Howard Dean's supporters went through a lot of this kind of stuff in the summer/fall of 2003 (Deaniacs, etc) on MyDD, DailyKos, and other popular Dem blogs.  I know...I was one of them.

I figure if folks call us Obama supporters silly names or insults, that's only because they don't have more substative criticisms.

BTW...I liked the bit about your handle.  I wonder how many folks know the origin of mine and its meaning.

No offense, but to compare JFK's resume prior to his presidential run to Obama's 'voter registration' stuff is actually quite amusing.

Sure Obama is attractive, and he may be a great guy. But I really don't believe it will cut when you present voters with a 2.5-year-senator as a serious presidential candidate.

There were lots of charismatic, young and energetic politicians who won elections before. However they did actually have a resume. Ask Bill Clinton. When George Bush dismissed Arkansas as too tiny for presidential experience, at least voters knew he had been a governor for 12 years. Tony Blair had been shadow PM and leader of labour party for quite a few years before he ran.

Right, Obama's problem is that he is simply too gifted with "soft" qualities like charisma and rhetorical flash. This allows those that oppose Obama for other (possibly legitimate) reasons to take convenient shots at him by saying that's ALL he's made of---all style no substance---despite the logical fallacy involved. To me, it's nothing more than attempt to construct a narrative that's much easier to stick than sincere appraisals of policy.

This isn't to say that there are not plenty of people that support Obama for superficial reasons. Nor is it to say that all of his supporters are "informed."

I'd venture to say that most people on this site, though, surpass the threshold for what could be objectively  called "informed." Thus, to the extent we support different candidates, it's because we have simply come to different informed conclusions about who the next president should be.

After that, we can still argue, but we still owe a certain modicum of respect to each other. I haven't always been the best on this score, but I resolve to do better.

If he wants to shake up the 'emptiness' impression and thin resume, he has to perform.

I don't see the evidence in the past three debates in which he stepped up to the plate

Can we please limit diaries to substantive discussions of policy, please?  This rant is frankly a waste of virtual space.

good read:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horsera ceblog/2007/07/obama_promise_and_peril.h tml

I have gone to great lengths to point out what I see as Obama's weaknesses.  I have said over and over again that I do think he is soft, and prone to empty rheteric.  I think he would get chewed up and spit out by the Republicans in the general.  

But none of that has anything to do with Obama worship or Obamamaniacs.  People support who they want to support, for whatever reasons.

But I do think there are a group of people who support Obama who are over the top. They can't take criticism of him and they can't bring themselves to express any thing remotely negative about him.  When anything they view as negative is posted they attack ( or alternately beg for people to stop posting such things).  They are prone to attacking other candidates, often using Republican talking points.  In short these people behave like naive, bratty cheerleaders for Obama.

When these people post on Obama they sound like teenage girls writing about the guy they have a crush on.  When they post on other candidates they sound like that teenage girl running down the girl her crush is currently dating.

Lastly, many of these type of Obama supporters I speak of have openly called for banning non Obama supporters and routinely give bad ratings to perfectly fine posts that they just happen not to like.  That is childish nonsense.

This country is facing the greatest challenges it has ever known and we, those of us with the most deeply held convictions, still bicker about the most petty inane things.

Call me and mine what you like. Senator Obama represents the hope of most Americans for a better conversation (his numbers prove that, and unless you are a really cynical person, you can not relly believe that 258,000 diverse Americans are all/mostly enamered by the charisma of this one man). I am no policy wonk, but I know that I want someone who understands his role as described (implicitly and explicitly) in the Constitution of the United States. Someone with gravitas who will reach for and grasp the full dynamic of the office and make sound decisions for ALL Americans.

Not only should we be excited that so many people are part of this historic movement we should celebrate the fact that Senator Obama is willing to go through this process. I, personally am proud to be called an "Obamaniac". In fact I would like to invite all like-minded Obama supporters to join us in San Diego in calling for a "Barack Obama Visibility Birthyday Bash" on Aug. 4 to celebrate the Senator's birthday, help the 3Q numbers by buying/wearing Obama shirts and pins and reall showing the country/world what 258,000 supporters look like.

There's an interesting article in the LA Times this morning about an brain researcher who has been consulting with the Dem Party about the role of emotion in politics.  

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/ nation/la-na-guru9jul09,0,868439.story?t rack=mostviewed-storylevel

Good diary, Woody, but what goes on in these pages has nothing to do with real criticism.  Unfortunately, daily, this place becomes more and more like Donald Segretti's Playhouse.

Supporters of Barack Obama are no more partisan than supporters of any other candidate.

And discussing the way "supporters" of any candidate behave is really empty rhetoric. To make the case that the most vocal commenters in the blogosphere for Candidate X or Y (no gender pun intended) actually represent a kind of monolithic personality type is absurd.

But, if you must reduce my support for my chosen candidate with a schoolyard taunt, I highly prefer Obamatons to Obamaniacs.

Excellent Post.

I responded here. It was too long for this Diary.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/7/9/15194 1/7495

Ed Heads actually seems like it is a good one for Edwards supporters... Then again, I'm a big Grateful Dead fan so that probably is affecting my judgement.  If Edwards was my horse though, I'd love to be called an Ed Head!  

I don't agree with the premise. My sense is that most supporters of other candidates, at least Clinton supporters, like Obama very much. I certainly like him as do all of the Clinton supporters in my family, where there is a lot of hope that Clinton will pick Obama has her running mate.

My point is that Obama's appeal is no mystery and I don't think Clinton supporters are condescending about it at all. It's just "the experience thing", plain and simple. Like Obama. Like Clinton. Pick the candidate who has 16 years of national experience and the policy chops to lead.

those who are overly critical are simply looking to find faults with your post.

>>>>Many Obama supporters, including myself, are up on the issues and believe that Barack Obama has the best ideas and plans to take America where it needs to go.

Is CTL a good idea?  Is it for the coal industry and Obama.
Is voting to continue funding the war a good idea? It is for Halliburton and Obama.
Is voting against timetables a good idea? It is for Republicans and Obama.
Is whining about slow Katrina recovery, but doing nothing about it - a good idea?
It is for the corporatists and Obama.
Is voting to confirm rightwing extremist judicial nominees a good idea?? It was for Obama.
Was Obama leading a standing ovation when warmonger Lieberman returned to the Senate a good idea? It was for Obama.

Obama can't win and is a media creation successfully enhancing the corporatists and detracting from Edwards' progressive policies.

None of the claims made in the diary contain citations or any information that would lend them any credibility.  This is just subjective bilge.  Prove to us that you are "up on the issues."  Prove to us that his public statements are substantive.  Citing a book everyone seems to treat as the new Bible and asking everyone to just accept blind faith as a legitimate political position is frankly asking everyone to just submit to the very thing you seem to decry: Obamamania.  Because most poster here want to learn how the candidates stand on specific policies and problems, we will most probably dismiss anyone who waxes apoetically and vacuously about a candidate.  I do not see this ending, however, as Obama supporters seem to condone this diary of no substance.  Face it: Obama is running a campaign of image politics, and this explains why is campaign is pure idolatry.

Why call it"Obama Worship" when you can call it what it is.

HOPE,INC. - THE AUDACITY OF HYPE

"Hope Hope Hopety Hope Small Poltics Hope Hope New Kind of Politics Hoptey Hopety HOPE!"

- Barack "Wallstreet" Obama

ALL these questions and animosity. Unfortunately coming mostly from Edwards supporters.
The sad truth about Mr. Edwards is he's been running for the postion since he lost the last time.

Everything he's done since could be considered calculated for political gain. Just as his war vote was, practically living in Iowa, the trip to New Orleans.

All with one end goal. To be the next president.

Good post-everybody should be allowed to support who they want and not be attacked or belittled for it.

Specifically when the 2nd tier candidates are without question the most qualified for the position.

It's different things to different people.
Some need to be inspired, most like to stick with who they know, for some experience matters, others utilize past voting records, etc etc.
 

There is only one true way, the enlightened path less traveled of the Jolly Buddah. All other paths are shadow tributaries of the divine inspired truth of the Jolly Buddah. Obama is not shrill and therefore not worthy of genuine worship.

Aaaiii! Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Da Motherfuckin' Facts Beyotch R'lyeh Wagn'nagl Fhtagn! Aaaiii!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!

Actually I think there are only about 5 people in all of MYDD that engage in this constant "Obama is an empty suit," "Obama is a corporatist," "Obama supporters are ignorant," sort of trollish behavior. It's just that these five people happen to be very, very loud and persistent.

We all know who these persons are. IMO they are best left ignored.

jeeze...in many cases a diary has a point of view..
this was posted with a point of view...a valid one.. simple observation...My DD remains a place of "enough" Dems..and others
Edwards or Obama....Obama or Edwards...
I guess that individuals here truly doubt that either one could not provide the leadership necessary to move forward...
There is...at this time no desperate need to nitpick either candidate, nor feel so defensive about initial support....(there will be plenty of time for that later)
Both candidates represent a significant challenge to the "control." Both candidates will be subject to subtle/blatant attacks...

Those of us supporting either candidate must realize and focus upon the comparison between these two and all others....as opposed to a focus of difference between these two. (Plenty of time for that)

We are all on the same bus..our only difference is who we trust most to drive...

Thank you!  You said elegantly what I have been trying to say for ever so long around here and DailyKos.  

The snideness and outright hostility of the frontpagers to him is even worse than the shrillness of the commenters.  They misread the media treatment of him by the media (late in coming and at best grudging in acknowledging both his very real rock star status and his very substantive past) and underestimate their own ignorance of him and his positions.  Pathetic, really, considering that they are supposed to be on the same side...

I just did a Google search for Obama and the following article came up.

The guy who wrote it seems more than a little crazy but is the central point true?

Is Obama in bed with Kagan?

If so, how do you ignore this?

Clearly you must ignore the guy who wrote this, but is his basic point valid?

Is even the crazy man right sometimes?

Just asking.

OK I'll drop the bullshit.

I just want to see a good "crazy" off.

In this corner we have the rabid followers of "HOPE,INC.

In the other corner we have super duper pooper scooper CRRRRAAAZZZYYY guy.

Ready.
Set.
LLLLLLlllllet's get ready to see who is more out of touch with reality!!!

"...one new supporter of Obama has cast a grizzly shadow over the campaign of the supposed "anti-war" liberal candidate, Neo-Con columnist and Project for the New American Century founder Robert Kagan.

Kagan, a prominent neo-conservative, has been active as a Washington power broker since the mid-1980's-- where he worked at the State Department Bureau of Inter-American Affairs and was a speechwriter for, notorious Secretary of State, George P. Schultz.

Schultz is long considered by many researchers to be a preeminent driving force in U.S policy even after he "officially" left office. Schultz, while in office, was responsible for the dismantling of the Bretton-Woods agreement as well as the destruction of the gold standard under Richard Nixon; he also worked in the economic sector as a hand puppet for the Rockefeller financial oligarchs as chairman of the International Council of J.P Morgan Chase. Currently, Schultz, at 87, serves as the chairman of the secretive S.P.P meetings (Security and Prosperity Partnership) as a key player in the institution of the proposed North American Union as well as working as a chief neo-con handler in the current Bush administration.

Robert Kagan, one of the original signers of the 1998 "PNAC Letter" calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, in his April 29, 2007 column for the Washington Post applauds Obama's recent speech for the Chicago Council of World Affairs as "pure John Kennedy". (Full Text Here)  

In this speech, mimicking the current neo-con talking points, Obama expressed desire to "stay on offense" in the War on Terror--which translated seemingly into increasing defense spending and raising troops numbers by over 100,000. Surprisingly, this figure eclipses some numbers that have been proposed by the more war-mad candidates John McCain (of whom Kagan is a informal advisor), Rudy Guiliani or Mitt Romney.

Kagan remarks in his article

When [Obama] said, "We have heard much over the last six years about how America's larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom," you probably expected him to distance himself from this allegedly discredited idealism.

Instead, he said, "I agree." His critique is not that we've meddled too much but that we haven't meddled enough. There is more to building democracy than "deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box." We must build societies with "a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force." We must build up "the capacity of the world's weakest states" and provide them "what they need to reduce poverty, build healthy and educated communities, develop markets, . . . generate wealth . . . fight terrorism . . . halt the proliferation of deadly weapons" Obama proposes to double annual expenditures on these efforts, to $50 billion, by 2012.

It is clear by this glowing review of the speech, that Obama's platform of "spreading democracy" is of great interest to the current ruling class of frothing neo-cons, who long for nation building projects all over the globe. Perhaps more troubling is the duplicity of Obama's message and the discrepancies shown in his speeches. From a campaign stop recently in New Hampshire, Obama told supporters the following.

"We are now in the midst of a war that never should have been authorized, never should have been waged," Unless we bring that war to a close, we cannot deal with those other problems I just mentioned," such as education and healthcare, Obama added, his words nearly drowned out by the wild applause that followed his denouncement of the war."

Even more bizarre is a speech made to the same Chicago Council of Global Affairs, nearly 6 months ago (Full Text Here) , where Obama seems to speak in direct contradiction to his more recent appearance before the Council. He states

"There is no reason to believe that more of the same will achieve these objectives. And, while some have proposed escalating this war by adding thousands of there is little reason to believe that this will achieve these results either.It'sn ot clear that these troop levels are sustainable for a significant period of time, and according to our commanders on the ground, adding American forces will only relieve the Iraqis from doing more on their own. Moreover, without a coherent strategy or bettercooperation from the Iraqis, we would only be putting more of our soldiers in the
crossfire of a civil war."

Where did this sudden change of ideology come from? Can we believe that Barack Obama is a trustworthy candidate? Can we expect to believe that a candidate like Barack Obama will attempt to stop interventions in the Middle East region? Can we expect him to clean up the corruption and crimes in Washington D.C?

We can't.

Mainline Democratic candidates in this election, specifically Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have taken a very careful approach when it comes to support of Middle East occupation. Evidently, when surrounded by supporters, candidates flaunt their best case against the war, but in the presence of big money supporters, AIPAC lobbyists or Globalist think tanks they make their best case in support of it.

For example, at his most recent appearance in front of the Chicago Council of Global Affairs, Obama continued this trend of pimping the stated PNAC/AIPAC agenda with his own version of self-righteous grandeur. "America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America. We must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission -- we must lead the world, by deed and example." Adding, "This president may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open," Mr. Obama said. "And it's time to fill that role once more."

If we are asked to accept Mr. Obama as the "leader of the free world", it must be pondered to how the Democratic faithful are going to reconcile the fact that, not only does Obama wish to continue the "War on Terror"-- but he has pledged to increase its size and scope?

The answer? Celebrate!

Many mainline liberal sites have failed to notice this shadowy endorsement by Robert Kagan, however, thankfully, a majority of Commondreams.org readers understand what this endorsement means and proceeded to post intelligent, well thought out comments about Obama's duplicity in this manner."

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/2005 07_duplicity_obama.html

I think that to truly appreciate this I need a tin-foil hat and a Barack Obama "Got Hope?" Shirt.

lol

I'm an Obama Supporter.

I don't drink the Kool Aid as some have snidely written.

I have my own reasons for backing Barack Obama, and quite frankly, I've read every serious policy speech he's given. I know where he stands on the issues he's presented to the public.

Obama supporters aren't mind-numbed robots.

I once leaned Obama, but the behavior of his supporters online really turned me and a lot of other people off to his campaign.

God, I have to stop using this site because  A LOT of you people are P-R-I-C-K-S.  It seriously makes me ashamed to be a member of the Democratic Party.  I'm seriously thinking about changing my affiliation to Independent.