplished as a "make no waves" president. As a "status quo" president. Or if he tried to accommodate all views, including those of the banksters of his time. Oh, my.

After all, when Glenn Greenwald took Joe Klein to task for his inaccuracies (l__s) regarding the FISA legislation, Klein had plenty of excuses - too hard, not enough time, blah blah blah.

Not being a big fan of his, Obama still deserves a chance ...

Then again, Axelrod was helped immensely by the stupid Edwards campaign decision to be the attack dog for Obama against Clinton before Iowa.

the difference between me and the Cultists is I address what they write. They do not address what I write.

I plead guilty to being insufferable. But that does not make me wrong.

For your guilty plea on one charge of insufferability, I hereby sentence you to life time confinement in the blogosphere.

You write "We also argue vigorously over Obama's choices for staff and so on."

Excuse effing me., that is what I was doing and John Cole decided to attack me for it. That is a Cult my friend. When you can not even see what is before your face. did you criticze cole for that? Sheesh.

and the rest of your "response?"

"What we don't do is half ass smarmy support from party purist and sore losers in the dem caucus. This would be you BTD."

Now that is pure cult. "half ass smarmy support?" See, I do not support Obama. I support policies I want enacted. And if you cared to look, (oh I know you folks just think calling me a liar is peachy) I supported Obama because he was the best xchoice for the overall Democratic Party. Why, you could look it the eff up if you were so inclined. but being in a Cult means never having to deal with actual facts.

"My bet is how long will it take you to ban me for daring to answer your challenge to talk back at what you write."

We also argue vigorously over Obama's choices for staff and son on.

1. It can be pasted into a thread on any topic and always seem relevant (appropriate for piece rates, though it would not have been, perhaps, for the salaried employee);

2. It sneaks in the idea that the commenter is the arbiter of what is "legitimate."

And so, the biggest challenge, I think, is always maintaining your moral compass.

It's pretty clear to me, and has always been, that Obama is going to solicit input from a variety of positions before committing to  a judgement.  That's a reasonable way to go about things.  I believe that, agree or disagree with a position, that it helps to understand not just the position, but the motivation, the reasoning of the position's supporters.  

You want to know how people think, what colors their views.  The idea that changing one's mind is some sort of weakness, or illustrates a lack of dedication is ridiculous to me.  I want someone that will make an informed decision, but who will also change course if the results of that decision aren't favorable.  

When it comes to Bush, I'd love to find out whose predictions panned out.  Mine went something like "I think he's an idiot, but at least he's got experienced people around him.  How much damage could he do in four years?".

Sorry - I just had to get that off my chest, and I don't know if I had a relevant  point.  I guess I'm just asking everyone to, before they post/comment, ask yourself if the response to what you are about to say could honestly get the following back as a response:

1) grow up and/or
2) look in the mirror.

and if you really want that to happen.

Thanks,
LM

If "it" is independent thought, then hallelujah brothers and sisters, may BTD manage to keep "at it".

And if "it" bothers you, Rolla, my old fruit, then maybe "it" isn't for you.

Remember when Obama famously declared that he could get Clinton's voters but she could not get his? Time to rethink that proposition. The Gallup Poll has Obama losing 28% of Clinton supporters against McCain (19% of Obama supporters defect to McCain if Clinton is the nominee.)

Too many in the Obama campaign, Obama supporters and Obama supporting blogs believe that their demonization of Hillary Clinton has had no ill effects on Barack Obama's image among the half of the Democratic Party that supports Hillary Clinton. They are wrong. At this point, without the active and sincere support by Hillary Clinton of his potential Presidential run against John McCain, Obama has no chance in November. And vice versa of course.

We Democrats will need unity in November. I believe a Unity Ticket is the only way to achieve this.

Emphasis supplied here. Hillary Clinton did not support Obama? News to me. I still believe the surest bet to winning was an Obama/Clinton ticket. that there was another way of winning is undeniable and I said Obama wa s shoo in. I said the surest bet was Obama/Clinton. I still feel that way.

Your first link - I wrote

HuffPo e-mailed me my friend Al Giordano's post that lauds Charles Blow's absurd piece that discusses the fact that white folks like Obama but ignores the fact that, as of now, they will not vote for him in large numbers in key swing states.

Blow's column is incomprehensible yet smear filled. Giordano enjoys the smears but ignores the problems:

Obama's favorable and negative ratings among whites have paired at five point increases. . . . [H]e's more popular today among white voters than he ever was prior to February.

Obama is more popular with whites now says Giordano. Which begs the question - then why does he get less white votes now than he did in February? Obama is poised to lose the white vote in North Carolina and Indiana by 3-2 at least. He lost the white vote by 2-1 in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. He loses white working class voters to McCain while Clinton wins them. He now runs worse than ever in head to heads with McCain while Clinton runs better than she ever has.

I do not doubt that Obama is better liked, but I am not at all sure anymore that he is likely to get more VOTES. And votes are what count in politics.

Which part do you have a problem with? Obama got 42% of the white vote in the GE. He lost the white vote big in the Indiana and NC primaries. Are facts that diffocult for the Cult to swallow.

I think everyone needs to lay off the snark.  People are snarking for snark's sake and not doing anything constructive.  Keep shining a light on Obama's activities, BTD, but if someone disagrees with you, don't toss out the C word left and right.

Todd Beeton reporting on an Obama event in Nevada:

[I]mmigration, as you might expect, is going to be a big issue in Nevada, as it was not in NH. . . . There were two distinct schools of thought represented in the audience, a nativist demo and an immigrant demo and Barack threaded the needle quite ably when he said he supports a path to citizenship but that it's not fair to give them special priv[i]leges, the undocumented population must pay a fine and "must learn English!" That last one got a huge reaction. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) Perhaps it becomes less surprising to learn, as Taylor Marsh reports, Latinos are firmly behind Hillary:

There is not only "no exodus," but Clinton Hispanic support is mushrooming. Leaders in that community are actively engaged for Clinton here and today had to mean a lot to all of them. Hispanic leaders that the community respect showed up, including local politicians.

One of the reasons I have tepidly supported Obama was because he was not playing to the nativist crowd. It seems that, again, I may have been mistaken.

And? Are you denying Hillary won Hispanics by 2-1 over Obama in the primaries? Again, are facts so hard for the Cult?