they are not cultists; they are idolators.  

"Besides, using the word "cult" in a derogatory way implies that you don't support First Amendment rights."

LOL.  Let me guess, if you're against the Iraq war, you don't support the troops, right?

No. My point is that "cult" is a slur. Saying that someone is in a "cult" often means that you think they've been brainwashed that you don't respect their religious beliefs. Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs, even if they're on the fringe. Every organized religion (including Christianity) started out as a so-called "cult." Try being a little more tolerant.

This is big-tent party. And you might just find that some Obama supporters agree with you on more than you think.

Your condescension is appalling.

Please, see my post below.

Doesn't the fact that he produces such passion mean anything to you?

I read a lot of criticism of Clinton and her policy positions but I don't remember people criticizing Clinton's supporters themselves much at all. That's the difference.

Remember Hillarybots?

The Obama crowd have completely hijacked the site. There's no first amendment rights there. Attach Obama or his positions, raise questions about his electability and you are censored or ultimately bumped from the site by his supporters. Most strange. Basically most to them are not Democrats but Naderites. The tone of much comment on the leaders of the party is totally hysterical.

People like you are intellectually lazy and dishonest.  Given an opportunity to engage in a substantive discussion about the decline of civility around here.  You choose to lay on another layer of snark and insults.

Are you so deluded that you think this sort of behavior advances the cause of your candidate and our party? Trssh talking other progressives is not a way to build a working progressive majority in this country.  Trash talk is quick and easy.  Try actually putting together a little information and a substantive argument to backup your opinions.

If you want to change this country, stop acting like a Republican.

Obama supporters are normal people just like everyone else...they just happen to support a charismatic candidate. Charisma often translates into very rabid support. See Edwards supporters for a similar example.

Hillary's supporters are usually more measured, because their candidate is not the type of candidate who is going to make a stadium thump. She's a technocrat. That's not a knock on her, but it's the truth.

Is profoundly anti-progressive, and his rhetoric on economic matters echoes the positions of his three main advisors: Goolsbee of the Univ of Chicago, and Liebman and Cutler from Harvard. Goolsbee, like just about everyone from U of Chi, believes in market solutions to everything, he attributes all income inequality to the skill premium (which I guess makes hedge fund managers supergeniouses). Liebman is the lead author of the profoundly anti-worker Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick Non Patisan Social Security Plan. Cutler is Obama's health care guy and so the advisor on mandates.

You can parse Obama's past community organizing work and State Senate and US record all you want, my assumption is that future Administration policy will reflect current advisors' advice, otherwise why bring them on in the first place?

The LMS Social Security plan is not long (9 pages). It suggests throwing a worker financed 5.2% 'fix' at a problem currently set at 1.95% (1.92% when the plan was written) and then only 'fixes' about a third of the gap for lower income workers. It does substantially bail out capital for much of its obligation for borrowing from the Trust Fund over the years, well thanks for nothing. I don't have strong feelings against Obama, but for whatever reason he has chose to take on a centrist to right centrist economics team.

Krugman has used some harsh language to describe Obama's economic pronouncements, and I won't repeat them. But the fact is they are substantially correct, Obama has either been fooled into taking on these particular advisors, doesn't understand the implications of what they propose, or has sold out to corporatists.

After Iraq, Social Security and Health Care are two of the biggest issues out there. Both are central to the progressive agenda past and present, and it is very disturbing to have a self-described change candidate running away from the legacy of FDR, JFK and LBJ. We have had 25 years of 'Big Government is the Problem' crap rammed down our throats, 25 years of insistence that if we just let markets do their magic, just let industry self-regulate everything will be perfect. Certainly people are free to argue that implementing those policies has made this country a better place, within reason and maintaining certain qualifications there is even a place for them in the Democratic Party. But they are not progressives, not from any recognizable policy stance.

One of the first tests any candidate or any president faces is the composition of his various teams. Unfortunately for this unrepentant New Dealer he flunked the economics exam.

If you want to vote for a DLC style analog of Harold Ford Jr then fine. Ford like Obama is whip-smart, handsome, articulate. He simply has a policy stance well to the right of mine. Obama had and maybe still has the possibility of running as a true progressive change agent, instead he is looking more and more like Ford. Lots of progressives initially thought Ford was the real deal, a guy that would help us transcend race as a test for high office, instead he chose a safer path and aimed for the center. Obama is showing disturbing trends of taking that same road.

I am willing to be convinced, is there any important issue where Obama is running on a truly more progressive policy position than Clinton? Because if I really want a DLC person I might as well pick HRC.

"don't tell me what you gonna do... show me what you have done.. obama by a mile." Yeah and Bush had a pretty reasonable record working across the aisle as governor. Sometimes 'what you gonna do' otherwise known as an 'agenda' is pretty damn important.

Well this Edwards supporter was somewhat alright with Obama, but attacking unions, adopting RW talking points on SS, and voting for the PFTA did that in. I am watching actions, and would be very disappointed at an Obama nomination. JUST as disappointed as with Hillary.

Merry Christmas!!

They all have basically hte exact same policy positoins. To pretend otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest.

So it comes down to values and character...and I think Edwards and Obama trump Hillary on that count...

Thanks for a civil response.  My reasons for supporting Obama are not primarily about personality.  Rather, I support him because I agree with the approach he is taking to change.  I believe that he is talking about "turning the page" and "unity" not because he is naive, nor because he is a centrist sellout, but rather because he is trying to build a working progressive majority.

I believe the only way we are going to overcome Republican obstrucionism is to elect larger majorities in Congress and by being able to talk to independents and moderate Republican.

I think HRC will help turn out the Republican base and hurt down-ballot Dems.  I think her polarizing image and substantial baggage will also hurt down-ballot dems.  I like JE a lot, but I think his straight-ahead fighting, populist thems is unlikely to be successful.