I hear what you're saying Norm, but I get the sense that many here feel you've displayed fairly one-sided evidence towards Hillary's suitability as a candidate and Barack's lack thereof. I respect that you have good reasons to support Hillary and have reservations about Obama but I think if you'd shown more noise from both sides that might've eased the "hubbub" a bit. On a lighter note, those are some...well, very original signs. I can't wait to see what the Repubbs think of "Bill Clinton for Vice President".

You're right to be skeptical of the Obama tide. We're talking about all these new people entering the process who, honestly, haven't got the foggiest. If they cared at all for the cause of Democrats and our ability to actually take our country back AND fix it when we do, they'd be privately and publicly praying for a Clinton/Obama ticket. Instead, these people who, what, couldn't be bothered to involve themselves in politics over the last 8 years? (don't tell me all the new blood is 18 years old) these people are suddenly to be trusted to steer my party? And the first thing they want to do is not only trash Clinton as a candidate but trash her husband and his legacy as well? (Yeah, they're SUCH racists.)

The Clinton's are sleazy. The Clinton's are shameless. The Clinton's are power-hungry. You know, Matt Drudge plays the tune and these Dem-come-lately's are all too glad to dance to it.

I agree that some of the comments have been over-the-top rude, but I think people are partly disturbed by the way a long-term ally has become a partisan enemy. It's like how some people view Krugman since he went flagrantly pro-Clinton, or perhaps Yglesias since he went pro-Obama. I came here regularly for generally pro-Democrat videos with commentary, then one day it became a platform for Clinton advocacy. It's your right, but a bit of a shock.

Considering the tone of the comments directed at me recently I must say I'm surprised at the level of nastiness they display.

Really? I'm glad to say I haven't noticed very many. Mainly I noticed the regulars, being their lovable selves (most of whom have provided some good reasons why they support Obama ... I hope you didn't take any of their criticism personally.)

And then again, maybe all the mean ugly posts got deleted before I noticed them.

Some of you have grown amazingly intolerant of views that don't mirror your own.

Hey man, I don't fault you for supporting Hillary. Your harsh criticism of Obama is mostly positive in that it forces people to consider both candidates with more depth.

Nick said,
I think if you'd shown more noise from both sides that might've eased the "hubbub" a bit.

Seconded. I do wish I could have found more positive information about both Hillary and Obama here (after all, neither candidate is super evil or anything.)

Norm said in response to Sean,
What's a bit of a shock is that you apparently don't consider Clinton a Democrat.

I think he meant partisanship on the candidate level, not party level.

"Partisan" has two meanings, and I suspect sean meant "taking a side."

Considering the tone of the comments directed at me recently I must say I'm surprised at the level of nastiness they display.

Yeah, I am with frenetic, are you getting nasty emails? I have read most everything for the last 5 days or so. 90% seems to be a fairly rational discussion with the occasional pop in of a commenter that is pissed.

You shouldn't let the occasional hard core supporter get to you so much. Gore and Bradly people went for each others jugulars, as did Dean and Kerry.

THis is nothing new and nothing new and certainly nothing unique to Obama.

Yeah, I am with frenetic, are you getting nasty emails?

Ok, saw Bob's comment. As much as I have detested some of Charles language(and Olbermann seems to agree), that isn't you, and using racism to silence critics is as counter productive as using sexism to do the same thing.

It seems the reason some of the vitriolic responses to the pro-Hillary bent here is due to the feeling of betrayal as it's very clear most regulars of OGM have very few outlets as consistently in tune with our own personal views. Most of us don't expect to come here and find articles we don't agree with, only one's the reaffirm our already strong views. On that note, I think the Obama supporters need to learn a lesson from Susan Jacoby (The Bill Moyers interview Norm linked to a few days ago) and start opening yourself up to opposing views. And if anyone really wants to see an anti-Hillary blog just take a little trip over to The Huffington Post where it's all Hillary-hating, all the time.

I personally can't figure out how anyone can get so excited over either "centrist" candidate no matter how inspiring or experienced they might be. Maybe I'm still sore over the loss of Edwards, Dodd and Kucinich, and wondering what happened to left-wing of the Democratic Party.

That said, I can't stand Hillary, yet I deeply respect Norm's promotion of her as his candidate of choice. He's worked years to create this amazing blog which we all look to as a valuable portal of information geared at deepening our understanding of the things we already believe as well as things that challenge what we believe. We all applaud Norm for promoting the ideals we agree with, let's continue to appreciate this blog even when he promotes ideals we don't support... Well, unless he suddenly gets "saved" and starts ranting about how we're all perverts and infidels.

Aww, we still love you Norm. Looks like somebody needs a hug... *extends arms*

Yeah, I am with frenetic, are you getting nasty emails? I have read most everything for the last 5 days or so. 90% seems to be a fairly rational discussion with the occasional pop in of a commenter that is pissed. You shouldn't let the occasional hard core supporter get to you so much. Gore and Bradly people went for each others jugulars, as did Dean and Kerry. THis is nothing new and nothing new and certainly nothing unique to Obama.

So what exactly are you trying to imply with your comment? It's happened before so it's acceptable get over it? You have a very warped sense of what rational is.

Norm can't even ask a question about Obama without you idiots attacking him.

Nothing like watching the mob "eat their own" when one expresses a differing opinion. There is no excuse for the behavior of many readers here IMO.

wow.

You know what Norm? I swore off this blog a couple weeks back because I was finding the incessant attacks on Obama supporters by Charles Lemos a bit offensive. You really think that a portion of your readership enjoys tuning in to be called irrational cultists? And the posts just kept coming and coming. Really quite offensive stuff to the intelligent crowd that thoughtfully decided to support Barack Obama in this campaign.

So, here I am again cause I like this blog and I wanted to check it out. I thought it might be safe after yesterdays events. But one of the first things I see is that you're ticked off at some of the comments from Obama supporters. Now, I haven't been around to read them all, but I think that you have a bit of culpability in all this behavior.

So, you support Clinton. You think she'd be a better candidate. Great. Others genuinely disagree. Not because they are stupid, and not because they are easily convinced by a well delivered speech. When I was reading a few weeks ago, I saw lots of Obama supporter comments thoughtfully address the concerns that yourself and Lemos were putting forward. I don't feel like I ever saw any understanding responses on your behalf that showed that you respected the opposing views of some of your readers.

Norm can't even ask a question about Obama without you idiots attacking him.

Who are you calling an idiot?

And who is attacking who here?

So what exactly are you trying to imply with your comment? It's happened before so it's acceptable get over it?

I didn't think he was implying that, myself. In fact, I'm not sure I have any idea what you're talking about, aside from the fact you're calling everyone here an idiot. Maybe you can clarify?

Now, I haven't been around to read them all, but I think that you have a bit of culpability in all this behavior.

I don't think anyone deserves to be attacked, even if it is just harmless Internet flaming in response to something a lot of people found strongly disagreeable/offensive.

Not to mention, that sort of thinking is very counterproductive to maintaining the sorts of "thoughtful" discourse you say was the main result of this blog's criticism of Obama supporters.

I don't feel like I ever saw any understanding responses on your behalf that showed that you respected the opposing views of some of your readers.

Those are my feelings too, but I've kept them to myself; if Norm doesn't want to fellate people for posting clever yet contrary things on his blog, then whatever.

I might as well mention that Bill can't be VP. The VP must be ready to assume the responsibilities of the President should something happen to the President. Since he's legally forbidden to serve more than two terms he wouldn't be able to serve as the President hence failing to fill the requirement for VP.

I'm still hoping for John Edwards as Attorney General.

as a 1gm reader tuning in from foreign lands(MX), we had an election that was VERY even (stephen), and I can only say the worst thing is watching that take its toll on personal (or virtual) relationships, which sucks... BTW, since I'm not really for or against Hillary or Obama, I percieve Norm quite impartial

cheers

John Edwards as AG would really be an improvement.

I posted several times in defense of us irrational Obama supporters. I would most certainly support a Clinton campaign, if she can pull it out. The series of Lemos posts did not really open my mind, however several other sources (Krugman for example) made me question my support of Obama. In the end, I think it was a rational and good decision.

I was behind Edwards because I thought that his message was vastly superior to the other candidates. I have to get behind Obama because I think that he will be unbeatable in the general election. Any claims that he isn’t qualified are silly as we have had the most unqualified man possible in the White House for the past 7 years. I would be proud to have Barak Obama as my president. I don’t see how anyone could see him as a poor choice after the Bush disaster.

P.S. I just added “Barak Obama” to my spell check dictionary. If he doesn’t become president I will feel that I wasted my time adding his name—another reason to vote for him.

Norm, (regarding the 'irrational cultists' comment) I was specifically commenting on the very first Charles Lemos post that I read on this site. I even mentioned that in my comment. Are you saying that Lemos was just a pseudonym? Or were you thinking that I said that it was you who personally played the 'cult' card? If so, then pardon the misunderstanding. I thought it was clear in that paragraph.

The big problem with your response is that sure, some Obama supporters can exhibit cult like tendencies, but they've been singled out here. Hillary supporters can be very 'cultish' as well. And don't think that Edwards supporters are left out of this. As a matter of fact I've seen an elitist following to just about every candidate out there. (Yes, Gravel too.)

But Obama supporters were singled out and the balance was never presented or commented on. And now it seems that you play the 'hurt puppy' about all the negative response to the content that has been pushed here (and again, I mostly refer to the Lemos posts, and your comments in those posts.)

I never asked for your respect. It's just a nice thing to receive from someone whom you're trying to maintain civil discourse with. As for the 'Run off in a huff' remark, very nice. Tasteful representation of my decision to take a break from what I found to be an unpleasant element to your blog. Not belittling at all.

how did this happen? i never had the impression norm was stumping for hillary these past few weeks, rather he, like all freethinkers, is suspicious of anything that smells of a mass movement. rather like poking an anthill, he runs stuff up the flagpole to see who shoots and who salutes. it's not a bad way of gauging "mass movementism", and his right to do so, especially on his own blog, should be obvious.

i and others have razzed him plenty about dawkins groupiism and the "new atheist movement, and he generally takes it like a man, so to speak.

i hold that norm is more concerned than most with fairness. his friend charles' little anthill-poking rants were more than balanced on the blog as a whole by the comments, in which norm kindly allows us uncensored (mostly) expression. and there were , among the detritus, excellent rebuttals to charles points, many of which were fair enough themselves, imo.

can we not be content?

the dems really can't lose this one, you know.

Norm can't even ask a question about Obama without you idiots attacking him.

well i'm sure THAT was helpful, mr. "i never stoop to ad hominem".- (delivered with one of those double head shakes that black women are revered for).

I can't help but giggle when I think of the Republicans running in the general election against either Clinton or Obama. That's going to be hilarious to watch unfold... :P

"Any claims that he (Obama) isn’t qualified are silly as we have had the most unqualified man possible in the White House for the past 7 years."

Yeah, I guess it's hard to think of anyone worse than Bush but I'd rather keep my critical faculties alive than justify Obama's qualifications based on how lame W is by contrast. In fact, you might as well thank Bush for Obama's momentum... again, it's all so symbiotic.

Ahh...

I agree that Norm never gave the Obama crowd the "ok, you have a fair point" statement that would have abated much hysteria.

This doesn't surprise me much. Norm acts like a pompous know-it-all who comments only to clairfy his hard nosed point.

But...

Norm is MY pompous know-it-all, f#ckers, so back off. *8) I come here to see a champion of things I believe in and exposure to things I may not. He attempts to shine light into the eyes of those he may see as blind. He may hit some who already have their eyes wide open, but his heart is in the right place. It is odd though, to come to your favorite boston bar (1gm) and find the barkeep wearing a yankees cap (so to speak).

Personally, of course, after Norm started Obama-gate, I found more out about the guy than I ever could have hoped for, thanks to the many intelligent posters, and you will note, that Norm did post "now that is the kind of information I was asking for".

the dems really can't lose this one, you know.

Hmmmm. Jonathan. I'm not sure many here agree with this. At any rate, I felt in 2004 that there was simply no way Kerry could lose, having seen the previous 4 years. But, then, I realized, I was just being an egghead. Ehem, 'cuse, what the Bush Administration dubbed 'the reality based community'.

More generally, I have no idea what kind of nutty emails with personal attack Norm has been receiving, but on the comments. I think it is not fair to conflate views Norm himself has explicitly expressed, and those Charles has committed himself to (although Norm did defend what sounded to me like much less rambling, and much more moderated and watered down versions of some of Charles claims). It is one thing to criticize Obama: ZDZP on the healthcare topic, among others here on other policy issues, have actually mounted what I found to be pretty convincing thoughtful and criticisms, and I have been grateful to be challenged. But it is altogether something more to reach for incendiary analogies to Franco (or Nixon): that is I think what upset many people.

Any claims that he isn’t qualified are silly as we have had the most unqualified man possible in the White House for the past 7 years.

speaking of excellent rebuttals...

adam, i didn't mean to make that conflation and i hope i didn't mislead anyone into confusing norms' views with charles'. in fact norm made clear more than a few times that he didn't agree with everything charles said. i agree with you about some of the overboard comments charles made and of course people have a right to get angry. that's half the fun.

about the dems inability to lose: i read your comments with interest, adam and your knowledge of the american political system is quite obviously greater than my own, so i'd defer to you on this matter. my call was based mostly on the increasing look of discomfort on the faces of fox news presenters, and that sometimes they seem almost embarassed when talking about mccain. :)

We know for a fact hillary clinton is a typical politician slimeball, who conservatives will not work with in the least, and might actually have a chance of losing the election. I wont be the least bit surprised to find out obama is bought and paid for either, but I dont know he is yet atleast.

The sad thing is there are good politicians on both sides, kucinich, gravel, nader, ron paul, but they are probably all too honest to have a chance. I think you have to be so corrupt to be allowed to become president now. Which is why we havent had a truly honest president in my lifetime.

in fact norm made clear more than a few times that he didn't agree with everything charles said.

Sorry Jonathan, I didn't mean to suggestion you yourself made this conflation, only to express misgiving on the other issue you raised (about which you may be right, as McCain's candidacy adds some interesting complications).

On the more general conversation, political predication is tricky and risky business but: this is mine. Given HRC's rather desperate behavior of late, I expect her to be on the smear attack in the debate this evening (I also suspect she will use the word "experience" and phrase "get real" many times; funny that she charges Obama with "rhetoric" when hers is even emptier, and steeped in ressentiment). How Obama handles that will be interesting.

It's funny that some people expect to come here and find someone in complete agreement with them. Since I don't necessarily agree with Norm's approaches to Israel and atheism, maybe I'm just used to it.

That said, I was a John Edwards fan that also had to look at other candidates and also prefer Hillary to Barak. Norm has obviously been searching for his candidate and the posts about why he's pro Hillary and not Barak have seemed fair to me and, as usual, worthy of discussion.

But, I am voting for Barak because I think he is more electable. For one - I think those uninformed people voting Republican against their interests finally realize this adminstration sucks. They are almost ready to vote for those baby-hating, communist Democrats. But - I think Hillary would be going to far. And then (once again, falling for the propaganda we know they are susceptible to) they will vote for that wild maverick John McCain.

The second half of it is, if a Democrat gets in, the Republicans will spend the next four years pounding on 2012 - they want their tax cuts and one more conservative Supreme Court judge. They will quickly slip back into their rant against Hillary. The Bushco repercussions will be blamed on her (and Bill) with everything positive roadblocked. They can quickly re-build that red state base because they will be allowed to hate Democrats again which is what they love to do.

I do NOT think the right wing media will be able to do that to Barak - at least initially. He is a new entity that people will expect to be given a chance and, I hate to be this calculated about it, but I think they will also be a little more careful to avoid being called racist.

well i'm sure THAT was helpful, mr. "i never stoop to ad hominem".- (delivered with one of those double head shakes that black women are revered for).

That's not ad hominem.

I have to say that I've seen a significant change in the atmosphere on this site. I used to visit regularly, but being back in school has seriously curtailed the frequency of my visits. Now, when I visit, I'm not really interested in sticking around much.

It used to be a very cool place where everyone got along, even with their differences. Sure, there was the occasional idiot that would say something to stoke some flames, but that provocation was almost always met with a coherent debate and credible links to facts surrounding the comments.

Lately, I've been seeing a lot of provoked and unprovoked attacks from all sides, and very little linkage to back it up. Most of the people here seem to have their backs up about everything and personal attacks fly about. What changed so quickly?

Politics. Its odd that a site that can so calmly and rationally discuss one of the most controversial topics (religion), can have so much trouble with one of the other ones.

I'm guessing that a part of it stems from the fact that most people don't have their religion or others thrown in their face throughout the day. And most people aren't as hardcore about their religion, or lack their of.

Whereas with politics, the mistakes of this country and its leaders are practically unavoidable. We see examples multiple times a day. Those examples make a direct impact on our daily lives. This creates a much more hostile conversation due to the pent up anger caused by these issues.

(This next bit may sound Obama-y. Not trying to, but it is just my impression of the country as a majority. Or maybe it is just my feelings. Regardless, I am not trying to promote either candidate here.)

This country is ripe for change. People are fed up with the corrupt, lying, duplicitous, scurvy(this one is a theory), philandering, sinning(more like a theorem) politicians. All of them.

That anger, I see it reflected here, on this site and elsewhere. Something is going to give eventually. Whether it is this election or not. I just hope that when this election is over, we have a positive outcome and the healing can begin. This country has a lot of open sores and we really need some good antibiotics and bed rest.

Discourse is a good thing. Discourse is not what I see happening here today. Let's stop talking at each other and try talking to each other, again.

I'd like to see this site be the way it was again(when I get done with school). That gives you all three months to get it straight! :D

One thing I'm still not too clear on is where Norm -explicitly- stated he was supporting Hillary, and gave his reasons. He, in my opinion, bashed Obama for quite some time before posting positive bits about Hillary. He cast himself as an Edwards supporter, then as an impartial critic, and now as a patient Clinton supporter whose audience just didn't get it.

In retrospect, this is probably not a conscious act at deception, but a consequence of his own developing thought process...

He can cheer for Lindon Larouche for all I care, I'd just prefer he be more open about whom he is for. (Or, if he is going to claim to be neutral, to critique both sides.)

I've long been a lurker here, but I've never commented before. But I feel like dropping in my observations.

Norm, I think the reason most people that read this blog come here do so because they find the mainstream media lacking. They are repulsed by the empty political coverage that sticks to vapid sensationalism or milquetoast commentary. They come here to find a more supportive atmosphere, one that reflected their own frustrations with the political world that is not expressed or covered in traditional media.

What I feel changed is that as this primary has developed the site has become less a source for reporting on progressive interests as a whole, and more a source for reporting on progressive interests from an anti-Obama perspective.

Since many people are actually rather fond of Obama, I think it came as quite a shock to them to find such a divisive perspective among allies.

While from the comments it's seems that some were not open to this critique of Obama, the majority has been, and some rather eloquently entered into a discussion on the topics raised. However this discussion, at least in my eyes, never materialized.

Instead they were more or less dismissed as naive, blinded by enthusiasm or, quite interestingly, as disloyal Democrats. Moreover, an article questioning Clinton never came, only more criticism of Obama from a variety of proxies.

I know I have rambled here a bit, but ultimately I think that you are responsible for the atmosphere here Norm. While you are certainly open to your impressions of Obama and Clinton, your lack of balance has alienated a large number of your loyal readers. A fact you seem almost as dismissive of as the arguments of the Obama supporters themselves (as evidenced in your unfair and petulant commentary in this post). Most of the people you dismiss with your assertion came and commented because they expected a fair discourse here on 1gm, yet you seem more ready to dismiss them wholesale because of a very small minority of rude and ignorant trolls.

This was not what I, and I think a good many others, expected here.

I think this post is doing a lot to heal the defensiveness many have picked up lately, but I just have to say one thing. The only reason I defended Obama so strongly was because I, personally, looked at both candidates in depth, focusing on policy and electibility, and I saw obama as a better candidate, so every "cult" meme that showed up was offensive to me, insinuating that I wasn't smart enough to like Hillary Clinton to see her Policies were better, and I was just being swept up in Obamaphelia. It was analagous to the assholes who say "If you are young and not a liberal you're heartless, not old and not a conservative, you don't have a brain" or whatever that quote is.

I don't have any problem with Hillary the President, however, from what I've seen, Hillary the Candidate has some serious issues that I don't think Amer-kah is ready for, especially with the spectre of Bill chasing her around.

Also, that delegate website hillary created is the definition of "truthiness". Talk about red flashing lights (at least for me).

Just wait til March 5th, this will all be done with, Hillary would have to win by 20+ points, and she's only done that in 2 states so far. Not gonna happen.

It has been a fun exercise in debate though. I hope I haven't been offensive, rude, or dismissive, i've only been trying to present facts here.

Hey Norm, I think my only concern has been that after Edwards dropped out, you made a statement to the effect that you were not going to endorse either candidate. However, shortly after this, I saw post after post that were either pointing out flaws in Obama or pro-Clinton. So from my perspective it seemed a bit dishonest to say that you didn't prefer one candidate over the other. Just my 2 cents.

Hey Dar,

So what exactly are you trying to imply with your comment? It's happened before so it's acceptable get over it? You have a very warped sense of what rational is.

I was saying that that norm should take the fact that people get passionate about their candidates and he shouldn't take that personal.

I was also saying it is unfair to paint obama supporters as somehow worse then any other campaigns supporters, cause this is nothing new.

Anecdotal evidence is not good.

I would amend this with: Clearly there are some attacks that norm is justified in taking personally

Norm

I have never accused a single person on this blog of being an "irrational cultist" I have at most argued that some, with the emphasis on some, have exhibited cult-like behavior, and some have.

Charles didn't use your "some" qualification. And the person you are responding to did not say that you had done such a thing.

As far as your personal comments are concerned, Who the heck are these "some" you keep talking about? You want to keep calling some people cultists then start telling us who you think they are, or drop it.

The term seems to come up all to often in response to comments.

you idiots

That's not ad hominem.

Dar, Dictionary dot com would beg to differ.

Does it?

ad hominem:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

There needs to be an argument to answer which there wasn't. The use of idiots is called an insult.

Insult:

–noun 5. an insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark; affront. 6. something having the effect of an affront: That book is an insult to one's intelligence.

IMO it fits because the people who attacked Norm for questioning their messiah are idiots. Now if that applies to you then yes I think you're an idiot if not then I wasn't talking about you.

i think part of the equation here is the clinton campaign's own mistake. "ready to lead from day one" did not play. and it doesn't take a genius to see why not . hmm, patronize a very eloquent and popular opponent? and all his supporters? by saying that years of involvement in the sea of shit that is DC under bush 1, clinton 1 twice, bush 2 for 2 unspeakably destructive terms, now calls for clinton the re-run? and the voters while buy it? apparently not.

the argument that "newcomers" to the democratic party process are somehow not ready to participate, is just as ridiculous.

i am an obama supporter. i am opposed to clinton. there's no hate or vitriol in that. in representative politics we choose our champion. and if there isn't anyone we can stomach, we either abstain in apathy, forward our own candidate, or get behind the least vile of the bunch.

kerry and gore were lousy candidates, but i voted for them. obama, i really like. i like the fact that he's not the same old half assed tentative play it safe losing democratic candidate. and he's a liberal! a real one, not in name only. a rational, thoughtful, decent liberal, who speaks with passion and precision, and is not tangled up in decades of military industrial complex rule.

what surprised me in some of the discussion on this board lately is the lack of enthusiasm i perceive that a liberal candidate has emerged, who very decisively has become the front runner and brought millions of new faces to our all but abandoned democratic process.

it's good to be critical, but it's also good to acknowledge a good thing.

Now if that applies to you then yes I think you're an idiot if not then I wasn't talking about you.

So you get to redefine your use of "you". and I get to chose whether or not I am an idiot.

Life is so full of choices. I hope if I choose to have you think of me as an idiot that won't be an attack on my character that will discredit my arguments.

That would be a shame.

my eyes hurt

Show me evidence that Obama supporters are no more shallow than Clinton supporters and don't use anecdotal evidence.

How about I agree not to call "some" Clinton supporters cultists and you agree to do the same in regards to obama supporters. Since there is no available data to support using what is more or less just an insult. An insult that should not be taken lightly, especially on a site that attacks religious fanatics as part of its mission.

JoAnn, could you please offer your opinion on the suggestion that I, and others, have raised that Norm moved from a stated position of nominal neutrality to an unstated position in support of Clinton, to a recently-stated position in support of Clinton?

I've appreciated your analysis in the recent past, and as I'm the "idiot" Norm and others are talking about, I'm hardly impartial.

b.dewhirst

I have a lot of respect for Norm and I have no desire whatsoever to get into the boxing ring and get too personal right now.

Also, I want to add that after witnessing someone refer to Norm as a racist because he's been critical of Obama, it makes me think that the criticism of some Obama supporters is probably right.

Anyway, even the Australians are talking about this messiah meme.

Why would you shy away from calling them what they are. Insults should not be taken lightly, but clearly they apply to some.You're starting to sound like the religious who want respect, who accept no criticism of any of their followers

I accept criticisms, although I may often give the counter arguements.

The difference between me and a Mormon asking an atheist for respect is that I am a democrat talking to a democrat. Obama and Clinton are both in the family, and yes I think we should be willing to discuss, and reluctant to insult.

PS, the difference between "cultist" versus "cult-like" is the difference between analogy and Metaphor. Which is not a big freakin difference. Noone has ever suggested that you or anyone is actually saying some obama supporters are actually members of a real cult, with bizarre religious beliefs. So clarifying the use of like is about as relevant is about as clarify the use of an article. Claiming you are a victim of some misrepresentation does not ring true.

You would agree then that there are cult-like supporters on both sides.

I would say all campaigns have some large portion of supporters that give their support without sound reasons and some of those are active and defensive.

I also hasten to add that I have learned a lot from all of these discussions. If I disagree with a post, I state why I disagree. Norm is free to say what he wants and I am free to respond. It's as simple as that.

Also, I think it's fair to say that HIllary supporters aren't as excited about her nomination as Obama supporters are about his nomination. I personally find Hillary Clinton's speeches to be boring and rather flat. There is no doubt at all that Obama gives far superior speeches.

However, I also feel that Obama is a far superior candidate for policy and electability.