At a meeting of Marxists, Marx himself is said to have announced: "First of all, I am not a Marxist."

I think lots of movements have people who go overboard. And in an election cycle like this people have become desperate to find someone and convince everyone or else berate the non-believers. And it seems to me it is happening on both sides. The Obama people, some anyway, going way over the top. The Hillary supporters berating the opponents. At the same time there are the trolls posing as either Obama "nut-cases" or Hillary "attack-dogs."

It's hard to tell who is who. And indeed some people will be disillusioned, whether they end up losing the candidacy or simply in the course of events, should their candidate be elected.

I too am for Obama. But we're in a boat with some nutcases, some trolls, and many sane people. We sane people need to row the boat and hope the others don't capsize it.

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree.

So. Peace. Deep Breaths. It's a long way to November....♪

My recommend link doesn't seem to be working either, but thanks very much for this post. I am also kind of weirded out by the sense of cultish adoration towards Obama from some of my friends.

Do not take the partisan hacks and spiritual believers who post on the web as a representative sample of Obama supporters. I voted for Clinton today, and did so proudly, but I know and respect plenty of Obama supporters in the real world who are voting for him because they believe that he is the best of the two remaining choices. I also know many bright people, including some of my partners, who support Obama and who do feel something in the form of a "movement" that they haven't felt in decades. And these are folks who have my deepest respect and admiration, and who have seen, through the work that we do, the domestic policy debacles of the Bush Administration.

My biggest concern is that we come together when this is all over. But that concern is largely based on the stuff I read from riled folks on here, so I guess I feel like we Democrats are in a pretty good situation right now for November.

I too proudly voted for Senator Clinton today. If she loses, I will support Senator Obama with everything I have. I will donate to his campaign as well as work for his election as I have done for both Kerry and Gore before him. But I do agree with several of the posters here that the fanaticism of his supporters is sometimes off putting and I wonder how many of these folks will actually show up at the polls. I certainly hope that they will show up in November, no matter who our nominee is.

I can appreciate the concerns expressed, but feel that you're making some hasty conclusions based on a very small sample. There will be passionate supporters on both sides. That you have not seen the same kind of reactions from HRC supporters doesn't mean they're not out there (and judging from the more vituperative tone coming out of the blogosphere from HRC supporters, I can see why euphoria over her candidacy is not coming through). Second, consider the age factor. Obama has attracted a veritable army of young supporters whose tendencies to emote or place their support in a messianic context is far more likely than older supporters. But don't discount the existence of a large number of older supporters for Obama as well, who I suspect are a bit more calculated in their support.

With respect to discussing the issues, I think asking young supporters with little life or political experience to represent to the democratic electorate the nuances between Clinton's and Obama's positions is asking for trouble. I have to believe the same is true in Clinton's campaign. Overall votes will win the election, but the candidates' most articulate supporters will be the core of the grass roots information campaign to attract voters.

At an Obama rally in Nevada last month I had to chuckle at the number of teen volunteers on hand who were fairly clueless about the event itself. Billed as a town hall, I wanted to find out the format for submitting questions. None of the teens I spoke with could say. I don't see that as a blot on the Obama campaign, but a function of accepting help whereever on can get it and not asking more of the youngsters than they can take on.

As to whether Obama supporters will rally to the democratic nomineee, I guess that's a genuine concern, but is a bit moot at this stage. If Clinton gets the nomination it will be her job to unify the party and motivate the base. It's not a fair criticism of Obama's campaign to suggest that his supporters won't back HRC down the road.

Thanks for voting today!

Dems in '08!!!

I voted for Obama today. Why? IRAQ and fear of more Iraqs. If Hillary is nominated she'll have to give a much better answer on that question than she gave in the debate the other night to get my vote.

I worry, however, that some Obama supporters have become so emotionally invested in him that they would not support Clinton if she eventually prevails.

Really? Is this really a concern?

Are people saying this?

I certainly agree that the many, many of the Obama people not only have partaken of the Kool Aid, but they drank it undiluted.

The concern I have is not that lots of otherwise uninvolved and relatively uninterested folks are glorifying Obama. The concern is the otherwise sober and level headed people who go into a swoon about transcending partisanship and creating a new politics and other flat out malarky. This kind of thinking is just off the chain, totally unrealistic and nearly delusional.

Obama not only is not Jesus, he is not much different from Hillary when it comes to the issues with the significant exception of who opposed the illegal/immoral war against Iraq. Otherwise this is a fella who supports nuclear power, mouths conservative platitudes about "choice" in the health care market in order to mollify the insurance interests, and who has not particularly distinguished himself in the United States Senate as a vocal leader in opposition to the war or as a particularly vocal leader in defense of the multi-pronged assault on the Constitution by the Bush junta.

Having said this, I would definitely prefer him to Hillary for many reasons, but it is silly to act like the differences are huge between them when they just are not. But the main point is that the hero worship and the elevation of Obama as some sort of higher being than other politicians is simply absurd and untrue. He is a politician and a good one. Moreover, he's a human and not a saint. Personally, I think all this hype about him has led many, many people astray and far afield from their own political convictions based on an illusion that will lead to great disappointment down the road. I also believe that puffing Obama up like this is a disservice to him because when the Kool Aid wears off, he will be as unfairly judged at that time as he is being unrealistically elevated now. That will make for some real bitter politics of dashed hopes somewhere down the road and I'd much rather that didn't occur. I think a little clear thinking and realism at this point would go a long, long way toward avoiding that bitter result.

I also was an Edwards supporter.

I also voted for Obama after Edwards dropped out.

I think there are nuts on both the Clinton and Obama sides. It's kinda embarrassing.

I blame the "cult of personality" supporters. I'm an issues voter myself.

I promise to vote for whoever wins the nomination.
No. Really.

Obama supporters are almost as creepy as Deaniacs. The whole messiah complex is downright disturbing. When does Obama actually talk about children's issues? All I hear about is "hope" and having drug companies and insurance companies a seat at his table?

The Obama supporters who have stated unequivocally that will not support Clinton no matter what appear all over the place. They're in TPM blogs, DailyKos blogs, they're on Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Lionel Show...they are real and they are legion...I fear. They are an unhinged group of nut jobs and should be mocked at every turn. I've seen the best, most eloquent Clinton supporters try to convince them how foolish and ultimately destructive their thinking is...to no avail.

The only thing left as I see it is to call them out and do our best to shame them. Probably will do no good, admitedly, but can't hurt.

The Democrats are in a great position to win this fall and I'd hate to see us blow it because a bunch of childish, petulant, cultists will just take their toys and go home if they don't get their way.

All candidates have ardent supporters. McCain, Hillary, Ron Paul. The reality is, Obama is bringing something that few Americans have seen in their lifetime; A candidate who inspires them to fulfill their biggest aspirations. Whereas Bush has been an aspiration killer! Not only for the nation, but for the whole planet. So if there is ardent fervor for Obama, it may be related to this. As for whether or not Obama supporters would support Clinton, one must recognize that Hillary Clinton is a much different animal then Mr. Barack Obama. She is purely an establishment politician. She calls her self "pro labor and pro union", yet served on the board of Walmart for years! She calls her self "pro American worker", yet supported disastrous policies like NAFTA, which cost Americans MILLIONS of manufacturing jobs, and which her husband signed into law. She calls herself a "champion for the American people", yet has her hat out to every lobbyist and big corporation in Washington. Don't let your cynicism blind you to the stark differences between these two candidates. There is a marked difference.

I am an ardent Obama supporter, and I agree with this post for the most part. I will say as someone who volunteered, the reason the campaign doesn't want supporters to talk policy positions is that supporters don't necessarily know every position. They tell you to direct them to his website, which has all the information. This is a good thing. And I doubt Hilary supporters are any better at actually reciting policy planks. This tidbit was the only thing that I completely disagreed with, and I don't think it is a valid point. And Finally, when did we start faulting people for inspiring others?

Andrew Strat:

I have never seen the kind of vituperative venom directed against Hillary--A fellow Democrat in good standing--than from these so-called Obamamaniacs.
...
That shows me that he is a complete phony.
...
That shows me that these upper middle class people are bigger chumps than the beer drinking blue collar workers who see in Obama a self-aggrandizing phony...

Sense of irony, anyone?

But you all don't understand. I touched the hem of his coat and my irritable bowel syndrome was healed!

;-)

Seriously, I voted for Obama, and like him, but the last thing I would want to do is be part of a cult of personality like we've lived through for 8 years with the wingnuts and Bush.

Nice reality check for all of us.

Yeah, well, the "Hillary wept" verse isn't even in the Bible, much less the shortest verse in it.

I would just like to point a few things out. I am a young person (21) and I have volunteered for the Obama campaign. They did not tell us not to talk policy, that is just ridiculous. They make it a point to make sure people have the proper information including fact sheets for quick reference. They do say that if someone asks you a question that you don't know the answer to.. tell them you don't know the answer and refer them to the website. This policy is in place to ensure that volunteers aren't out there making things up and putting policy in the Senators mouth; makes sense to me.

I will agree that some Obama folk get a little worked up, but speaking from my perspective; these young supporters are basically just excited to have a candidate who they don't feel is lying to them at every turn. Yes, we have hope for this country and sometimes that comes out in very strong ways. I also suspect the "movement" is similar to that of Bobby Kennedy in 1968, folks respected him, they believed him, he was different, the times were different..

The bottom line is that this is our future and we are sick of Washington destroying it, so yes we support Barack Obama.. people should just be glad young people are involved again and ignore the nutso minority.

I would encourage everyone to search YouTube or the Huffington Post for the batshit comments of Clinton and Paul supporters.. it's not exclusively Obama supporters doing this. We live in an internet age where everyone feels the desire to express their ridiculous points in the hopes that someone will read it.

Hopefully this post isn't one of those.

Oh my. That I will not vote for a Rovian candidate of either party means I will not vote for H. Clinton. So this makes me "unhinged"? Who's passing out the hinges here?

As for all this crap about who Obama is, of course he's not Carter, or JFK, or Reagan, or Christ. He is, however, a brilliant orator. As with any star performer, some will be transported by the performance. I'm more analytical - I'm fascinated by how well-constructed and many-leveled his speeches are. But because I can see much of the construction, I'm not swept away by it the way someone naive to his craft might be. But I almost wish I were able to take that ride. He's truly a master of it. The only comparable I've experienced is listening to recordings of FDR. But he's not FDR either.

If we need to change the culture - and who doesn't really agree with that? (old women, it seems, primarily) - then we have to cultivate a fresh sense of our own character. That's _always_ done through exemplars, through heroes - which is to say, cultural change always has a cultish aspect; it's how we cultivate the shared aspects of character, especially our public character. To resent that is to be doomed to stagnation.

Of course, if Obama were Mao or Joan of Arc, we might prefer stagnation, on consideration. But he's not. His very moderation is what renders the road on which he'd lead the nation viable.

First off, I'm a registered Republican (just wanted to let you know where I am coming from). Second, if it comes to a McCain-Clinton matchup this fall, I will flip a coin...I can go either way on them (they are both hard-nosed pragmatists, and I respect that quality immensely). Third, I find the Obama campaign VERY offputting because if you ask a question even mildly critical of The Golden Child, the cultists who surround him (and let's get real--this IS a weird cult now...from Oprah and her nasty edge at the California pep rally to Andrew Sullivan and his boot-licking lackeydom, Obama people have somewhat of a People's Temple/Scientology/MSIA feel to them) jump all over you and accuse you of being "against change" or "playing racial politics". How is me asking why he has 130 Present votes attached to his name playing racial politics. How is me asking why he gave the Gang of 14 the finger when they asked him to join them being against change? That was a bipartisan group therapy session....and isn't the Obama Gospel all about that, or did I miss the fine print in the concordance? Like I said, I am in fact a Republican so maybe I am missing something, but can someone PLEASE tell me why asking VALID questions of a candidate a BAD thing?

Oh jeez. I will probably vote Hillary for the presidency in November for the Supreme Court's sake but to act as if people who really like Obama and really dislike Hillary are cult victims is soooooooooo unbelievably offensive to me and just the same way those overenthusiastic Obama supporters turn you off I feel the same way about people who try to pretend there aren't differences between the candidates so there is no legitimate reason anyone should have strong pro-Obama and anti-Clinton feelings save they're kool-aid drinkers.

For me, the war in Iraq is still a HUGE deal and I will never forgive Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton for not taking the courageous stand against it that people like Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd and Al Gore and Barack Obama and Howard Dean took before the war.

I will also not forgive the Clintons for how much they embarrassed me as a Democrat over the years, not just in terms of the Lewinsky thing (though that was hella awkward when I'd have to sit down at the dinner table during the impeachment and Starr report revelations as my parents would turn on the evening news and we'd all just kind of squirm in our chairs in discomfort) but also the total lack of ethics in terms of fundraising and the caving on just about every Democratic issue for the sake of short-term political expediency even when it would might do long-term damage to this party and our country.

I also blame the Clintons, not Ralph Nader, for Al Gore not winning the presidency in 2000. I desperately want the Clintonista control of the Democratic Party to end. If it does, people like my father who is so fed up with George W. Bush he cast his first vote for a Democrat for president yesterday to be counted for Barack Obama may just join the Democratic Party. If the Clintonistas prevail, my father will either begrudgingly retreat to the ranks of the Republicans or just not vote.

"All I hear about is "hope" and having drug companies and insurance companies a seat at his table?"

Obama talks about alot more than this. You comment reminds me of the Paul Simon line, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

I'm an Obama supporter, and take the criticism in stride. First off, it's pretty hard to do a detailed policy pitch well in a GOTV campaign so reliant on volunteers; you're lucky to get time with folks, and getting a first-time volunteer to explain a $4K college credit that's COUPLED to national service can be, well, tricky. In general, though, admonishing the cult thing too strongly is also problematic. There have been 160K troops in Iraq for 5 years, and I haven't noticed a local, robust public dialogue about the problem during that time. We should all be happy that his campaign speeches top-out Britney Spears papparazi videos on YouTube. Granted, he nor anyone in the 'movement' has brought the troops home. But more folks have to get awake to bring change. In short, I think you can back-fill machine politics and bureaucratic competence into a campaign, while Clinton will find it more difficult to co-opt 'hope' should she get the nomination. The kids will yawn and not vote, African-Americans will still be duly alienated by her campaign, and rich progressives will find a Ned Lamont moment. These trends are immutable constants of Democratic politics; or, at least they were till Obama showed up. Were I a horse-race political observer, I would favor his ability to co-opt women, Hispanics and lower-income Dems into his bloc following (and maybe before) a nomination. He hasn't alienated these folks...he might alienate older folks, but I'm not sure how to build a stronger party using 65+ voters as a base. He nor Hillary will get a win-some nomination if they don't bridge the gaps in their platforms. I favor the cracks in his over the cracks in hers.

This is a very interesting article and it's always useful to take a slow down to make sure we're not going to crash or going down the wrong road but I have a few points.

The obvious point that someone has made before is that one volunteer email does not begin to represent the millions of people who have voted for him so far.

And over the last 9 months I have contributed small amounts to Obama's, Edwards' and Kucinich's campaigns for different reasons and had nothing but respect for Senator Clinton. My mother and I spent hours in line to watch President Clinton be sworn into office in 1993. But as a thirty-something, African-American female I have been hurt by her and her husband. And it's not simply because of attacks on Obama. It's became much more personal than that especially when writers such as Gloria Steinem and Erica Jong continue to be unnecessarily divisive in their support of her. So when people say they won't vote for Mrs Clinton it's not necessarily because of cultish fervor over Obama, it could be because of herself and her actions. That being said, I will vote for her if she is the nominee in November because the alternative is just horrifying.

And finally, after Iowa something changed. I am what you might now call an Obamamaniac and am 'emotionally involved' as you say. But it's not because I think he is some Messiah. I haven't fallen in love with him. His campaign has made me fall in love with this country. His campaign has made me rethink assumptions I had made about huge swaths of this country. My only thought of North Dakota was a place not to go because of the color of my skin. Now, after Iowa, I realize my own small-mindedness and my own cynicism. Sure, some people out there will not want me around but I'll wait until they make that clear to me.

His campaign has made me believe that grassroots organizing can work. For the first time in my life I am writing to elected officials. My boyfriend and I have incorporated a 'giving' plan as part of our budget.

To me, being and Obamaniac isn't about Barack Obama. It's about what type of country I live in. I guess it is a bit dizzying when you get excited about the future again. I am 31 and until very recently was cynical and resigned about this country. It feels really really good for a change to believe that most people are essentially decent and that if we do a bit of work we don't have to settle. It feels really really good to be proud to be an American.

Thank you for this much-needed post, I couldn't agree more. I think most democratically inclined voters agree we have/had several great candidates running against the GOP. And while I like Barack Obama a lot and would vote for him over McCain, my support for Hillary strengthens every day as I see the way Obama is now running his campaign. I don't need or want a president who leads pep rallies; if I want to get pumped up I'll hear a seminar by Tony Robbins. We have Islamic jihadists trying to attack our country, an economy sliding into recession, and health care that must be mandated, and it's Obama's duty to explain to us how he'll manage these problems better than anyone else. I want to trust Obama if he's the candidate, but so far the true candidate for change is clearly Hillary Clinton.

The reason people have responded to Obama is that they are thirsty! What's a thirty nation to do?? They're thirsty for justice, thirsty for change, thirsty for something new. And for some, Obama quenches this thirst. No, he is not Jesus-BUT he brings out the Jesus in you.

Especially Blacks, who have for so long been kept out of the the unfair justice system,the unfair job system, the American dream if -you- will. For these, he is the only candidate that brings that hope. You would have to experience a low before feeling a high. And a lot of Americans at this time are experiencing lows.

But Blacks have been experiencing lows for quite some time. So forgive us for our fervor..., but we've not seen anybody like him in a very long time.

And for his issues, the commentor said that Clintons issues were the same as his. So evidently his issues are well defined.

While I respect everyone's choices I feel that the majority of Obama supporters are acting like followers of Jim Jones. When Obama says things like:

In South Carolina, Obama also said this.

"At some point in the evening, a light is going to shine down and you will have an epiphany and you'll say, 'I have to vote for Barack!'" it really is a reason to wonder about his movement and supporters. I am wondering why the writer feels this but still supports him-that makes no sense.

As someone who pays my own car payment,owns a home and pays a mortgage, pays my own health, home and car insurance and is responsible for myself in all ways, I have to face realities. I wonder how many of Obama supporters are in the same positon. How many of you are in college getting your books, tuition, boarding costs, clothes, food, necessities, car, car insurance and anything else you need paid for by your parents or others? I am sure there are more than a few. When you have to pay for these things yourself you can appreciate experience more than inspiration-Hillary Clinton has both.

The Iraq war vote is a lame excuse at best for a reason to not support Hillary Clinton. Almost everyone in Congress trusted Ole George and were fooled. This was actually authorization to go not to actually wage war. Right after 9/11 Congress wanted to assure the American public that they would do something about the awful attack. Fact: Barack was not in the Senate at the time and admitted he didn't know how he would have voted. Fact: He said his view on the war was the same as Bush. Fact: He voted for funding the war everytime it came up in Congress. HRC Supporters by the way ARE NOT ACTING LIKE OBAMA SUPPORTERS. We can actually answer with solid reasons and recite Hillary's accomplishments and qualifications when someone asks us. Obama supporters cannot do the same. To put someone in office with only a few years of experience is just because you think he is inspiring is insane.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that there are highly irrational people on both sides. I've also noticed that as you approach the fault-line between the most zealous Clinton and Obama supporter, things get very ugly - there's undeniable sexism and racism, from "shrill, grasping, manipulative" for Clinton and "arrogant, hustler, uppity[!]" for Obama, all the way to things that I'm sure you don't need me to repeat here.

I have a minor quibble with you on one of your examples: the one that has a political operative telling a volunteer to avoid the issues.

Now, in all my years of volunteerism for both issues and candidates I have *never* heard of that. A volunteer would presumably have a better grasp on issues and a better ability to argue than an undecided voter. If they didn't, an organizer could point them in the right direction; at a very minimum they could be given talking points.

In the original article it's hearsay, and I don't think it's unreasonable to think that it might be a planted story - it hits directly on what the Clinton campaign sees as a vulnerability of the Obama campaign: that they can be tarred as "an uninformed cult led by a political novice who repeats 'change' and 'hope' like a mantra. Where's the beef?" Depending on who you are, I'm sure you've either heard or used that one before. You may even believe it - it's one of the Clinton campaign's talking points.

As a final note, I'd like to agree with halstoon: for progressive movements to succeed, they need to be large and they need to be dedicated. A little known fact about the Civil Rights movement is that MLK was hand-picked by the movements leaders precisely because he WAS charismatic - it's very difficult to get anywhere unless you have someone who's good at rallying people. In other words, an organizer.

"Voters are fed up with Republicans, have moved significantly to the left on many political issues, and are more open to voting Democratic than at any time in years"

I beg to differ. Voters are fed up with the infighting and politics of politicians who don't know how to behave and work together.

There are always nuts, but I think that it's more notable that there are some not so nutty people supporting Obama, too. To be fair and balanced, consideration of that would be a good idea.

No, Obama can't solve everything alone by himself, but he *can* hopefully heal the hurts we've experienced the last 8 years under Bush. We need that hope now more than ever. He's willing to try and inspires people to believe in him. And that's okay.

I too have been having a problem with O'Bama-ites. That having been typed, much of this might have been said about Bill when he ran in 92... like how people just seemed to light up when he walked into the room... etc.

We've been talkin about this, using my column Inspection for reference, on several sites I write for. The major problem I have been having is that, in my opinion, it is O'Bama supporters who have been playing the race card. When attacked the tactic seems to be: twist the words into some coded way to express racism. Here are a few links to my column and the discussion. I suspect, but don't know for sure, that one poster is either the host himself, or one of his devoted listeners. I hope it's the latter. For a host who is also an activist for Black issues to have such a terrible phrasing and spelling skills would be unfortunate for the African American Community...

Note: a new edition of Inspection will be up soon so, whenever you use this URL, just scroll to Inspection- Ill-Liberal Talk; Take 2.

http://smirkingchimp.com/author/ken_carman

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/society-rights/20600-african-americans-cant-racist.html

The evangelical services one sees on television are also similar to the commercial rallies for pyramid sales schemes like Herbal Life used to run to recruit sales reps. The typical program usually follows this order:
The music gets the crowd going. Jimmy Swaggart is absolutely the best at this. You can’t help not be moved as tears flow down his face as he is bringing down the house with his singing and piano playing. At the end of the music the audience is happy and emotional and will not let reason come between them and euphoria.
The next phase is testimony. The speakers could either be a person with a curable sin such as alcoholism or drug addiction or a physical ailment such as cancer which was cured when they found Jesus. If it is a sales event the testimony comes from some lug that was homeless and penniless before he started selling snake oil. In the testimony there is usually talk about personal courage. They took action in spite of the old network of friends who doubted and laughed at the concept.
Next comes the alter call where the master of ceremonies asks for the commitment to either Jesus or the company. This is followed up by a well trained team to insure follow up and complete indoctrination.
The dipdive video is the best that I have seen since Jimmy went off the air in Minnesota. The testimony is now done over the internet but it has been most effective in the caucus’s. That is why Mr. Obama is doing so well in the Caucus’s compared to Senator Clinton. The alter call is the vote. Mr. Obama is carrying the middle of the country that is the most conservative with respect to religion. The brainless born agains and the evangelical are already programmed to respond. Mr. Obama will steal them from the Republicans as long as plays down the right to life issue.