If she hasn't already jumped in to correct your impression, I believe bernbart told us her husband is a lawyer.

_________________________________________

Yes, but is he a constitutional lawyer? And if his interpretation is different from Glenn's, are we just supposed to accept it as if he's God?

I was drawn to Glenn in the first place because of the consistent insightfulness, logic, and rigorousness of his arguments and research. I didn't check my crap detectors at the portal. I don't share all of his political philosophy by any means.

It is rare to find commentors who deserve loyalty, even conditional loyalty. There are lots of bloggers who appeal to me at first brush, but who don't hold up over time. Glenn is an exception... so far, anyway.

So eventually I get testy when someone turns up and just keeps repeating the civil but snide observation that gee whiz, this place is quite the echo chamber, and that the unequivocal disappoinment with and criticism of Obama must be, at least in part, a form of dittoheadedness, since there's a collective stubborness or refusal to consider Obama or FISA-favorable analysis.

Folks, there is an entire world out there of rubes who are too ignorant or cowed to master the barest rudiments of grammar-school history and civics. The kind they used to teach, I mean.

And these complacent weak-wits all understand that We the People are nestled like germs in the hollow of our Leader's hands. Leader, mind you. The Commander in Chief of the whole durn country and each and every organization within. What the Leader says, goes. Period. Full stop. End of conversation.

So when the Leader says "jump", every red-blooded, right-thinking yahoo snaps to attention and asks one question: how high? That's it. That's enough. Ours not to reason why-- ours but to do or die! That's how we were raised.

You are like bugs under a rock running in circles about constitutional this or that. Nobody in the real world is paying any attention to that stuff. Nobody wants to go after the telecoms for following the call of duty. Trust me.

And there's way more of us than there are of you. Get used to it-- the Stoopid shall prevail.

kovie, in the absence of "parody" tags, I wondered if the title "Trying It On for Size" would telegraph that I was simply paraphrasing Shooter.

And now, in turn, I can't tell if your reply is a counter-parody or not.

All is well. I'm flattered that my extemporaneous caricature seemed so realistic to a discerning mind like yours. (seriously)

BTW, I have a relative who occasionally runs across my comments in places like "Common Dreams". And more than once he's e-mailed me to caution that although he appreciated the irony or sarcasm of a particular post, that it was clear from all of the negative feedback that I was too convincing for my own good. If I didn't know you, the sarcasm would go right over my head, too, he warns.

He's often suggested that I take a break between writing and actually posting to assess whether I'm going too far. But I never do.

And now, back to our regular programming...

Or: My God's Bigger Than Your God!

I presume that the learned and scholarly contributors to this site can inform half-assed autodidacts like yours truly whether there are published analyses of the "messianic politician", and whether Obama meets the criteria. I've been slopping the term around since I first became acquainted with Obama, and not pejoratively, either-- at least not right away. His considerable charisma and oratorical skill was impressive enough. And, yes, his seeming authenticity vis-à-vis his anointed competitors redounded to his credit. Thus began my struggle to suspend my deep-seated skepticism and iconoclasm and try to warm up to him.

I did, in fact, warm up a bit until the FISA debacle. True, it was more of a lessening of antipathy than an increase in enthusiasm. Still, I was slowly drifting into his orbit.

In any event, I think that his messianic persona has indeed attracted a core of zealots compelled to express unconditional positive regard for their candidate, come what may. And it's entirely understandable that a larger constituency of minimally politically informed but well-intentioned people climb into the Obama lifeboat as the one and only means of escape from the sinking Titanic of status quo. So one must expect a sort of gestalt or incipient groupthink that reflexively objects to any fault-finding as a betrayal of the Cause and the Quest.

Now, for the snarky part-- a response in another venue to the open question of whether Obama would “listen” to the justifiable negative feedback to his defective and equivocal FISA position (not to mention other non-progressive and anti-progressive positions)– and if there’s a perception that he’s not listening, how can this be favorably reconciled with his ostensible “bottom-up” method of political action, especially vis-à-vis his campaign?.

Come to think of it, Glenn has expressed thoughts that resonate with what follows. (They really seem to distress the unduly sensible and mature.):

________________________________________

One reason I shy away from messianic politicians is that their campaign logic is disturbingly parallel to Sister Mary Elephant logic.

So, if they haven’t already done so, I predict that Obama spokespersons professional and amateur will suggest that, like God, Obama heard the prayers of his children, but is unable to fulfill them because they do not comport with His divine purpose– the purpose fully revealed in The Book, if anyone has eyes to read and a brain to think.

And yet, in the fluid universe of realpolitik, Obama’s will and purpose must inevitably remain obscure and mysterious to mortals. Thus, we arrive at a paradox– the Book that explains everything, and the spirit of Obama, which passeth human understanding.