We could just make a distinction based on "clinical" presentation. Those who respond to questions or criticism with evidence supported reasoning, we will simply refer to them as supporters of Obama. Hell, this is a democracy, still, and debate is healthy and good. How do they say it? "Embrace diversity?"

As for those who respond to questions or criticism with tears or the utterance of magical formulae like:
See the website;
I'm color blind;
I belive in change;
Yes we can!;
He speaks so well;
I don't see race;
post-racial;
I wanna have his baby;
or the most hated "people of color" (yak!)

We can simply refer to them as neurotic.

as long as we can call dismissive, overbearing, perpetually victimized, pretentious Clinton supporters: "Clinton _________ ers". ;)

Thank you for commenting, dmd76. Your comment is very important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

It would be one of the nicer things I've been called by an Obama supporter. Also, since I know it's not true, doesn't offend me a bit. Stuck pigs squealing and all that.

I don't think "cultist" was on my list. You Clinton supporters seem to have a very developed sense of decorum. You know exactly what is and isn't a proper expression of support for a political candidate. I have an idea: you should go on lots of blogs and tell people when they are being over-effusive. Better yet, you can make fun of fellow Democrats for being boorish, cultish, etc. I'm sure that will bring more people into the Hillary fold.

Excuse me.

How the fuck do you know who we support?

Because we criticize, raise issues and expect real answers? Because we aren't swing from his dick? You assume we are Clinton supporters.

...7,8,9,10

Since when was "tell your conversion experience" part of a political campaign? Hmmm. There was that time in Germany, there was that time in Itlay; there was Russia oops I meant the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics. There was China. Hmmm. In America we get effusive, but we also are supposed to provide reasons.

Please tell me what "reason," what set of policies (specifically)in contrast to the other candidates, on either side, is the basis for your position. Which accomplishment other than being popular is the ground for your political orientation.

Make an argument!

Thank you for commenting, dmd76. Your comment is very important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

Maybe you don't support Clinton, I'm talking to the one's who do and feel the need to put down fellow Dems to demonstrate their support. Also, I'm responding to this post, not every post ever written here. If you want to discuss issues we can do that, but I think its well within reason to mock this childish post without justifying my support for Obama.

Why don't you respond to my comment? Do you support calling Obama supporters cultists? Do you think it's proper to tell people that they support their candidate too much? What real issue is being brought up here? By the way, real cool, comparing the Obama campaign to Nazis and Communists. That's the way to win friends.

Thank you for commenting, dmd76. Your comment is very important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Mt preference: call Obama fanatics Talibans. I believe it reflects the dedication, utmost belief, mantra speakers and intolerance of every non-Obama opinion.

For Clinton supporters I recommend dudes. It reflects their teen agee seriousness, their irresponsibility (after they have the temerity to support an intelligent and tough woman for president), their love for Clinton triangulation rather than Obama hopeful triangulation, etc.

Please tell me what “reason,” what set of policies (specifically)in contrast to the other candidates, on either side, is the basis for your position. Which accomplishment other than being popular is the ground for your political orientation.

that's not the real question -- by now, all the Obots have figured out that they have to have an answer, and have a list of "policies" and "accomplishments" bookmarked.

To me, the real question is when has Obama ever accomplished anything in the way that he says he'll get things done as president? When, in his years as a political office-holder, did he ever create this vast coalition for change on any issue that vanquished the special interests?

I mean, here is a guy who can bring thousands upon thousands of people to a rally, and has he ever asked them for anything except their support? Did he go to his supporters in Nevada and say "tell Harry Reid that you don't want telecom immunity?". Has he ever used one of his nationally televised victory speeches to highlight an issue, and tell the country to contact their about it?

Clinton is running on the promise that she will know how the presidency works on Day One. She can't fulfill that promise until she gets to the oval office.

Obama is running on the promise that he can create significant change by bringing people together in a way that will defeat the "special interests." But he doesn't need to be President to give us an example of how that works -- he's got millions of supporters, and access to the media, and can SHOW us how that will work.

But he doesn't do that. And he's never done it as an aofficeholder. He's just a typical politician, once he gets sworn in.

What mantra have I repeated? I don't see "Change" or "Hope" in any of my comments. How have I been "intolerant of every non-Obama opinion"? I think I've been quite clear in my comments: think whatever you want about Obama, belittling his supporters is immature and, ultimately, might hurt our chances of electing a Democratic president in November (I don't have any pretenses regarding the importance of blog postings). Sorry I don't fit into your little boxes, dude.

Paul_Lukasiak, without being instantly dismissed as coming from a bookmarked list? I'll try anyway. Here you go: Obama cites role in death penalty reform

Hey, Xeno; Help me here. I have been struggling, as a person of pale pink skin who desires to be able to communicate without unintentionally giving offense, to find an acceptable collective term encompassing the set of all people whose dominant skin color is not pale pink.

I note that it is considered socially acceptable to describe people who look like me as "white" even though we are not, and that all the negativity and associated unspoken pejoratives that go with “white people” are to be accepted and borne with quiet submissiveness because, well, we just don’t deserve any more respect as individual human beings than that. However, I now read from you that “people of color,” a designation that is intended at least by me to embrace all people who are not “white”, is "most hated" and causes yakking.

Help me here. What terminology can I use to describe the set of all people who are not “white”? Because I do see race, as does anyone; and I want to be able to talk about race and matters of race without having my terms being seen as, and attacked as, racist or otherwise being discomfiting in and of themselves.

If we can’t talk about our problems, openly and honestly and frankly, then we will never be improved. I would like us to move our focus away from political-correctness policing of individual words and upwards to the higher plane of entire paragraphs and even essays, to the context and sum and substance of a speaker’s intent rather than the limitations that can result from decontextualized projection, but that may just be me.

I’m totally serious here, my young friend; help an old man out.

not cultish, yet passionate fans and obsessive.

this whole "movement" is all about electing him alone, and not about any issue or problem or concrete need Americans have.

When Kos was trying to elect more and better democrats. Now they just are trying to collect a scalp (Hillary's) at the cost of the GE race.

I prefer the term 'followers', myself. Oh, are you offended by that term? Then you must not be a follower. Good for you! <3 <3

I don't follow Hillary lightly; I've seen the differences here, and drilled down into each example and they hold strong. Obama is a movement for only one reason: To Get Obama Elected. His wife knows it, HE knows it. Everybody else THINKS it's because of his accomplishments, but most of them can't name ONE (although it is entertaining to see the list of all the legislation he introduced used as proof that he accomplished something -- hey I can play the lottery 3000 times but it only matters if I win -- you need to show what he was capable of PASSING, folks).

But I'm tired of playing Xeno's paradox with Obama's followers (well, uh, I wasn't talking about THAT, I was talking about something entirely different and off-topic, which you haven't addressed, so this makes me right).

It used to be that you could have a conversation about candidates across the spectrum with people... now you can't even have a civil conversation about candidates from the SAME PARTY without mortally offending someone. Barack's a PERSON, not a movement. I admire the energy that people are putting into it, but I have to say I'm not impressed by the HAT, and I think he has the wrong idea about the CATTLE aspect of the old saying: Cattle is a stand-in for actions. Not supporters.

Simply being critical of a particular candidate does not necessarily mean a person supports the other.

Dmd76, I don't know if your persistent use of the word "You" includes me - as I am only a contributor. However, all the candidates must be researched, discussed, debated, vetted. Raising questions about the candidates is not just a right. But as voters, it is a responsibility.

I, for one, have been critical of both Clinton and Obama. Who do I support? I think Jack Cafferty said it best:

When asked for his predictions on who would win the Democratic party's nomination, he responded:

All I know is that, unfortunately, this Novemeber, the voters will have a choice between a Democrat and a Republican for president.

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

SuperFan - seems acceptable by all. Obama SuperVoter perhaps?

Obama has been running for President since he got to DC, so when has he had time to accomplish anything? He needs to spend a few more years building his resume.

I've been a liberal Democrat and a political junkie for a long time, and it irks me to have kids lecture me on what's best for this country.

I was young and thought I knew it all once upon a time too, but I realize now how ignorant I really was.

A lot of the stuff these kids think they know they read about in books. I lived through the sixties. I remember when JFK was shot. I was too young for Vietnam, but I'm old enough to remember watching it (and the anti-war protests) on the nightly news.

These kids are gonna be very disappointed by Obama someday. It's not his fault, he's human, and no one could live up to the expectations they have for him.

Here's a money quote from the Wikipedia article about Obama associate William Ayers that dovetails with my previous post:

Ayers published his memoirs in 2001 with the book Fugitive Days. His interview with the New York Times to promote his book was published on September 11, 2001, and includes his reaction to Emile De Antonio's 1976 documentary film about the Weathermen: "He was 'embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way,' he writes. 'The rigidity and the narcissism.'"

Doesn't that describe Obamamania perfectly?

.........I suppose inserting the letters 'fuck' in there would not be productive....

But hey!

If the shoe fits, and it would seem too from some of the comments up-thread, why....

....wear it.

A. Citizen

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

Well, I have heard a range of reasons people want to vote for Obama. My favorite is the cowardly, krypto racist, white liberal who wants to be cool, transcending and transformative by voting for Obama. Living in Berkeley, I have all the new age, "my kid is too sensitive for public school", but I want to feel good about my privelages and all my efforts to keep the those priveleges into my future genetic line so I will put Obama signs all over my 2 million dollar house and attack Clinton supporters.

Knee jerk. Good old term that should make Lakoff, a resident of Berkely, actually two blocks from me, quiver. By the way...all those leftists hardly send their kids to public schools, too many what they call "disruptive children" code word for low income African American or Latino kids.

As an old style lefy, I don't buy the Obama shtick. I prefer Hillary, she is human and I can criticize as needed.

it is a cult, or I guess you could say a cult of personality formed around the personality of one person.

I feel guilty saying it since you are intent of finding something nicer and more acceptable to say about the Obies.

It is what it is.

So we're cultists, fanatics, kind of like Nazis, Fascists, and Communists (good one, Xenophon), Talibans, Obots, groupies, SuperFans (don't mind that one so much), kids (always nice to be infatilized), cowardly, krypto racists, and fuckers. And people here are shocked, just shocked (and a little sad :( ) that they can't have a civil conversation with Obama supporters. Maybe this blog is all about commiserating with like-minded people. If so, let me know. I'll gladly leave you to your Beavis and Butthead political commentary:

Obama supporters are cultists! hehe-he-hehe
Shut up Lambert! They're fuckers. huh huhhuh huh. Uhhh, they clapped when he sneezed. Dumbasses.

Yeah. What Paul said.

Here is an underhand slow pitch.

Please explain how Obama's proposed transportation and infrastructure intiative is not going to lead to the privitization of a public good.

Make an argument an stop bitchin'

Here they are:

... views Obama as a bodhisattva, or who faints or bursts into tears when Obama is in the same arena with them, who applauds when he sneezes, or who reacts to criticism of Obama as if their lover was insulted, and who in general, exhibits the sort of behavior that Freud would call over-valuation of the object, especially when expressed through personal conversion narratives....

Yet dmd76 says this is not cult-like behavior, and dmd76 is an honorable commenter. And so are they all, all honorable commenters...

Hey, fair enough. Although I do have to say that applauding when Obama sneezes seems a little much to me. But then, I'm a "racist," and "dishonest," and a "liar," "dishonest," "ignorant," "wrong," and a "shill," so what would I know?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

That's my point. People of color is a bullshit euphemism used by non-white kids on majority white college campuses to collectivize student revenues. There is no place or culture or language called "people of color." Normally it's used as code for "please don't fuck me up angry minority person." or "Shit we haven't met our quota for federal funding we need those other people, you know the not white ones the . . . people of color."

So yeah.
Just speak.
Land, language, culture - are usually how people identify large moieties of humans.

Struggle through the embarrassment and ask. If you don't know enough to know . . . you know?

Honestly, I think one of the things that Obama has done has been to expose the diminishing racism among the younger generation. I hope that we can keep that and nurture it.

America just left Apartheid in 1975. We haven't had a generation without legally supported racial inequality and domination. We still have to deal with cultural and economic. It took 400 years to build this. It will take a while to build something new.

But I think we can do it.

And here I thought Lambert's post was about finding just the right name to call Obama supporters. You don't like what I'm saying so you change the subject. Why don't you answer me first? Is it OK to talk about at least 50% of Democratic primary and caucus voters like they are mindless children, drawn to the shiny lights of the Obama campaign? If I were to say (notice the use of the subjunctive), "Hillary Clinton voters are (except for the ones I personally know) just old women who identify with her; it's the only reason she has so much support", you and lots of other people would be offended, not least because it's not true. Yet, it's de regueur here to insult and belittle most Obama supporters (pretty much any that aren't personal acquaintances) as cultists and automatons.

You want to talk issues, write your own goddamn diary. Can't say I'll be too inclined to enter into a discussion with someone who compared my preferred candidate's campaign to the Nazis and Communists. Does Kos do that with Hillary? That breaks some sort of blog rule, doesn't it?

of all the points made about cult behavior (and that claim is a bit overblown) the applause for sniffles seems to me more heartfelt encouragement than adoration. Audiences have limited ability to communicate with a speaker in that setting; it could easily have been a decent expression of concern and a wish for well-being.

Or, alternatively, a perverse sub-cult of snot worshipers who were applauding the appearance of mucous....

Well said, bringiton, well said:)

... and the conversion narratives, and all the other concrete details that nobody seems to be comfortable talking about. Odd, that. The data points cumulate.

In any case, I repeat, that I've never seen an audience applaud anyone for blowing their nose, and I've been to many, many public events over the years.

But then, I’m a “racist,” and “dishonest,” and a “liar,” “ignorant,” “wrong,” and a “shill,”* so what would I know?

NOTE * All examples of the "casual poetry" of the Obama campaign....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

if you're trying to cozy up to me.

I'm just encouraging the sharp verbal blades around here to aim for the jugular instead of a hankie. The main target remains the same.

What do the names you were called at some point in the past have to do with this discussion? I haven't called you any of those, and neither has anyone else on this thread. I promise I'm not going to call you “racist,” or “dishonest,” or a “liar,” “ignorant,” “wrong,” or a “shill". You haven't been racist or dishonest or a liar or ignorant or a shill (and only a little bit wrong:). And although I've been picking on your posts in the last couple of days, it's just because I think a productive discussion can only occur if both sides respect each other. It's not so much that I mind being called an Obot or a cultist (people on the internet have called me all sorts of things), it's that it belies the motivations and intelligence of Obama supporters. Most of them have perfectly fine reasons for choosing him. They may be reasons you disagree with, but to dismiss them out of hand (by claiming they are cultists, etc.) stops the conversation before it can begin.

Sorry for the compliment, bringiton. But be warned, I bring guns to knife fights:)

I think I'm going to go over and read alt.syntax.tactical now.

I'm sure they have something useful to say about promises.

Nighty night. Kiss Axelrod for me.

UPDATE Let me revise and extend my remarks, on the off chance that you are not what you seem to me to be, based on my experience with so many other members of Obama's fan base. I wrote:

Caveat: This term would not cover Obama supporters like Leah, or Big Tent Democrat, or many others. However, many can attest that the phenomenon I seek a name for is real.]

You write:

It’s not so much that I mind being called an Obot or a cultist (people on the internet have called me all sorts of things), it’s that it belies the motivations and intelligence of Obama supporters. Most of them have perfectly fine reasons for choosing him. They may be reasons you disagree with, but to dismiss them out of hand (by claiming they are cultists, etc.) stops the conversation before it can begin

You claim to want a conversation, but right out of the box you ignore the key caveat in the original post. Pas si bete.

It's obvious to many that ______-like behavior is an element in the Obama campaign. It concerns them, and in my mind legitimately. It's also obvious that Hillary hatred is being leveraged by the Obama campaign. Again, all you have to do is read the threads. It's hard to know where a conversation would start, at this point. And that's even before we get to policy.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

and it is difficult to sort out the motivations in these kinds of charismatic mass movements. Cult may be a little strong, but the unwillingness to accept any criticism at all of The Chose One is disturbing. I'm not saying that the attribution of cult should stop, there is more than enough to justify raising it, but it isn't the whole of the story behind this phenomenon.

It seems to me in large measure closer to a religious revival movement, the desire of frightened and disaffected people to grasp onto something that promises to make all the bad stuff go away, no matter how unlikely the promise may be. The willingness of Obama followers to believe that someone with an almost non-existent public governance record can handle this job, especially at this time, does strike me as delusional, but not quite to the level of a cult. I must say, however, that some of the commentors who have shown up here do not help me to keep that equivocal position.

I take it back. I'm sure my inner Obot will come out at some point and I'll go all "Hope" and "Change" and "shill" on your ass.

As for your False Repentance link, you'll notice I haven't apologized for a thing. I also haven't called you any of those names, so please don't imply that my promise is an act of contrition. It's beneath you and it misleads your readers.

I believe you are correct that there are two sides.

And the online community of which you are a part--your "side"--has given me no reason to trust it, and every reason to mistrust it.

As you have just managed to do here, starting from the premise of wanting a conversation, and ending with an accusation that I "mislead my readers."

Translation: I'm a liar and dishonest.

Excellent! Now I can add that to my list! I'm so pleased, since you have now just done what you said ("I promise I’m not going to call you...") you would not do, and in a very short space of time. Impressive.

I didn't, actually, say that you "repented" or "apologized." I did provide readers with an interesting link that gave more information on the use of tactical language by trolls. The key paragraph to me is this one:

By ceasing all disruptive behaviour, a troll can sow confusion in the community. In most cases, there will be a reaction spectrum. On one end are the people who want to ForgiveAndForget and AssumeGoodFaith. They will welcome the seemingly reformed troll with open arms. On the other end are the skeptics. They refuse to accept this turnaround, and perhaps even continue to be openly hostile. The rest of the community falls somewhere in the middle: happy to see the end of the disruption, but wary of the former troublemaker. The advantages for the troll provided by this tactic vary according to how the community is distributed on the spectrum.

I interpreted sucking up to bringiton as falling into the "reformed" category--as purely tactical. And given how fast you were able to break your promise--and how much of my time I have allowed you exploit this evening--I think I was right.

Nighty night. Tell Axelrod to send markg8 back, wouldja? He's better than you.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I know this is addressed to bringiton:

Are you going to be able to work alongside these people you think so poorly of?

but I think it could benefit from a slight reworking, and asked of you:

Are you going to be able to work alongside these people you think so poorly of?

In Michelle's words, maybe we'll have to think about it.

For myself, of course I'll vote for Obama in the general. However, as far as working goes, it makes more sense for me to put my energy into trying to fix Obama's policy screw-ups--universal health care and all that right wing dog-whistling on Social Security. Just so I don't end up eating dog food in my old age, don't you know. And so my friend can get care so she doesn't keep bleeding into her shoes.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Not a political campaign. What is Obamaism without Obama? Nothing because without him there is nothing there. That is not true of the others. There is still an Edwards wing of the party, even without Edwards. Same for the Clintons, Bill and Hillary. They are built of ideas not personalities.

Obama is like Oprah a personality. She connects with her fan base but she doesn't really understand them. Why would you give out a $35,000 car as a gift to your audience and not pay their gift tax of 50%. How many in her audience have $17.5K laying around? Obama health care proposals are in the same boat. How many have $4200 laying around? At least Clinton's plan is cheaper per person at $2300 and it covers everyone because it is a mandate. Like Social Security. Unless it is mandated, many will go without it. And the problem remains.

Sorry that was off topic a bit. Obamaism is a mass social movement. We have seen these before but it is still too early to tell how Obamaism will play out. Is he James Weaver in 1896? Or Richard Nixon in 1968? Or Ronald Reagan in 1980? I don't think him Andrew Jackson in 1828 however.

You conveniently left out the first paragraph of the page you linked to:

A person who has been in constant conflict with the community suddenly seems to repent. She apologizes, stops violating CommunityExpectations and starts making constructive contributions. Are we witnessing a reformed troll?

The page itself is called FalseRepentance. The link on your quote was the word "promises". I had just promised not to call you those slurs you keep bringing up when you can't answer me. And I wasn't sucking up to bringiton, I certainly didn't apologize for anything. It's just he(she?, sorry don't know and don't want to assume) made the first comment regarding Obama supporters that didn't assume they were crazy idiots, and I wanted to encourage it. No worries, though, apparently we're probably still snot-worshippers(I kid, I kid). And why you think I'm here to toe the Obama party line is beyond me. I haven't said one word, good or bad, about Hillary Clinton. I haven't defended Obama at all. I did give Paul Lukasiak an example of Obama bring diverse groups together to overcome the objections of special interest groups, but only because he asked for it. In another thread, I analyzed an article by Larry Johnson about Obama, but only because it was full of innuendo and half-truths. My interest there was not so much to defend Obama, but to show what a hack LJ was being. I've told you I support Obama, but beyond that you know nothing about me, so please stop assuming I'm some hyperpartisan who takes his marching orders from campaign central. I'm not, and nothing I've said here should lead you to believe that. Another promise: you won't hear me talk about Hope or Change or any of that bullshit.

I don't think poorly of any of you. I'll quickly remind you that I'm not the one calling [not-Obama] supporters cultists. It's great that you support a candidate and that you're passionate about your choice. Just stop treating lots of us that support someone else (Obama in this case) like we're mentally deficient. I know you mentioned your friends on the blog as being genuine Obama supporters and not cultists, and that you said that there were many others like them. That doesn't excuse pointing to an auditorium full of thousands of people, fellow Democrats, and calling them cultists because of a 15 second clip on MSNBC.

And just so we're crystal clear, I will happily support Hillary Clinton with both my time and money if she is our candidate in the general election. She's not my first choice, but she's a hell of a second choice.