Debunking the Media's 'Obama Cult'

There's a new favorite theme emerging in media coverage of Obama's campaign. Apparently, all of his supporters--and especially his young supporters--are in fact glassy-eyed, brainwashed cult worshipers.

It started earlier this month, with TIME magazine's Joe Klein saying that there was "something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism" of Obama's speech on Super Tuesday. ABC's Jake Tapper took up the joke, blogging: "The Holy Season of Lent is upon us. Can Obama worshippers try to give up their Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities for a few weeks?" New York Times columnist Paul Krugman claimed last week that "the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." Citing the star-studded "Yes We Can" music video as evidence of this cult worship, another Times columnist, David Brooks, quipped recently that the "escalating states of righteousness and ecstasy" in the clip would soon translate to "selling flowers at airports and arranging mass weddings."

Obama's young supporters are the main targets of the cult claim. Young people make up one of his main bastions of support, and the campaign has successfully marketed itself as the younger, fresher option. The flipside of this is that statements about Obama's supporters being cult-like are automatically pointed at young voters. Covering what it called the "Obama-mania backlash," CNN panned over a group of college-age Obama supporters as the question "Creepy?" appeared on the screen. John Dickerson asked in Slate whether there was "a natural limit to our enthusiasm for to this kind of sweeping phenomenon? Isn't the generation that Obama has so successfully courted usually the first to toss overhyped products, even the overhyped products with which they were at first so enthralled?"

It is essential that young Obama supporters pressure their candidate on the issues that matter to them, and equally important that young voters examine the policies of the candidates before deciding. And many have done that. Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg, a young activist and blogger, wrote a satirical piece recently expressing the concrete policy reasons he is hesitant about Obama. Clinton has managed to draw significant support from young Latinos and non-college young voters in some states by convincing them she's stronger on their issues.

But the "cult" theme, and Dickerson's suggestion that young supporters succumb to and then "toss overhyped products," is insulting to young voters. It reaffirms stereotypes of young people as superficial and uninformed, a notion that the impressive rise in youth turnout in this year's primaries had started to undermine. Young voters deserve more credit-- whether supporting Obama or rejecting him--for being capable of making conscious, informed decisions.

There are eerie parallels here to the way that "Deaniacs" were labeled as fringe extremists in 2004, undermining the enthusiasm that Howard Dean generated in the early days of the primary. A Charles Krauthammer column in January 2004 joked about "orange-cap-wearing, twentysomething vegan Deaniacs" being bereft at their candidate's loss. A USA Today story from the same month speculated that Dean's avid supporters hurt him more than they helped him.

For Obama, however, accusations of cultishness could be far more damaging. The image of Dean as the youth candidate never actually played out at the polls-- Kerry beat out Dean 2 to 1 among youth in the Iowa primary that year. Obama does in fact have the support of many young voters, and they've turned out to prove it. Young people have been derided for years for their lack of participation in the political process, and when they finally do, they are called cultish? Nothing will take the air out of a movement like being told that its enthusiasm is "creepy."

Comments (86)

1. Because we all know, of course, that young people are fundamentally incapable of thinking for themselves and of course will follow their 21st Century Messiah blindly to the ends of the Earth. It can't have anything to do with Obama speaking their language, making the effort to reach out to the voter under 30 who could make a fairly strong argument for being disenfranchised in this country (seriously, who else has even BOTHERED to get any youth vote besides a lame MTV Rock the Vote campaign?), making an honest Internet presence not based upon oldernetworks but instead using the tools the youth of this day and age utilize themselves. No, young folks should just sit back, shut up, and listen to what their elders tell them. Don't question, don't think for themselves, just obey. Right.

   Posted by yutsano at 02/18/2008 @ 02:15am

2. so in the early days he was criticized for being too professorial and bland - for talking too much issues...

   now he's to oratorical, too inspiring...its cultish!

   what a pile of crap.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2008 @ 02:36am

3. You know whats creepy? Clinton and McCain sending young Americans back to their mothers in plastic bags just for the sake of not loosing face. That's #$%$# creepy.

   Posted by cthulu2008 at 02/18/2008 @ 03:21am

4. For the first time in my short 30-year life, I am actually interested in a presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

   So now, knowing what I do about the corporate elites who control the flow of information, and knowing how much those corporate elites have at stake in this election, I await the coordinated attack that destroys this one shining light.

   It pains me to no end that I just assume that he will be defamed and discredited, and we will be cheated out of this so-called "hope," stuck with another helping of "more of the same."

   Cynically yours...

   Posted by unauthorized at 02/18/2008 @ 03:59am

5. It never ceases to amaze - and amuse - me how gullible Americans are. Inter alia: the deeply flawed 'Camelot' of the early 1960s, the re-election of the village idiot in 2004, and now the knight-in-shining-armor halo awarded to the very-much-a-part-of-the-system Obama...why this willingness to suspend disbelief and critical judgment almost consistently?!?

   Posted by oneworld at 02/18/2008 @ 04:31am

6. What creeps me out is that millions of women, egged on by renowned man-haters Gloria Steinem & Erica Jong, have decided to vote for Hillary Clinton just because she's a woman. I'll take youthful idealism over selfish identity politics any day.

   Posted by Adscititious at 02/18/2008 @ 05:33am

7. He is not a knight in shining armor, he is simply going to get us out of Iraq.

   Posted by cthulu2008 at 02/18/2008 @ 05:45am

8. We were saying this about Mett before Joe Klein ever got there. I know Obama supporters who creep me out and I have friends who support Obama that don't. Is there a cult of personality for Obama? Sure. There are for most major politicians. McCain has aspects of this in 2000. Is the media overplaying the cultish aspect of it? Sure. They have to do something to avoid the choice of investigative journalism or dead air.

   The case against the claim that most Obama supporters are cultish should simply rely on the fact that the 'journalists' who say things like this provide no evidence. They are far-right or center-right hacks who are telling us what they feel about a candidate who they are afraid is going to crush their candidates (Clinton and McCain) and bring in alot of democrats on his coattails.

   The defense certainly shouldn't rest on praise for the knowledge, intellect and faculties of judgment of your average 18 to 22 year old. People that age haven't had the time, unless they are unusually invested in politics or freakishly intelligent, to learn the kinds of things they need to know to count as informed our perceptive. That isn't an argument against their participation. Their participation is how they get to be informed and perceptive voters.

   And would it really be so bad if the kids were overdoing the adoration in the campaign? If it allows them to muster the kind of energy and commitment necessary to beat Clinton and McCain, then it strikes me as a good thing. It will fade after Obama becomes president. A combination of inevitable mistakes that every administration makes and the fact that his youth voters are going to get older will make sure that most of them don't get stuck in worship mode. It is annoying to debate with the cultish people, but you take someone with Mett's tenacity and refusal to be daunted by the facts and put them in a real life campaign sitaution and you have yourself a great campaign volunteer.

   Posted by dentedpat at 02/18/2008 @ 06:12am

9. What I find interesting is ...the Hillary people (like FRANKGRITS) have been saying that "it's the MEDIA that's pushing Obama's 'cult'".

   So Obama/"youth vote" fans like Ms Currier attack the Media for calling it a cult....Hillary fans attack the Media for NOT calling it a cult (or even encouraging it).

   Poor ol' MSM just can't catch a break, can it?....heheh

   Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 08:53am

10. Labeling Obama supporters as cultish serves a purpose and the purpose is to underscore that the candidate is all flash and no substance. The media would have us believe that millions of Americans voted for this man simply because he is good looking and can speak. They ignore the fact that this country is in the worse shape its been in a while and assume that voters will be so cavalier about that fact that they would just vote for someone simply because he can speak and looks good. Its absoultely silly to me, for one thing Obama has been marketed as the Anti-war candidate who has been agaisnt the war before it began. Contrary to what old white male in Washington may think war is an important issue for young people. Technology is also important for young people something Obama has been more savy about compared to the other candidates.

    It all gets back to this media idea Obama and Clinton are alike on policies. The problem I have with that is that their are fundamental differences between the candidates other than policies that are important. Everyone has policies and proposals that they want to put forth. The democrats are similar or the wouldnt be democrats. Its very rare that you seee democrats with diverging views on policy but that does not mean they are fundamentally the same candidate. Their approach to government and what they emphasize is just as important. Obama emphasize a couple of things that none of the other candidates emphasize. He promises a governement that is open that shines the light on secrecy a government makes use of technology to enhance accountability to the American people. He also promised change and his version of change is inclusive. Its not simply getting your programs through Congress its about changing the way that they do business. Its about changing ourselves and our government The other candidates DO NOT emphasize that. Hillary basically just goes over what she is going to do in her stump speeches. Something else that he emphasizes for me personally that the other candidates dont talk about they may say they support it but they dont emphasize it and it leaves me wondering if they do. Obama is passionate about civil liberties obeying the Consitution and our leaders following of the constitution not creating their own something that is important to me.

    So to say that because the candidates are similar on policies and Clinton have more experience and if people are voting instead for Obama it means that they are behaving cultish is a flawed premise. The canddiates differ on funadamental areas that the media does not address.

    Carol

    Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/18/2008 @ 09:18am

11. We are mature (aged 60) supporters of Obama. We are not cultists in fact my husband has spoken and written about the danger of cults. We are, however, intellectually open to believe that there could be a new type of politician who could help us put America on a better course. We are politically split: one lifelong Republican and one lifelong Democrat. We agree on this: if Hillary is the nominee we will both vote for McCain.

    Posted by lindabahlman at 02/18/2008 @ 09:55am

12. January 8, 2008 Brian Williams, NBC anchor

    '...I interviewed Lee Cowan, our reporter who covers Obama, while we were out yesterday and posted the interview on the Web. Lee says it's hard to stay objective covering this guy. Courageous for Lee to say, to be honest. ... I think it is a very interesting dynamic. I saw middle-aged women just throw their arms around Barack Obama, kiss him hard on the cheek and say, you know, I'm with you, good luck. And I think he feels it, too....'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/18/2008 @ 10:08am

13. We agree on this: if Hillary is the nominee we will both vote for McCain.----Posted by LINDABAHLMAN 02/18/2008 @ 09:55am

    So if Obama doesn't win the nomination, you're willing to let John McCain, rather than Hillary Clinton, pick the next 2, possibly 3, US Supreme Court Justices (in addition to dozens of lower court justices AND the US Attorneys)?

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 10:12am

14. There is no doubt that the hysteria I've seen from watching his audience is scary. Because when you research Obama's voting record and his health care plan you know that anyone who votes for him is voting against their own interest. Obama is more conservative than Hillary. In fact, if you look at Hillary's record and past she has done more to help the middle and working class than he has. Those of you who need an inspirational leader to get you through the night, let me remind you that an informed electorate is more valuable than an inspired one.

    If you need an outside source to inspire you to vote, you are definitely not qualified to vote. If you understand that the government at large is out to protect the rich and powerful, it is theocratic capitalism that is being represented.

    Instead of defending a snake oil salesman running a dog and pony show,why not look into his policies and realize that he is embedded in the system he is decrying. What more evidence do you need than that hack Ted Kennedy who shoved down our throats twice an immigration bill that he promised would solve our problems and twice after those bills were passed the problem blew up.

    It isn't only the young that have drunk the Kool-Aid. It is a healthy cross section of our dumbed down electorate. I understand that Republicans and Christians crotch watchers who can't forgive Senator Craig and the rest of the Republican pedophiles, for their hypocrisies are also voting for him because he is "inspirational." Not long ago on the news a Huckabee voter was considering Obama. When asked why and she replied because he "is compelling." Not withstanding the idiocy of her answer, she just represents the draw of a candidate is full of rhetoric signifying nothing. We had an opportunity with the candidates that were blown off the screen by the MSM, John Edwards, Kucinch, Dodd, Gravel and Richardson; which any one of them had more integrity than the last two remaining. However, if I vote for Hillary Clinton, I know what her policies are, she is crystal clear about them and she is willing to debate Obama on them, however much the MSM and the Obama camp disdainfully brushes her aside. I am voting by the policies and platforms and certainly her health care plan is more cohesive than his convoluted multi tiered abysmal black hole that he calls "universal health."

    Please educate yourselves that is your only salvation.

    Posted by click212 at 02/18/2008 @ 11:08am

15. Preface: Edwards was my first choice...but I'm voting for Obama or Clinton, whoever wins, and I'm slightly favoring Obama.

    Obama supporters (some of my friends and friends of friends) do seem to fall into a couple camps...the realistic idealists who I can appreciate and the folks with blinders on...very quick to be defensive when one offers up any sort of criticism or question for their candidate and slow to tell you why they really like him (this worries me because I'm not sure they're ready for it to get nasty when the Repubs. bring the swift boats). Just an observation.

    Posted by Ryan Tull at 02/18/2008 @ 11:10am

16. Please educate yourselves that is your only salvation.

    Posted by CLICK212 02/18/2008 @ 11:08am

    "salvation" in the form of Hillary Clinton? Now THAT sounds "cultish"!

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 11:29am

17. Dont forget the Reaganites who are vying to find out who is the more Reaganesque of all of them. They looked like they were going to have a seance in the Reagan library where they debated a few weeks ago

    As far as Obama not doing anything for middle class or poor people that is wholly inaccurate. Obama wants to cut taxes for people making 75,000 and less. For Hillary the cut off point is higher I believe like 90,000. Obama wants to increase minimum wage to keep up with inflation havent heard anything from Hillary on that score. When it comes to the economy which is what matters he is much more progressive than Hillary.

    As far as his record tell that to all those families that he has helped when he worked as a community organizer, civil rights attorney and activist those dont show up in legislature but it does not mean he hasnt done anything for poor and middle class families.

    Hillary should be more concerned about selling her strengths rather than tearing down Obama's maybe then a lot of voters wont see her in negative light as they continue to do. Since she believes she is the better candidate she should have no problem selling herself but rule number one to selling yourself: Keep your message consistent.

    Carol

    Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/18/2008 @ 11:40am

18. Don't we just love belitteling others?!! Remember, ROCK MUSIC listners were a cult of personality too. Any different from calling republicans names?

    There is a reason PRIDE is a sin... it allows you to justify pain of/onto others.

    Posted by dustinchicago at 02/18/2008 @ 11:44am

19. Posted by MASK 02/18/2008 @ 10:12am | ignore this person

    you know...thats the only reason i will close my eyes, chench my asscheeks, and vote for her if it comes down to it. for once i'm thankful to live in a red state.

    LISTEN TO MASK HERE FOLKS! PRAY AND VOTE AND WORK FOR OBAMA - BUT LISTEN TO MASK...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2008 @ 11:44am

20. Dear MASK,

    How about not taking things out of content. When I say educate yourself I'm not saying that you need to vote for Hillary. I'm saying that if you make a choice at least be informed. I am voting for Hillary out of fact that she is up front about her policies whether we agree with them or not. I happen to think that her approach to foreign policy and health care among others is far wiser than Obambi's.

    Talk about blinders. If you miss the message by your anger against a candidate you are one of those uninformed. It was those very people who put Bush in the WH. There is no doubt that the American electorate votes with their presumptions and are too eager to accept the MSM's distorted fact and opinions than dig a little on their own for information. Hillary is not your salvation, educating yourself is your salvation. And if you still vote for Obama after fully understanding where he stands and what he voted for or not in the past then you deserve the government you get.

    Posted by click212 at 02/18/2008 @ 11:47am

21. oooh the forces of cynical same-o lame-o are indeed terrified of this man. he threatens to get people excited - involved, positive!

    here's the first real salvo these wicked nay sayers are firing...

    "people are too involved! its a cult!!!"

    HOLD FAST PEOPLE! DON'T LET "THEM" JERK YOU AROUND! ITS TIME TO FIGHT. ITS WORTH FIGHTING FOR. OPPOSE LIES AND WICKEDNESS WITH TRUTH AND DECENCY AND DON'T BACK DOWN!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2008 @ 11:50am

22. Posted by CLICK212 02/18/2008 @ 11:47am

    i think her cynical, appealing to the lowest common denominator, willingness to lie/cheat/steal to win makes her, in terms of character, little different from the worst of the republicans.

    i think the moral/ethical/intellectual rot she represents/appeals to is precisely the number one threat to our civilization and that the "cult" of hope, positive action, and decency that obama represents is our (last?) best hope to realize the potential for decency and progress, for moral renovation and rennaisance.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2008 @ 11:57am

23. there is an ongoing struggle for the soul of this country between self destructive cynicism and moral/ethical disintigration/civilizational suicide on the one hand, and the possibility to fully realize our greatest potential on the other.

    be not naive, but let not cynicism paralyze you either - that means you have let "them" win...

    and if its ultimately a losing fight - better to go down fighting to the last breath than whimpering like a coward.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2008 @ 12:01pm

24. Also about the "War," there are lots of people who were with the war besides the obvious politicians that voted for it and still supported it Obama included. The public is willing to forgive themselves and those politicians who groveled before them with "mia culpa." However, since Hillary didn't grovel and stood her ground whether wrong or right, she has been lynched about a thousand times. The hypocrisy of the electorate is a whimsical as their loyalty. Let's slap Obambi's wrist for his voting record and "bone headed" dealings with crooks because he is so inspirational. John Edwards is now a good guy because he made a mistake. Even a prostitute doesn't ph**k on a promise, yet the voters do and that's why we get the government we got. No universal health care, gas guzzling cars sanctioned by the government, absurd funding of earmarks, health insurance crooks, on and on. As I mentioned before when we had a chance to get people who would make a real difference we just let the media blow them out of the water. A we a nation of lemmings of what?

    Instead of going after Bush for his crimes against humanity, instead of immediate impeachment, we let Pelosi and the rest of those spineless wonders flounder about the congress giving in to Bush and his war machine. Again, we get the government we deserve.

    Posted by click212 at 02/18/2008 @ 12:03pm

25. Didn't know that the young were being maligned, but I think the geezers are guilty of the same. Obama is being treated like some kind of hip brand, a cool icon to put on a T-shirt, like John Lennon or Che. And most of it is pure projection -- the man seems indistinguishable from even Bill Richardson most of the time, much less Edwards and Clinton. "Great speaker"? I thought it was HRC who was winning the debates. The main advantage he seems to have is that he's not Rodham Clinton -- you know, that senator whom feminist Barbara Ehrenreich saw fit to describe as foolishly behaving like "the smartest girl in the room" who "sleeps with the President". Any ol' male will do in an atmosphere like that. Go Dems, go Obama -- but, yeah, there's an empty cult atmosphere around him, and it's not the fault of the young.

    Posted by RLawrence at 02/18/2008 @ 12:07pm

26. Maybe if his young supporters could give you a reason as to why they like Obama without describing some sort of magical experience in "coming to Obama" and tell you about his policies, they wouldn't be getting critiqued like this. I am one of these young people, living in Illinois, and even 3 years ago I was shocked by the enthusiasm he generated among people who knew nothing about him.

    The media is partially to blame for giving him nearly universal positive press, *COUGH* Nation *COUGH* but there is no question that alot of his supporters see him as more than just a man or a politician, but a savior.

    For me it really is creepy to see friends of mine who have never shown interest in politics suddenly jumping on the Obama bandwagon.

    Posted by badtimmay at 02/18/2008 @ 12:11pm

27. "When I say educate yourself I'm not saying that you need to vote for Hillary. I'm saying that if you make a choice at least be informed......educating yourself is your salvation."----Posted by CLICK212 02/18/2008 @ 11:47am

    It's not "out of context". It's eliminating the rhetorical flourish and pointing out the underlying message you're trying to convey.

    Namely "If you educate yourself, it will be your salvation, and that education will lead you to vote for Hillary Clinton!"

    with the veiled threat of "And if you still vote for Obama after fully understanding where he stands and what he voted for or not in the past then you deserve the government you get."

    Which you no doubt would consider a BAD government, right?

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 12:28pm

28. well, for many months the media also could do naught but repeat the clinton camp's self proclaimed inevitability...now the media, fickle and ever in search of the simplest trendiest thing (politics or not) has jumped on the obama wagon, it seems...

    but the cult bullshit sounds EXACTLY like the kind of sleazy, substanceless bullshit obfuscating rip the repugnants have perfected over the last 2 decades and hillary has cynically embraced...

    bullshit shields up! set spears! here it comes.

    hold fast!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2008 @ 12:28pm

29. However, since Hillary didn't grovel and stood her ground whether wrong or right, she has been lynched about a thousand times.------Posted by CLICK212 02/18/2008 @ 12:03pm

    Please educate us....what was Hillary WRONG about?

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 12:30pm

30. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/18/2008 @ 12:28pm

    It's the Battle of Gondor for the Hillary folks...or the Battle of Endor (depending on if she's Aragorn or Emperor Palpatine).

    She loses Texas OR Ohio...she's toast. Even if she wins them, she also HAS to win them BIG (due to delegate distribution).

    Next two weeks, she'll pull out all the stops.

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 12:32pm

31. knight in shining armor? of course he is! but he can't "fix all the problems". he can't move mountains...not all by himself...

    his genius is his ability to turn his followers into leaders.

    in truth i don't see too much difference in the policies of the two dem candidates. what i do see different is a fundamental approach to how the average voter/citizen is engaged and the role of the average voter/citizen in the ongoing process of government.

    to me, the clinton approach boils down ultimately to the fallacy that we can have a democracy with a top-down, ever self re-adjusting government which only requires our attention around election time. her "i'll take care of all the problems if you elect me so you can go back to self obsession, grubbing for yourself, and trivial inanities" style message is PRECISELY what is endangering our future, in a broad sense.

    obama's grass roots background, his ability to not just get a few carping slobs off their asses on election day, but to (yes, here it comes cynics) to inspire people to get off their asses...

    a) without being told by someone to...

    b) not just on election day...

    and work for the benefit of something bigger than themselves as well as their enlightened self interest is what indeed makes mr. obama the knight in shining armor he is...

    but without an army of millions of knights behind him who have the heart and intestinal fortitude to FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT...he will fail.

    for the carping, cynical, everything suxers...

    GROW UP! what did you expect? that something worthwhile would be easy? that evil, negative, powerful cynics would just roll over and let you get away with sitting on your asses crying into your belly buttons about how unfair everything is?

    WE MUST ALL BE LEADERS - WARRIORS - KNIGHTS IN SHINING ARMOR.

    and indeed if jesus christ himself ran for president i swear the cynical pharisees and pathetic schlobs would carp and bitch and ridicule and hate - so chock full of negativity and bereft of hope, unable/unwilling to concieve of the fact that someone else might actually not be as petty and morally vacuous as them...

    THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SELF REGULATING, EVER SELF CORRECTING DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT WHICH REQUIRES NO ATTENTION FROM THE MASSES OF PEOPLE. THAT IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, OR IF IT IS - IT WON'T BE FOR LONG...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2008 @ 12:55pm

32. "For me it really is creepy to see friends of mine who have never shown interest in politics suddenly jumping on the Obama bandwagon". Posted by BADTIMMAY 02/18/2008 @ 12:11pm

    Isn't political involvement, regardless of how sudden or who they're supporting, a good thing? Poor "young folks" go from being uninvolved to too involved in a matter of weeks. If Obama loses this nomination, pundits will lament a lack of enthusiasm among young voters. They would be wise to remember how they responded when enthusiasm actually emerged, centered around Barack Obama in 2008. Let's not waste this opportunity.

    Posted by Be Good at 02/18/2008 @ 12:58pm

33. Posted by CLICK212 02/18/2008 @ 11:08am

    He actually has never said it's universal healthcare. He has actually openly said it's NOT universal healthcare. Also how can you say Hillary is liberal when she is receiving massive amounts of money from defense contractors and want's to stick us deeper and deeper into war.

    A presidents job isn't to change everything. It's not possible. 8 years isn't enough. It's part of the presidents need to get people to focus a little more on politics. Getting them to participate is part of that.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/18/2008 @ 1:03pm

34. Posted by MASK 02/18/2008 @ 12:32pm |

    indeed...

    lord! what a pack of soulless ringwraiths we have become, a nation of pathetic, hopeless hungry ghosts, shuffling about, obsessed with silly trivialities, fearful of success, terrified of failure, paralyzed by small minded childish impacience and petulant, self defeating cynicism.

    i'm sick of it.

    if people indeed want to take this suicidal cowards path - INDEED THEY SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA...

    if people want a liar who will promise to fix all the problems while they play video games and discuss how everything sux...THEY SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA...

    if people want if people don't want a leader who inspires them to become leaders - THEY SHOULD NOT VOTE OBAMA!

    DISGUSTING MORAL COWARDICE...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2008 @ 1:05pm

35. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/18/2008 @ 1:05pm

    IBB, please. As William Strunk and E.B. White said "eschew verbage".

    You can sum up your entire post in one word...."ZERO".

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 1:23pm

36. Posted by CLICK212 02/18/2008 @ 11:08am

    Also to continue the discussion Click. Please tell me how Clinton is so progressive and so good on foreign policy when she couldn't see through the bullshit the president was shoveling at the beginning of the war. Some people did. For instance I was protesting the war when I was a sophomore in highschool. So if at that time I COULD see through the bullshit why couldn't she. You say WE were deceived but show was she. She has admitted to her own gullibility more or less in an unapologetic manner. I don't like people who can't stand up and say "Ok, I was wrong." It's a bad trait to be unapologetic it's something Bush does a lot.

    Also you say she's smart and has a great foreign policy she just gave Bush ANOTHER blank check for Iran. She doesn't have good foreign policy she is just more of the same. Obama has explained his reason for voting for the funding of the war. It makes sense and it's why multiple people have done it and I can't fault them for it. When you are in war if you take money away when you know the POTUS will not pull us out it's the troops who will suffer.

    Hillary is just another slimy politician who will say what she needs to to gain more power. She won't help anyone. The fact that she has played on peoples racism, sexism and other prejudices to try to win this election shows she is not the kind of figure we need leading this country.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/18/2008 @ 1:34pm

37. Posted by MASK 02/18/2008 @ 1:23pm

    dude...he's voting for obama...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2008 @ 1:34pm

38. shhhh...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2008 @ 1:35pm

39. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/18/2008 @ 1:34pm

    He is?!?!?!?! The guy who tells us that the elections are a sham...that they're ALL "corporatists"...that it'll take "a big wallop" for folks to finally turn to somebody that ZERO agrees to support?!?!?!?!

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 1:45pm

40. Following the conveyor belt of cash flowing from the Goldman Sachs crowd to Obama's campaign treasure chest, I'd say it is the Wall Street parasites who are wide-eyed cult worshipers.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/18/2008 @ 2:00pm

41. Mask,

    You deserve the government you get, when you say to yourself, "Hey, I can have a beer with him." When you are promised "He's a uniter." When he's a compassionate conservative. You deserve the government you get when you vote for inspiration instead of feasible policies.

    You can't vote in your interest without knowing who stands for what. Once again, I encourage you to go to Obambi's voting record. Go back to his so called "Public assistance and read what some of those same people say that he has supposedly helped. He is as much a politician as anyone else. He has manipulated the system as anyone else. The sad thing is that he has the vacuous blathering without the substance. Even when you go to his website and look at his policies they are just promises with really when examined no path to fulfillment.

    I don't care if you vote for him or not, Hillary was not my first choice. Yet given the facts, she's the only one that offers sound policies and programs. Get real here.

    If you want to feel inspired, if you want to feel good get a puppy. If you want good government educated yourself, your owe it to your country to defend the constitution and our democracy. You're not doing that following a dog and pony show. Talk about tent shows!

    Posted by click212 at 02/18/2008 @ 2:14pm

42. Nice try, Mask... but no go. There are just as many people who are suspicious of your angle as well... put the stones down, big guy... you live in a glass house...

    There is absolutely nothing cult-like about Obama's contagious enthusiasm... He has tapped into the 'flip-side' of GWBush's 'fear will bring us together' best seller.

    It is with the precision of Edmund Dantes's escape from Chateau d'If that Obama is quite simply the right man... at the right time.

    Once you've remembered how to think and act positively... these times will seem like a flaccid string cut kite... fluttering hopelessly and aimlessly downward...

    Lift the spirits of the people around you, and be proud of our common commitment to green technological prosperity.

    ttr

    Posted by ttr at 02/18/2008 @ 2:24pm

43. Mask,

    More over, you're doggedly insistence at attack is just manifesting the hysteria that Obambi fans display. I call them fans because it has become so important to them to be "inspired" by the most vacuous platitudes and if any one brings up pragmatic questions or that his voting record reveals more of a shyster than his evangelical demeanor professes, then the poop hits the fan.

    Remember the emperor's new clothes?

    Posted by click212 at 02/18/2008 @ 2:33pm

44. Posted by CLICK212 02/18/2008 @ 2:14pm

    Posted by CLICK212 02/18/2008 @ 2:33pm

    Sorry, did EITHER of those answer this?--

    "However, since Hillary didn't grovel and stood her ground whether wrong or right, she has been lynched about a thousand times."------Posted by CLICK212 02/18/2008 @ 12:03pm

    Please educate us....what was Hillary WRONG about?----Posted by MASK 02/18/2008 @ 12:30pm

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 2:50pm

45. There is absolutely nothing cult-like about Obama's contagious enthusiasm...---Posted by TTR 02/18/2008 @ 2:24pm

    Where did I say it was?!!?!??!

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 2:51pm

46. 'Obambi'

    How sophmoric. Click, when you get the email from the Clinton campaign supplementing your current material with some facts to back up the claim that Obama, with a more liberal voting record, is more conservative than Clinton, please let us know.

    Posted by dentedpat at 02/18/2008 @ 3:04pm

47. he is simply going to get us out of Iraq.

    Posted by CTHULU2008 02/18/2008 @ 05:45am

    are you sure?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2008 @ 3:22pm

48. He is?!?!?!?! The guy who tells us that the elections are a sham...that they're ALL "corporatists"...that it'll take "a big wallop" for folks to finally turn to somebody that ZERO agrees to support?!?!?!?!

    Posted by MASK 02/18/2008 @ 1:45pm

    mask,

    you're slipping.

    you've MISSED zero's post of drunken post-caucusing euphoria.......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2008 @ 3:25pm

49. Please educate us....what was Hillary WRONG about?----Posted by MASK 02/18/2008 @ 12:30pm

    Posted by MASK 02/18/2008 @ 2:50pm

    running for president...........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2008 @ 3:27pm

50. Where did I say it was?!!?!??!

    Posted by MASK 02/18/2008 @ 2:51pm

    well, you have shown

    .00000037% optimism........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2008 @ 3:28pm

51. Posted by MASK 02/18/2008 @ 1:45pm

    he said he did in the washington state primary...

    he just likes bitchin sometimes - five minute hates...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2008 @ 3:33pm

52. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/18/2008 @ 3:28pm

    Well, I'll try to go to .000000185%...no point in going all "gushy" over Barack!

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 3:48pm

53. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/18/2008 @ 3:33pm

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/18/2008 @ 3:25pm

    Must have missed ZERO going "Obama'mania" on us. Everything I've seen has been his same "There's no point in voting/They're all the same" drivel of the past 3 years...plus his predictions that Obama would lose in Maine!

    Odd switch-up for the INTEGER if he's suddenly going to PARTICIPATE in the process he's criticized for so long!

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 3:50pm

54. Mask,

    In defense of Zero, and myself since I think I agree with him to a great extent, you work with what you have and don't allow that to stop you from suggesting that we find something better. And besides, participation is fun.

    Posted by dentedpat at 02/18/2008 @ 3:56pm

55. Odd switch-up for the INTEGER if he's suddenly going to PARTICIPATE in the process he's criticized for so long!

    Posted by MASK 02/18/2008 @ 3:50pm

    him and guzillions more.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2008 @ 3:57pm

56. .000000185%

    half wit.

    ;+]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2008 @ 3:58pm

57. Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/18/2008 @ 3:56pm

    Has ZERO said that? Seems the posts I've read of his uptil recently and Obama'mania have been "Doesn't matter WHO the Dems nominate, they'll be a 'corporatist' and useless and I'm not voting for them!" In fact, he earlier lumped Obama in with Hillary, while somewhat touting Edwards.

    Frankly, I think part of his leaping to Obama (and I must have missed it, but will accept others that he has) is the same reason he took me and others off Ignore....he got tired of talking to himself and nobody paying attention to the 51,000th "They're all the same" Naderism...and his anti-feminist crap.

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 4:33pm

58. him and guzillions more.---Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/18/2008 @ 3:57pm

    As noted above....that may be the answer, FZ.

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2008 @ 4:34pm

59. There are a lot of reasons to criticize Senator Obama. There are people, for example like Bruce Dixon and Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report [blackagendareport.com] who are doing this (I am trying to add the direct links to two resources but the comment form says the urls are too long and won't do it. So I will mention them the old-fashioned way: Bruce Dixon's Feb 14, 2008 essay titled "Holding Barack Obama Accountable" published on the Black Agenda report website, and Glen Ford's Jan 09, 2008 debate with Michael Eric Dyson on Democracy Now [democracynow.org] , which is also linked to in the Feb 14 piece by Bruce Dixon.

    HOWEVER:

    The "Obama is a cult" spin is a tactic that turns my stomach and makes me even more convinced than before that Hillary Clinton should not be the president. I feel that this spin clearly comes from her campaign -- remember her husband's early attacks on Obama? This fits with what he was pushing forward then. Plus, the timing seems like no coincidence to me.

    And whatever the source, this feels to me like a gaslighting tactic, or maybe there's another word that I don't know that I mean by that one. The tactic goes like this:

    "If you support Obama there is something wrong with your comprehension of reality, since you have been brainwashed. Anything you might say in dialogue-response to such a claim is suspect before you say it because you have been brainwashed. We (who support Clinton) are sane, you (who support Obama) are insane. Anything Obama supporters might say comes from that insanity, by definition.

    There is no need for substantive discussions of the candidates, because Obama supporters are insane and can't reasonably participate in discussions anyway because they have been brainwashed. Support for Obama is the only evidence we need to diagnose this brainwashing. Claiming this is not true provides more evidence that it is."

    and so on.

    One commenter above -- CLICK212 02/18/2008 @ 11:08am -- even indirectly suggests that (some? all?) Obama supporters should perhaps be disenfranchised because they are not qualified (!) to vote:

    There is no doubt that the hysteria I've seen from watching his audience is scary. Because when you research Obama's voting record and his health care plan you know that anyone who votes for him is voting against their own interest. Obama is more conservative than Hillary. In fact, if you look at Hillary's record and past she has done more to help the middle and working class than he has. Those of you who need an inspirational leader to get you through the night, let me remind you that an informed electorate is more valuable than an inspired one.

    If you need an outside source to inspire you to vote, you are definitely not qualified to vote. If you understand that the government at large is out to protect the rich and powerful, it is theocratic capitalism that is being represented.

    Well then. The doctor is in, let Clinton supporters fix your delusions. If you don't, you perhaps should not be allowed (because you are not qualified because you are deluded/insane) to actually cast a vote.

    The way I see it, there are plenty of approaches to discussion of the candidates that do not require such hyperbole, disrespect or ugliness. IMO those people who are adopting and pushing this "cult" theme are doing a disservice to all of us by blurring over important issues and necessary dialogues with their use of this ugly nasty spin.

    Posted by MichelleB at 02/18/2008 @ 4:49pm

60. The arrogance of Obama's opponents as described by and propagandized by some in the media is that young people are ok...in their place. We know where this place is...in the military or as sheep. But, as rational adults, no, we'll call you when WE need you.

    Obama is fresh air in a stale room and apathy is only danger that can thwart his candidacy. Young people and other supporters must not stop doing what has made this political campaign so exciting...being involved in the political process for fundamental change!

    A great many people fought for the right of Americans to vote at age 18, a right that the neocons would like to make irrelevant through the repeal of the Voters Rights Act. Do not let this happen!!! Now is the time. We cannot wait, the nation cannot wait, the world cannot wait for another 4 years of Bush nor Clinton policies.

    Posted by afrothetics at 02/18/2008 @ 5:05pm

61. This entertainment news media: cnn, msnbc, fox news and etc. is telling us what to think with almost subliminal like messages embedded in most so-called news reporting. I am beginning to think, that we are all being brainwashed by whatever these organizations want us to think, or whatever makes the most interesting story that will get them the most viewers. If this is indeed what is happening, then we are all being made fools out of, as we are herded in one direction or another to one opinion or another, not for the sake of genuine news, but instead hype to get the most viewers!!!! In other words, our minds are being manipulated to think whatever someone else wants us to think!!

    Posted by sbhdawn at 02/18/2008 @ 5:57pm

62. Once again, as in the days of Kerry's campaign, we are falling for the "smear" campaign. This time it is Hillary and Bill; desperate to win at any cost, smearing Barack Obama. I use to support these 2, but now I will not vote for her if she wins the nomination. She and Bill have showed their true colors, and I am ashamed of her tactics!!

    Posted by sbhdawn at 02/18/2008 @ 6:01pm

63. It makes you wonder,but not really.If John McCain was getting the audiences and enthusiasm that is being shown to Barack the MSM would be having a field day telling us how great he is going to be.

    Posted by eniobob at 02/18/2008 @ 6:35pm

64. My sense of this is that it's part and parcel (whether msm or clinton camp first pushed it is irrelevant at this point) of the new CLinton "Solutions" branding...

    Since Sen. Clinton is supposed to be the rational, solutions-seeking candidate, her opponent, ipso facto, must be the irrational and forming a cult-of-personality.

    One implication is that her leadership style of partisan fighting, enforcing discipline, rewarding loyalty, and wrangling favors represents what is rational in democratic politics. I disagree profoundly with that line.

    Of course, of course it plays to her strengths, covers up her weaknesses and neutralizes Obama's support. If it can just raise the briefest of questions in potential primary voters when they see signs of Obama's support.

    Though we should obviously be careful about such charges, I think that there is an underlying racial (in addition to the age-ist) subtext here. If Clinton supporters are rational solutions-seekers, then Obama's supporters are supposed to be irrational - passionate, superficial, clannish, subject to demagoguery. These are racially charged insinuations. The subtlety - call it insidiousness - insulates Clinton from charges of race baiting. I, for one, believe that it's intended.

    Posted by metaxy100 at 02/18/2008 @ 6:54pm

65. "Right candidate, right time..." I think that's what the hardcore Obama supporters are trying to convey with their enthusiasm. But the cult angle, though not anything based in concrete fact, isn't coming completely from outer-space either.

    The failings of the bush admin have left a bad taste in the mouths of many. I think Obama, though I consider him a decent, not great, but a decent candidate, has been over-blown a bit out of a very understandable need cling to something that symbolizes a brighter future. We're hungry for that, desperate for that. But are we making him out to be too much simply out of this need to comfort ourselves? i think the answer to that is yes.

    All of a sudden, here comes this smooth black dude with a youthful appearance, a bright smile and a personality -- polar opposite to the wrinkled old man image of say, Dick Cheney. But really, these are the right characteristics at the right time-- not the same as right candidate at the right time. One does not have to do boring policy research. These characterics are immediate...visual, aural. Just what the Xbox, MTV, internet generatiion responds to.

    Many young people are smart. But with the educational system in our country, many, many more are atrociously not smart.

    Posted by jin at 02/18/2008 @ 7:32pm

66. METAXY100 02/18/2008 @ 6:54pm wrote: Though we should obviously be careful about such charges, I think that there is an underlying racial (in addition to the age-ist) subtext here. If Clinton supporters are rational solutions-seekers, then Obama's supporters are supposed to be irrational - passionate, superficial, clannish, subject to demagoguery. These are racially charged insinuations. The subtlety - call it insidiousness - insulates Clinton from charges of race baiting. I, for one, believe that it's intended

    Hmm. This exact thing came up in a conversation I had yesterday, though I feel like you say it much more clearly than we got to. And, this particular subtext has been vaguely on my mind on and off since this cult thing started to come up in the first place. I think what you're saying is an accurate analysis of some of the unspoken messages of this particular spin.

    And yeah, IMO the sublety, the insidiousness, is characteristic of a more general *coded* approach to racism that grants plausible deniability to the agents of it.

    Also, in the conversation last night, we were talking about how relatively class-privileged white liberals/progressives don't want to be associated with irrationality and all that you mention -- since so much of that group's identity and self-esteem comes from a (perhaps not entirely conscious?) sense of being superiorly smart and able to "see better" than the others who -- so the story goes -- need to be educated by them.

    Posted by MichelleB at 02/18/2008 @ 7:46pm

67. Kind of reminds me of the Pharisees complaining about noisy children. They feel reverence is not being expressed where reverence is due; those whose devotion is to their priesthood taking offense at ungovernable high spirits stirred by a fresh breeze, and entirely missing the greater marvel. It's an archetype, and no more reasoned or dispassionate for siding with a top-down imperial mind. Everything Ibble says @12:55 goes double for me: Except maybe all the knights and Jesus. Too many crusades and Teutons mixed up with knighthood for me, not that I don't admire Aragorn; and despite the potential parallel my Pharisee citation might suggest, I can only hope that absolutely everyone will find implications of Divine association not just inappropriate but offensive, which is why I expect the Publicans to use it, ever so self-righteously, whispering nasty nothings and threatening apocalypse if they aren't allowed to purge the population of its rights and self-reapect. Nothing against Ib, just hate the expectation that that kind of stuff will get thrown around. Best get ready. Oh, by the way, what I first set out to say. I am a practiced political reprobate. I gave up on the electoral system after McGovern lost. I have made one effort (unsuccessful) to vote since then. I have joined demonstrations in front of the US consulate here (Toronto) but my vote has never been cast, because it seemed clear the electoral apparatus was controlled by interests I didn't trust. I am going on 65. I am seeing for the first time an occasion that speaks directly to all the disaffected of the possibility that the established powers-behind-the-throne are in sufficient disarray that democracy is in a position to reassert itself and appoint a champion. But yes, we are or hope to be inured to tricks. That's the subtext. No more fools. And Obama could be a trick, another of Wall Street's Trojan Horses to get inside our heads and make us all zombies. The faith a person puts in a candidate, the anticipation of promises upheld is inevitably provisional. But Obama is the best bet I've seen in my lifetime, and a little excitement doesn't seem amiss. Lucky kids, to have joined the electoral process in such a time as this.

    Posted by felixculpa at 02/18/2008 @ 8:20pm

68. Where did I say it was?!!?!??! Posted by MASK 02/18/2008 @ 2:51pm

    Sorry 'bout that, Mask... after my first reference to you, I had moved on to my opinion about the issues in the Blog article and was inarticulate to that effect.

    I can appreciate your intention to call Zero on extremist fallout... But it behooves us to 'cut slack' to the growth process... and we are all growing these days!

    Posted by ttr at 02/18/2008 @ 8:34pm

69. Posted by FELIXCULPA 02/18/2008 @ 8:20pm

    Very well said!

    Thank you.

    ttr

    Posted by ttr at 02/18/2008 @ 8:39pm

70. Jin...

    I'm not convinced that it is not you that is focusing on the visceral... Obama has more substance than you give him credit for...

    My defense of Obama is not an endorsement... At this stage of the game, I just want to see 'fair play'.

    Any hint of 'low blows'... exhumes the deliverer's bias towards 'politics as usual'.

    Any 'good change' could never abide by underhanded methodry.

    ttr

    Posted by ttr at 02/18/2008 @ 8:55pm

71. Early on he was criticized for being "lackadaisical and disinterested" not professorial and bland.

    There were times in Obama's speeches when he would lose his train of thought. He would seem detached.

    One more thing: In talking to the press after refusing to debate Hillary in Wisconsin, Obama said he wanted to have more "time" to meet voters and to have "town halls". Have you heard of ANY town halls he has done recently? For that matter can anyone give me ANY dates when he did town halls during this Democratic nomination contest? It makes me question his knowledge of the policies, supposedly his, posted on his web site. He should be able to discuss them and argue their pros and cons as Hillary can. A President needs to have total command of the facts and to be able to think on his feet.

    Posted by celested9 at 02/19/2008 @ 12:52am

72. Posted by CELESTED9 02/19/2008 @ 12:52am

    The problem isn't his inability to debate her. You are entirely misreading that. He always does pretty well in debates. He is refusing to debate her because she is hurting for cash right now. She needs the debate in order to get television time. He is making sure that she gets as little free advertising as possible. He could easily debate her but he is avoiding it so she doesn't get any publicity.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2008 @ 02:10am

73. Dearest Mask and the rest of the rabid Hillary haters,

    Here,a few bones you can all gnarl at. I'm quoting an anonymous writer on the internet.

    "Clinton's enormous contributions as Senator, public servant, spokesperson for better family policies and the needs of hard-pressed women and children are widely known and recognized-even by her opponent. Her powerful, inspiring advocacy of the human rights of women at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1994 was heralded around the world as a stunning departure from the normal anodyne role of First Lady. Corporate special interests managed to defeat the health care program she advocated in 1994. But she kept on fighting, acknowledging her mistakes, and in ensuing years she succeeded in winning expanded coverage for children. Now she has crafted the only sensible and truly universal health care proposal now before the voters.

    On the Iraq war, many of us believe she made a major mistake in voting for Joint Resolution 114 in 2002-along with the 28 other Democratic senators, including John Edwards and John Kerry. But we also note that her current opponent, when asked about that resolution in 2004, responded that he did not know how he would have voted had he been in Congress then. We do not know either. But we do know that at the time, his opposition to the war carried no risks and indeed, promised to pay big dividends in his liberal Democratic district.

    Now, the two candidates have virtually the same plan for withdrawal from Iraq. And on the critical, broader issues of foreign policy, we believe that Senator Clinton is far more consistent, knowledgeable, modest, and realistic-stressing intense diplomacy on all questions and repairing our ties with world leaders.

    We are keenly aware right now much is at stake-not just on national and international security, but on the economy, universal health care, the environment, and more. Our country needs a president who knows the members and workings of Congress, and has a proven record on Capitol Hill of persuading sympathizers, bringing along fence-sitters, and disarming opponents. There is an irony in her opponent's claim to be able to draw in Republicans, while dismissing her proven record of working with them as a legislator. We need a president who understands how to make changes real, from small things like the predatory student loan industry to large things like the Middle East. Hillary Clinton has the experience, knowledge and wisdom to deal with this wide range of issues.

    Our country also needs a president who has a thorough mastery of "details"-yes, details - after eight years of Bush and Cheney. The job of restoring good government is overwhelming, and will require more than "inspiration" to accomplish it. We believe that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Justice Department, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the Environmental Protection Agency, and many more can be restored to full and effective functioning only by a president who understands their scope, regulations, personnel, problems and history. Knowing these "details" and acting on them are essential to begin the healing and recuperation of the country."

    As the Spanish expression goes Perro que no come, no deja comer. -Dog that doesn't eat, doesn't let the others eat. The rabid defensiveness of the Obami fan club just reinforces the idea of the anger and powerlessness that they feel since even asking them to look up the fact they still bray at the suggestion that educating yourself is the best way to make an informed decision, since they believe their decision is based on reason. For those of you who asked me to explain or prove my statements, please the purpose my argument is to encourage you to find out by yourself from reliable sources and not even believe me or anyone who harbors an opinion that is not in goose step with yours. Go to the congressional voting websites. However, if you persist on stomping the ground with your unforgiving righteousness, with your misogyny (be you male of female,) you are doing the same thing your enemies have done in the past eight years and even before that. We need a government that is afraid of us at the present time it is us you are afraid of it.

    Chew of these bones and calling in the morning.

    Posted by click212 at 02/19/2008 @ 10:04am

74. Sorry-- Correction on last line. Chew on these bones and call me in the morning.

    Posted by click212 at 02/19/2008 @ 10:06am

75. Joe Klein couldn't care less about the issues or anything else other than promoting Joe Klein. He's a perfect fit with Billary. They've made money scamming together since Primary Colors. Joe doesn't want to be deprived of his rightful place back at the imperial couple's White House table. Ignore Joe Klein & his cheap shots on his patrons' behalf. It's ending, Joe, get yourself new partners.

    Posted by sloper at 02/19/2008 @ 10:22am

76. "Dearest Mask and the rest of the rabid Hillary haters,"- what makes Mask a "rabid hillary hater"? From what I've read in the thread so far, he's just being skeptical and whats so wrong about that?? Isn't that what you've been insisting everyone should do, Click, be more skeptical, ask more questions, get informed?? I suppose only when it works in your candidates favor.

    Posted by jro555 at 02/19/2008 @ 11:14am

77. CNN.com 19 February 2008

    '...While campaigning in Youngstown, Ohio, Monday, Obama said,...

    "Speeches don't put food on the table, ..."'

    'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/19/2008 @ 12:44pm

78. WHERE'S....THE....BEEF???

    Posted by TransitDave at 02/19/2008 @ 12:47pm

79. Being involved would be a good thing- the problem is that most of Obama's supporters are involved for the wrong reasons. The American people are falling into the oldest trick in the book. He's a smooth talker and a charismatic guy, and people are "excited" about him. That kind of mindless support leads to mindlesss Presidents.

    Posted by badtimmay at 02/19/2008 @ 2:47pm

80. Gee Whiz, I thought Cult referred to Republican Party...

    Posted by rickgriffin at 02/19/2008 @ 3:03pm

81. I think this article is, again, an attempt to reinvigorate Obama's Messianism. If you read the press from the past 2 months, you will find that Obama has been heavily favored. No criticism. Simply more playing into the Messiah phenomenon. Come on Obama, come off your cloud. Other than having bad morning breath, we haven't seen your cocky, megalomaniac, egotistic side.

    Vote Progressive - Vote Hillary!

    PS And no, I am not a Hillary staffer. Just a gay med student.

    Posted by tumultuousCT at 02/19/2008 @ 11:15pm

82. The whole concept of an Obama cult seems to me like main stream media pundits are searching for a negative here. The most glaring and obvious example of truly cultish behavior is the right-wing christian conservative backing of the Republican party since 2000. Getting out the vote of bible-belt extremists who openly and unabashedly warp and decry the work of the most advanced scientists, politicians and progressive people in the country is "creepy". Christian fundamentalists who believe in a literal interpretaion of the bible are truly and intentionally "uninformed", as opposed to say, an independent political science student. Maybe I'm beating a dead horse here, but every time I see one of these wild-eyed preachers or lock-stepped, bored soccer moms turned religious activist on a frontline episode saying we need to invade Iran or overturn Roe v. Wade I want to build a fort on the nearest hill and invite all the sane people to come live with me until this whole thing blows over.

    I understand that the marginalization of Huckabee and the paradigm clash between Mcain and traditional conservatives might make this a moot point, and I also conceed the irreverent nature of my comments. But my point is that statements like "something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism" should be attributed to a group of people who transparently believe in a messiah and the rapture and all that that entails, not a wide spread diverse populous of people who happen to be young and are genuinely excited for a change.

    Posted by DiogenesV at 02/20/2008 @ 12:47am

83. ...not a wide spread diverse populous of people who happen to be young and are genuinely excited for a change. Posted by DIOGENESV 02/20/2008 @ 12:47am

    ...Or, not necessarily young. I can understand why a young guy who went to high school with my kids (Alex Urevick-Acklesburg) supports the Obama candidacy. But, in the Wisconsin primary, more people voted for Obama than voted for all the Republican candidates combined. The same is true for the recent primaries in Maryland, Virgina and Louisiana.

    In context, we're not discussing the "Obama cult": it's the Obama wave.

    Posted by nathanhale at 02/20/2008 @ 11:56am

84. The irony is those that are calling Obama supporters a cult, are probably some of the ones that were probably the student activists in the 1960's. I find it laughable that Bill Clinton in the 1992 Debate with GHWB portrayed himself as the agent of change and hope. Now he says his wife brings much needed experience to the table and it's more important to be experienced.

    I find some of these baby boomers just don't want to make way for the next generation of leaders. I'm Obama's age and it irks me to know end. I'm at the very end of the 'boomer' generation but share more values with the generation coming up.

    This is not to say all boomers see Obama followers as a cult. I don't want to make the same mistake and tar the boomers as one homogenous lump as those who criticize Obama's followers as a cult do.

    I do think there is a generational gap between those who want change and those who don't which is not predicated on age, but a philosophical world view. Those rooted in modernity and enlightenment values prefer Clinton and are more pragmatists. Those who long for change see the brokenness and bankruptcy of the modern political experiment and are trying to forge a new way of doing politics.

    Some of Obama's followers do want a Messiah as do some of Clinton's followers as do some of McCain's followers. Those looking for a Messiah fit a particular psychological profile which is not contingent on age.

    People are so grumpy. What's wrong with young people getting inspired and passionate about someone other than Pop Idol. Do you all forget what it was like to want to change the world and to think you could actually do it? If so, I feel sorry for you.

    Posted by nkhogan at 02/21/2008 @ 10:22am

85. "... Those rooted in modernity and enlightenment values prefer Clinton and are more pragmatists. "

    Posted by NKHOGAN 02/21/2008 @ 10:22am

    Interesting perspective. Not sure I agree, but if true, finally a good reason to vote for hillary.

    The world already has too many anti-intellectual, anti-science (i.e. enlightenment values) people. The last thing we need is dogmatic, bullshit propaganda. We need sane, rational people, who are in touch with reality.

    Hopefully you are as mistaken about obama, as I feel you are about clinton.

    Posted by Malcontent at 02/21/2008 @ 1:14pm

86. It's not about enthusiasm, it's about self-criticism.

    Senator Obama's supporters refuse to admit any criticism of the Senator. That is enough to make people suspicious.

    Also, a political "cult of personality" is not the same as a religious cult. "Cult of personality" refers to a practical political phenomenon, that has nothing to do with brainwashing or mass hysteria. It has to do with attributing special powers to a leader and refusing any heterodox criticism of him or her.

    That is a "cult of personality" and there is some element of Senator Obama's on-line support that falls into that description.

    Posted by ramsin at 02/24/2008 @ 1:24pm