Good post. I'm commenting less on it, then on your many postings that raise doubts on Obama's ability to govern, unite, etc. For all those, I can only say, from the bottom of my heart, thank you. This is one of the few blogs, it seems, that understands rhetoric does not equal action, and that oratory does not equal principal or ideas. I'm quite worried about him sitting in the oval office, but every time I see others voicing the same concerns I am, I feel just a tad bit safer, and a tad less crazy (being a college student, it's hard to avoid Obamavangelists roaming the campus). So, again, thank you.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. Obama is not campaigning on compromise and conciliation as a way to govern. His policies are at least as liberal in some ways more liberal than Hillary's. The politics of bringing back the moderates and awakening the silent majority are the true benefits of Obama. Not to moderate policies, but to win and have a real majority so we can take on the insurance industry, the oil industry, etc.

As for "Obamavangelists", that is a cheap shot, have you been part of any campaign? This whole meme about Obama people is the same crap that people said about Deaniacs in 2004 and Clintonkids in 1992. Passionate candidates that inspire people. Jeesh.

very good article. i will reread it again. My only questions having read it once are 1) Wouldn't the logical/natural opposite of the Billionaire's conservative movement be a grassroots revolution? I mean revolution with guns, boycotting credit cards and using cash only, taking land, not working at factories, killing people. 2) Assuming that ideological battle is really necessary, is Clinton that much more capable?

I like the question, because it is one I asked in previous comments about "political will formation", and gave reasons for supporting Obama on this issue: "The issue is: What kind of politics can turn the opportunity into permanent, progressive change?" The problem is the answer given by the author is an empty harangue, full of the same tiresome ploys. It's central premise about "conciliation" is a fundamental distortion of the issue. Here's why:

First, we are talking about a stump speech, not an explicit statement of strategy. We should look at the things Obama does as much as what he says when assessing this argument, and evaluating how his style of politics is different.

Second, our writer asks: 'So why on earth would Obama think that 'tearing down' the Conservative Movement and “lifting this country up” are opposites?'

Obama doesn't think this and the argument is based on a patent non-sequitur, as is the comparison with Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, and other spineless democrats. Obama "tore down" the idiotic justifications for going to war in Iraq ('I'm not opposed to all wars, I'm opposed to dumb wars'), and spoke out powerfully and publicly against it. The commentator pretends coalition formation is incompatible with taking a strong stand, but that just doesn't follow, at all. Coalition formation is not the politics of conciliation.

Third, the author makes a fatal equivocation. He asks: "So, when Obama reaches out, how would that be any different from the reaching out that Reid and Pelosi already did?"

Obama "reaches out" to conservative voters, not intransigent Republican wachos on bad policies, for which there is no evidence whatsoever that the author presents. Comparing Obama to Reid and Pelosi will be valid when they mobilize hundreds of thousands of people over to their side, and get them chanting "Yes we can!" [that is, can enact the policies you keep telling us about].

Fourth, on confused Reid-and-Pelosi screed, Hillary is much better at this kind of "reaching out." She certainly "reached out" to Republicans by voting to authorize their war in Iraq, and more recently for getting the Iranian military classified as a "terrorist" organization. And as I have already suggested,

Fifth, it is obvious that Obama intends to marginalize the so-called "monied interests" by trying to get lobby money out of politics and refusing to take PAC money (Hillary Clinton has explicitly, and enthusiastically, endorsed taking lobbying money). If your going to bitch and moan about the very idea of corporations being 'individuals with free speech', as the author does, I would suggest it is simply confused to attack Obama on this score. (Not surprisingly, he trivializes Obama's stance of govt transparency).

Finally, author's supposed argument that the so-called politics of "conciliation" has been tried before and failed is not only based on a fatal equivocation between conservative voters and intransigent politicians: the same reasoning applies equally well to the politics of maneuvering, backdoor deals, and open vituperative contestation. Much of the '90s was a good example: what was accomplished was at best half measures like don't-ask-don't tell, and at worst, at worst a lot of ultimately hollow rhetoric about what our aspirations were, oh how beautiful and good, and why those darn Republicans are fully responsible for our own failures of leadership. Since the author feels free to misleadingly call the fact of Obama inspiring even republican voters "the politics of conciliation," I am perfectly comfortable calling its alternative "the politics of moralistic ressentiment". It is simply a fantasy that you can annihilate your opponent utterly ('get'em by the balls'): what you need to do is win over the minds of those influenced by them, the voters. And if you need eloquence to do it, then do it.

"So at best, Obama is feeding us highflown, but vacuous rhetoric." This ignores the obvious fact that the so-called "vacuous" rhetoric has brought conservative voters over to Obama's side. The reason why Obama won't be a sitting strawman target for Republican proganda is precisely the reason that some Democrats claim to be wary of him: his ability to inspire.

Jared, I'm on a college campus as well and I know exactly how you feel. Whether Norm is Obama-bashing or not, the discussion that comes out of it is something I don't get in my insulated world of striving academics (the majority of which on my campus are passionately for Obama). For the recent posts concerning Obama, it's a relief to be on a website where Obama supporters rise up in defense of the man's statements and positions and not rising up just to punish you for being an Obama-doubter, for the most part. Even in this gated community of "critical inquiry" we don't have the kind of discussions that come out of onegoodmove. For all of its pleas for dialogue, I really can't imagine this type of discussion on my campus. So thanks to all you onegoodmovers for that. If the real world in any way mirrored the dialogue on my campus, I'd get to look forward to four years of being labeled either a closet-racist or an internalized misogynist/sexist whenever I'm not totally on board with president Obama/Hillary? and their passionate supporters. I'll be pining for the days when I was merely labeled an anti-American troop-hater. Can't wait.

i realize i'm out of my league here on this topic and can add nothing but the occaisional quip or humble observation, the following being one of the latter:

...to win and have a real majority so we can take on the insurance industry, the oil industry, etc.

this statement expresses, i think a strong but mostly hidden subtext in the political "wish lists" of more than a few posters here that i find fascinating, and wonder if there's precedent for: the perception of the presidency as a potential ally in the "battle" of the little guy-the voter-against seemingly impervious corporations (protected by laws of "personhood", unlike joe voter herself sometimes) and big buisiness.

maybe this way of looking at things is just common knowledge among a good percentage of 1gm readers, but for me it's a novel way of looking at the constellation.

i don't want to get my nose bitten off by one of the big dogs around here but if someone would care to straighten me out as far as whether i'm imagining things or not, i'd appreciate it.

i realize i'm out of my league here on this topic and can add nothing but the occaisional quip or humble observation, the following being one of the latter:

...to win and have a real majority so we can take on the insurance industry, the oil industry, etc.

this statement expresses, i think a strong but mostly hidden subtext in the political "wish lists" of more than a few posters here that i find fascinating, and wonder if there's precedent for: the perception of the presidency as a potential ally in the "battle" of the little guy-the voter-against seemingly impervious corporations (protected by laws of "personhood", unlike joe voter herself sometimes) and big buisiness.

maybe this way of looking at things is just common knowledge among a good percentage of 1gm readers, but for me it's a novel way of looking at the constellation.

i don't want to get my nose bitten off by one of the big dogs around here but if someone would care to straighten me out as far as whether i'm imagining things or not, i'd appreciate it.

generic hallmark double post apologies.

the reason for my question: i myself have never seen the president as anything but an ally, a confidant, a "player", a pawn- the living embodiment, in fact, of "big buisiness". this may be a natural cynicism resulting from the brutal, small scale (say, like chi-town)politics in my own country of residence for the last 20 years or so. but i certainly do not remember ever seeing the president-or prime minister in our case- as an "ally of the little guy" in any way.

I started to write a response but then read Adam's, which says it better than I can. I appreciate the last couple of posts about Obama, Norm, which have some meat to them. Here's something you may want to chew on:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidianwings/2006/10/barackobama.html

Charles's posts, on the other hand, have been completely lacking in substance and--if I'm not too out of line--intellectual honesty. This anonymous lurker along with others here are just a little surprised by your blindspot in this regard.

After reading the whole article, I came away with a few impressions. The first is that Obama certainly does appear to motivate at least some progressives to justify their reactions to his candidacy with what appears to be raw emotion, and that article is a good example. I suspect that if I were to use a parallel rhetorical tone to promote Obama here that I would run a risk of being branded as a knee-jerk reactionary drawing on pure emotion. I think it somewhat ironic that this post follows so closely after Lemos' anti-Obama essay that made a big deal about how unappealing it is to have followers who argue their points based on their emotional response rather than rational policy arguments. This is merely an Obama detractor reacting to his rhetoric with a visceral emotional response that boils down to "Hope isn't good enough, I want blood!"

The second thing I notice is how poorly argued the piece is. This is another reason why I prefer arguments in forums like this one. Here you can at least expect many of the participants to aspire to honest rational arguments. However, in the piece that was linked, there is clearly a straw man argument[Wikipedia, usual caveats apply]. Amusingly, Lambert manages to work in at least two major versions of the straw man argument. First is the standard straw man argument where the opponent's argument is simply misrepresented, in this case through selective quote mining. The second is the straw man by proxy wherein someone who poorly represents the opponent's argument is (perhaps legitimately) bested in an argument, in this case naïve Obama supporters. I will address only the first. The second doesn't bear addressing, as Obama can speak for himself. He needn't be saddled with the liability of some supporters who can't argue well.

Most of the essay focuses on a severe drubbing that Lambert gives to a selective reading of just one of Obama's speeches one week before the Iowa caucuses. On the basis of this selective reading alone, we need not worry ourselves with the substance of the argument, as it has none. I assure you I am not being dismissive without reason. I believe very firmly that either through intentional deception or through over-zealous projection, that Lambert is saddling Obama with an argument that he clearly doesn't make. On the contrary, I believe that Obama has anticipated the straw man and has tried to distance himself from it. I've linked the entire speech, but let's examine Lambert's "damning" passage along side other excerpts from the speech. First, to summarize, Lambert views Obama's appeals to voters outside of the normal progressive constituency as an example how Obama will capitulate to Republican politicians in the spirit of so-called "bipartisanship". Perhaps Lambert is right, but Lambert must have great instincts or predictive powers, because I can't draw that conclusion from the speech in its entirety. Lambert's comments seem mainly to be non sequiturs. Here are a few choice snippets from Obama's so-called "conciliation" speech (all emphasis mine):

We can't afford the same politics of fear that tells Democrats that the only way to look tough on national security is to talk, act, and vote like George Bush Republicans; that invokes 9/11 as a way to scare up votes instead of a challenge that should unite all Americans to defeat our real enemies. We can't afford to be so worried about losing the next election that we lose the battles we owe to the next generation.

There are others in this race who say that this kind of change sounds good, but that I'm not angry or confrontational enough to get it done. Well, let me tell you something, Iowa. I don't need any lectures on how to bring about change, because I haven't just talked about it on the campaign trail. I've fought for change all my life.

It's change that won't just come from more anger at Washington or turning up the heat on Republicans. There's no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there. We don't need more heat. We need more light. I've learned in my life that you can stand firm in your principles while still reaching out to those who might not always agree with you. And although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are. That's the once-in-a-generation opportunity we have in this election. For the first time in a long time, we have the chance to build a new majority of not just Democrats, but Independents and Republicans who've lost faith in their Washington leaders but want to believe again – who desperately want something new.

My reading of this speech is that is that Obama is calling for a coalition of people who are willing to work for goals that are broadly progressive. He wants to lead a movement empowering them to use their electoral might to sweep out the bad policy of recent times, especially of the Bush years. In other words, he is seeking a broad, voter-approved mandate that fuels a movement that is at least somewhat progressive. (I won't quote the progressive goals here, because if I do, I'd be quoting the whole speech. But please, do read it. Perhaps we can discuss how progressive those goals are in another post. Obama is certainly no Edwards, though I see it as a good sign that he's adopted some of Edwards' policies.)

However, Lambert directs almost his entire argument on how "bipartisanship" or "conciliation" to Republican politicians will only hinder the progressive cause. My reading of Obama (here and elsewhere) leads me to call Lambert on this one. Sure, it is arguable that in the end conciliation might happen. But his argument is drawn on instinct rather than on substance and certainly has very little impact in a post-Edwards primary season since Clinton doesn't distinguish herself in this regard either. (In Lambert's defense, he did post this just before Obama took Iowa on January 3rd of this year. Likely John Edwards was foremost in his mind in terms of contrast.)

Lest I be guilty of sleight of hand myself, let me point out that Lambert did technically engage what I see as Obama's point:

But wait, say the fans, you don't really understand; what Obama wants to do [at least now] is bring "Republican and independent voters outside of Washington" into the fold, and that will give us the leverage we need for real change. And if this were true, I would have expected to see enough calls from these Republican and independent voters to prevent children from dying because Bush vetoed S-CHIP, to take but one example of many. Ditto FISA (See Appendix II). Didn't happen. Na ga happen.

So, after hacking away for nearly 30,000 characters demolishing a straw man, Lambert justifies it by dismissing what I see (and apparently he is aware other recognize as well) is the heart of Obama's appeal in a mere paragraph? Including the appendix, this comprises less than 5% of the total post. And the substance of the argument is merely "Na ga happen." Well, I'm sorry, it did happen before and it may yet happen again. Perhaps Obama will not be the man to do it. Perhaps Edwards would have been a better candidate. But one thing I certainly don't see is that Clinton will compare to either candidate in the qualities needed to build such a movement. In the context of the current Democratic contests, a charitable reading awards a draw to Obama and Clinton. However, considering Obama's undeniable strength at gathering enthusiastic public support (at least so far), I feel he has the edge on this one.

In any event, Lambert is wrong. In the past century, for both good and ill, movements have been built and executed by leaders who, on the strength of their convictions and via appeals to values common to all people, have managed to seize a moment and change the status quo after leveraging those movements. That's the whole point this aspect of Obama's appeal. Before now, he's had no mandate to leverage. MLK Jr. is one progressive example of this. One much less progressive (and cautionary) example is what Reagan did in the 80s to build the very conservative movement that we would now like to see end.

In short, the arguments bolstering Lambert's thesis are either based on intuition, straw man arguments, or are simply wrong. Obama has many warts, but who doesn't? Alas, I don't feel I have the keen spiritual insight of a George W. Bush such that I can look into Obama's eyes and "get a sense of his soul". Instead, I'll have to soldier on mundanely discussing such pedestrian topics as his stated policy goals. I'll leave the gazing into men's souls to the likes of Bush and Lambert.

(Full disclosure: Like everyone else here apparently, I'm missing John Edwards as he was my first choice. On one level, I regret that I have to make a choice between Obama and Clinton when my real hope was Edwards. But when it comes to Clinton versus Obama, I choose Obama whole heartedly after much thought. Also, I got my PhD at the University of Chicago, and therefore was acquainted with Obama as a public figure since 2000 when he was a State Senator of my district. Nevertheless, until he left the race, I prefered Edwards' more openly progressive policies.)

Obama's concilliatory rhetoric serves an important purpose; he wants to build what he calls a "working majority" and seeks a consensus on major policy initiatives that he can guide without seeming to dictate. To bring more people to the progressive side of issues, we need to avoid browbeating them for their votes in previous years, or for their outmoded views on taxes and the culture wars. Indeed, it's time to put the very idea of the "culture wars" behind us. We can't win enthusiastic, committed new participants in our political process if we seem to be attacking and trying to shame them every time they are willing to take a look at us.

Adam and LWPhD have both presented excellent critiques of Lambert's angry strategy. Adam put his finger on the key point, "Obama 'reaches out' to conservative voters, not intransigent Republican wackos on bad policies...". If you aren't willing to do do that, you will lose - period.

Lambert is angry for the same reasons I am angry - the nearly total abandonment of principles by both liberal and conservative office holders; Lambert's list is good:

1. The principle that everyone is equal before the law.

2. The principle that this nation does not torture.

3. The principle that there are three co-equal branches of government.

4. The principle that high government officials should not break the law with impunity.

5. The principle that elections are not stolen.

6. The principle that war is not made on fake evidence.

   But Lambert offers no strategy for winning elections, Obama does. Lambert doesn't want a politics based on a single charismatic personality - probably because he senses it is doomed to fail. But nothing in an Obama victory prevents Lambert and others from trying to build liberal grassroots political power.

There is one point on which Lambert has not been refuted, however, and that is the importance of reestablishing the integrity of the process of government. Not coincidentally, this is what lies behind every one of the principles I pasted from his article. If the language of reconciliation is what is needed to gain the reins of power, how will justice ever be served? If there is no legal penalty for running a lawless administration like that of G W Bush, what will prevent us from getting lawless administrations over and over again? If disdain for and violation of the Constitution by BushCo are simply set aside, can respect for the rule of law be reestablished?

So, I'm torn. On the one hand, I think Obama's strategy of reaching out to moderate and conservative voters is the smart way to run. Healthy, even. On the other - and this is the crux of Lambert's concern with the strategy - how can integrity in the process be restored if those who shit on the nation's fundamental legal foundation are not made to pay a price for it. Let's not be naive - not shaming new participants in a Democratic working majority does mean that these political converts will never have to admit just how bad the people they supported in the past were. Don't get me wrong. I don't care about shaming them - I care that the failure to defend the integrity of our system will further undermine it.

I hear Reagan in Obama. We're back in Morning in America mode.

Morning in America for Republicans = tax cuts for the rich.

Morning in America for Progressive Democrats = single-payer universal health care.

They got what they wanted. Why can't we get what we want?

Because Obama is hawking "Change We Can Believe In", which translates into: change the Republicans will accept.

The most reductive theme I'm hearing is this facile line that Obama is just an "orator" and his supporters just responding in a messianic fashion.

It is the critics of Obama who are using a simplistic logic. If one wants to know the details of Obama's plans, they are readily available from his campaign.

Indeed, early in the campaign Obama was criticized for the opposite approach: being too professorial.

This is a guy who taught Constitutional Law, who almost surely has a better grip on the bedrock principles of our country that Bush has trampled than his opponent, Clinton, who has ennabled Bush repeatedly in his dismantling of the Constitution.

I really think the owners of this site and all others pushing this meme about Obama need to look themselves in the mirror and ask: Who is being reductive here? Who is ignoring evidence? Who is seeing only what they want to see? Who is falling into the trap of accepting pat media narratives?

Can I throw another monkeywrench into the arguement? What if Obama wins the popular vote with primary states, but loses because of Superdelegates supporting the Clinton Group? Would that change how any of you feel about the Clinton/Obama dynamic?

Just curious

Taking Obama or any politician to task for lack of policy specificity in a stump speech is a weak straw man tactic. Please spare me the hand wringing.

Edwards was my first choice but now I'm left to pick from the remaining lesser candidates. That said, if you're so torn over the remaining choices why are you obsessed with debating one candidate's campaign oratory method (which is arguably far more effective at motivating voters than a wonky Kerry-eque policy dissertation)?

If you're so concerned do us all a favor and go dig into some policy papers and the books published by the candidates and list the stated policy differences they've presented. Obama's book states his positions pretty clearly.

All considered I don't think Clinton and Obama are that far apart on policy points, especially when you consider the blunting forces of trying to actually get policies implemented as law. Where I do see a difference is that Hillary is largely seen as a very divisive character whereas Obama isn't.

Given the past 7 years I have to believe that America is tiring of such stark political polarization and is desperate for someone to bring people together and get something done to fix the massive problems we now face.

Now I know this last bit is a weak argument, but after literally hating this president and this administration so vehemently for so long, I and many of us just want to feel good about our leaders for a change. Given the near ubiquity of policy between the candidates I feel that Obama better deliver that on that promise. That sounds trivial but you know that people often follow their hearts when they finally vote.

I think the author is making some big assumptions about what Obama is saying in his "reaching out" Comments.

I always interpreted his remarks to mean he intended to reach out to republican and independent voters and make it harder for republicans in swing districts to demonize him and his policies while Clinton suggests a frontal attack in part because here high negatives make an Obama strategy impossible. I see them as both fighting, just with different plans of attack.

My experience would suggest Obama's actually has a moderately higher chance of success.

Oh wait, I must be a mindless cultist that can't except divergent points of view. Damn, those speeches must be good.

What if Obama wins the popular vote with primary states, but loses because of Superdelegates supporting the Clinton Group? Would that change how any of you feel about the Clinton/Obama dynamic?

I thought about that this morning, but decided that the advantage that Clinton enjoys in superdelegates is largely balanced by the advantage that Obama has in caucuses. The caucuses are pretty distorted versions of the democratic process too. Last time I checked, the sum total of all votes actually cast in primaries very slightly favored Clinton - though the balance may have recently shifted in the past few days. So ... I don't think the will of the primary voters will really have been thwarted if Clinton prevails by virtue of a superdelegate advantage.

I think there is a pretty glaring double-standard in these discussion that I feel is worth pointing out.

First, Obama is smeared at length because he inspires large numbers of people with his oratory, and is compared, absurdly, with fascist dictators, and other leaders who putatively inspired a 'mob-mentality.' Then we are told, almost in the next breath, that he will never be able to create any meaningful political will. Which is it, for god sakes? Because either the guy inspires a lot of people to such an extent that he is compared with the greatest rabble rousers in history, or he's a spineless coward who 'reaches across' the aisle and capitulates. You can't have it both smears, both ways because they are obviously contradictory. Pick a smear, and stick to it.

Likewise, Obama is criticized for putatively 'reaching across' the aisle, and Clinton is praised for knowing the run of things, in this article. Which do you want? Clinton showed how to 'reach across' the aisle and how things run when she voted for the Republican war in Iraq, and when she follows Republican sabber-rattling over Iran. But again: you can't have it both ways, holding Obama to a standard that Clinton rather herself glaringly violates.

On a seperate but related issue, Tim asked an crucial question about justice, and I think we shouldn't slight that. But why, I should like to know, in whatever way we hope to acheive it, do some think--although Tim himself certainly did not imply this--that HRC will be better at pursuing or acheiving this than Obama? I see no reason to believe that.

Good point Tim. This issue was discussed on the Diane Rehm show this morning and I kept thinking obama could win 49% of the popular delegates to Hillary's 31% and (hypothetically) if she got all of the superdelegates (20%) she would win. That just didn't sit right with me regardless of how improbable it is.

However.. The winner take all approach depends significantly on how the actual voting districts are drawn. So in some ways the oligarchy can control its fate by redrawing districts every so often to its liking.

Norm,

I've been following the accusations of 'obama-bashing' here.

Ok, I found 1gm a long time ago and I come here specifically to find people that believe in principles I believe in, but have opinions that I do not. I come here to hear things that I do not agree with, and hear the intelligent reasons for these beliefs. It makes me think. It makes my world bigger.

I would suggest to you, a person I very much respect, to set aside your opinion, completely, and reexamine the earlier obama posts for unreasonable predjudice. Some very intelligent people disagree with you here, and not because they are blinded by rhetoric or soft in the noggin. They simply see a bias.

I personally saw it when you assigned lables to this group of people that you also assign to another group: the religious. labeling is dangerous.

As a person who in person would gladly play a game of chess with you over some good tea, please consider that you may be discounting opinions that could make you an even grander individual. Not to support a candidate, but to not discount a group of people with a word.

One Good Move has made my life much larger. When I was in the hospital recently, my 4 day old daughter unconscious and with an open chest, her heart visible beneath a thin yellow sheet of plastic, it was hard. She was unconscious, paralized, and alive by the grace of machines. My wife and I got few hours of personal time, we lived at the hospital in a guest room. On rare days, I would drive home, get a shower and log onto the net. My first stop, the news. My second stop, always, was 1gm.

1gm makes me laugh, makes me think, gives me my 'coffee shop' discussion and during those days and nights at the hospital, gave me a moment away from the pressing reality that my daughter may die at any moment, and that no matter how long she lives, she will always, always have only half a heart.

So please Norm. Don't categorize people you don't agree with as 'a cult'. I'm very neutral in this race, but I hate seeing the person whose blog I read 'religiously' go down that road.

Thanks again for your work here. It does more than you know.

-A

hear hear.

Hear Hear

So please Norm. Don't categorize people you don't agree with as 'a cult'.

So please all don't misstate my position. I said some, not all, Obama supporter were cult-like, and they are. They exhibit cult-like behavior. If anyone can point to where I said Obama supporters are a cult please point it out so I can correct the record. And for the record this definition describes what it is that defines them for me as cult-like

Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

Okay, now I'm concerned.

I'm a Hillary supporter. I also think that Obama gets a free ride with the media, at least right now.

But I don't like this digging in, either. To me it looks like Obama is going to make it to the nomination. Hillary will have a hard time bouncing back. Conventional wisdom might be wrong again, of course. But that's what it looks like to me.

And fine with me. I would have preferred Clinton but Obama is totally acceptable. That's really all he could be. Because, let's face it: They both are not ideal progressive candidates. The ideal progressive (to me) would have been some sort of hybrid between Edwards and Kucinich.

So, what I don't get is why on this progressive blog we are now fiercely fighting over two candidates that leave much to be wished for. I really think we should tone it down a little. If Hillary gets to be candidate it doesn't mean that Cheney wins. And if Obama gets the nod it won't mean Reagan is back, either. There is some serious hyperbole handed around, on both sides.

We already have an opponent. His name is John McCain, not Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Don't you think?

Norm,

What does Cult-like mean to you?