I obviously risk putting my foot in my predictive mouth with this post. But, after this latest Obama campaign dust-up, he's lost me as a supporter.

And while I won't be as presumptuous as to believe I mean anything to Obama's campaign, I think there's something instructive about examining my attitude towards Barack Obama, how I've gone from the highest of hopes to complete disappointment. Obama's journey has revealed, too, the centrism problematic -- that the desire to make the sum of the parts greater than the whole results in less political capital, not more.

I, like most people, was completely entranced by Barack Obama's coming out party, the 2004 Democratic National Convention:

The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

Here was someone who seemed to be beyond politics-as-usual. Someone who could truly change the country, someone who knew about inspiration. Here was someone new, with new perspectives, someone who could turn the page from the Clinton-Bush chapter, within which the country has been so mired (for better and for worse).

From his speech, we can see it's always been Obama's intention to transcend the political divide. For me, though, that wasn't his appeal. In today's media environment, one's opponent in a political campaign isn't the other candidates up on the debate floor -- it's the media itself. And Obama had an appeal in the eyes of journalists that is rarely found in a politician. Entertainers, sports figures -- those are the usual media darlings in this country. But Obama had that something.

And he certainly needed it. Because he would need his strength as a mediated personality to buffer him from his main structural disadvantage in the 2008 race: Bill Clinton.

See, the thing is, Hillary Clinton has got a built-in advantage over everyone -- any candidate who gets the Democratic nomination in 2008 is going to need the support of our country's most popular Democratic figure. That's her hubby, Bill. So to the extent that primary campaigns are about drawing distinctions, Hillary's opponents can only go so far. Piss off Bill, and good luck getting him to campaign for you in 2008.

Maybe not fair, but that's the Clinton Advantage.

So Barack Obama needed every bit of his media profile to take on Clinton in this campaign. But, the strangest thing happened. Turns out, Hillary's actually not like her caricature. She's often used humor -- her latest joke about getting attention from all the other men running for office is a great example -- to turn around her image. And, it turns out, the media seem to love her. Sure, we've had to deal with the "cackle" weekend, but that's come and gone, and hasn't seemed to change the dynamics of the race.

The other strange thing is, Obama, it turns out, isn't all that much of a media darling. Maybe the sound-bite, show-of-hands "debate" format doesn't suit him. Maybe he's not saying anything new, or exciting. Maybe he's turned out to be too risk-averse, pulling punches instead of letting it all hang out. Maybe it's just that Hillary is too busy capturing the attention of political journalists, and Obama's been relegated to the second tier.

As I said, the opponent here is the news media, and it seems to have, at least in part, contributed to his undoing.

But there's also the centrism factor. In a post on Daily Kos back in 2005, Obama again made clear his strategy of togetherness:

But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.

Which sounds good on paper.

But the problem is togetherness-in-practice. There is a fine line between guarding against "fealty to the one, 'true' progressive vision," and pissing off your supporters. It's certainly admirable. And it makes for great speeches. But, in practice, you have to pick and choose exactly which issues are appropriate for compromise and togetherness, and which issues are not.

And therein lies the problem. As you probably know, Obama has taken heat recently for going on tour with an avowed anti-gay, Donnie McClurkin. Here's John Aravosis, responding to Obama's refusal to not "exclude from his campaign the many Americans including many in the African American community who believe the same as Pastor McClurkin":

Great, so we're to believe Obama would not exclude anti-Semites or racists from his campaign either? Well, would he? Someone needs to ask him that question - Senator, are you saying that you would welcome anti-Semites and racists into your campaign, even though you strongly disagree with them, because you believe in some kind of big tent of bigotry?

This is the essential question that forms the problem for those playing politics down the middle -- which issues are subject to a compromise, and which aren't? Is there doubt in anyone's mind that if McClurkin was an admitted racist, Obama wouldn't immediately distance himself?

To a certain extent, politics is about compromise. But it should be done at the end of the fight, not as a starting point. And, to a certain extent, I do see the wisdom in Obama's approach. In the previously mentioned post on Daily Kos, Obama was explaining his rationale behind not supporting a filibuster on Judge Roberts. And it's a well-reasoned rationale, although I disagreed.

So perhaps, in the end, we all need to pick and choose our positions, our issues that we'd stand up and defend. We each have to determine our own dividing lines, our own litmus tests. And we all do have litmus tests -- I don't believe in the argument about the undesirability of political "purity." We're all looking for political purity, in the sense that we're all looking for politicians that best represent our views. And when they don't, we have to decide: Is that too much for me? Does it stray too far from my principles? My beliefs? My personal sense of how the world should be?

To that end, refusing to disavow Donnie McClurkin is one of my litmus tests. I cannot support Barack Obama on this one.

If Obama had shown other strengths, maybe it would be different. But so far, with what I was measuring him against in this political campaign, he's been slowly sliding down a hill of disappointment. And this latest incident hasn't helped.

So, what next?

Hillary Clinton was never on the top of my list, although, I have to admit, shoving a President Hillary Clinton up the collective ass of the Republicans, who never seem to get enough of bashing her, would feel pretty darn good. That's how I came out of the last Republican debate -- irrational, I know. But man, for more than a few seconds, I wanted her to win.

I don't know. I'm back to the starting line in this race.

Candidate Gore, perhaps? (Actually, don't get me started on that one...)