It was Obama all the way when Edwards dropped out.
It was a systematic cull.  

Although Wolcott missed one thing.

Many Edwards supporters had reccomend and TR status removed (not me for some reason!).

I saw the handwriting on the wall when the McClurkin thing hit in October (IIRC) when some of the more intelligent and formerly sane partisans defended Obama's actions categorically, and employed ant-progressive, borderline homophobic arguments to explain away Obama's treatment of the matter.

That's when I started to know it was over.  It was really over when Kos tolerated his front-pagers going into diaries to stamp out any dissent from Clinton supporters, or merely Obama skeptics and Hillary admirers.  

At least Kos was honest enough (low standard, that) finally to come out and say that Hillary was not entitled to fairness at Daily Kos, essentially ruling out any "reality-based" defenses of her or criticism of Obama.

"Purge" and "excommunication" are two apt words to describe what has happened at Daily Kos.

For quite some time, I have seen myself as a devil's advocate/sounding board who would attempt to anticipate likely criticisms or faults in a policy or statement, and to air those publicly.  Generally, my sole motive would be to help strengthen the underlying argument in favor by shoring it up and making it at least somewhat battle-tested.  Over the past few months, however, it became increasingly obvious that many of the most enthusiatic supporters of one particular candidate came to view all such efforts as a direct attack on the candidate -- and by extension, on themselves, of whom they had offered up their unquestioning loyalty.

And I may have been spurred somewhat by the sexist pile-on of the last few days on Hillary, such as the Chris Matthews panel that kicked off with a discussion of how genuine Hillary's near-tears were genuine, with Margaret Carlson manufacturing smarm with her own half-baked mix of snide faux-sympathy and bogus mind-reading.

What is the 'truth' implied? That Obama fans can't see that they are 'true believers' and that Hillary fans can see that they are aging females?

I'll buy the former as biting prose with substance and spit out the latter as ulterior chauvinism dressed as verbal panache.

The author might turn a phrase but he can't invert reality: he's inventing a binary opposition to prove his point, not to support any argument that the two sides are equally deluded.

But to be fair, there's seldom a method for late-coming bystanders to sort of the din of 'he said it first' she said it first' back-and-forths that typify internecine clatter and always appear to self-aggrandizing external analysts as 'nothing but childish chatter'.

As for Kos, it's become the Big Tinfoil--one, big  Hillary-is-evil-and-I-can-prove-it conspiracy theory after another. I'm embarrassed for the place.

Here, I got in trouble last week for saying the four-letter word for poop. But that's fine by me, and my late, Southern mama would approve of the restraining effect that posting here has on my sometimes pottymouth. :)