I think it's misleading to suggest that the Republicans are any more terrified of Obama than they are of Clinton. Both of them represent a terrifying threat to a party that is so wedded to the white, patriarchical, Christian-American, war-glorifying Republican paradigm. In a sense, either Obama or Clinton achieving the presidency would be a nightmare come true for a number of people among the Republican party.

But ultimately, after 8 years or more with uncontested power, I think any Democrat in the White House is a pretty terrifying prospect for Republicans. Accountability's a bitch, ain't it?

I don't know about the rest of you, but opening a jar of pickles doesn't make me feel any more masculine or needed.

I think that for any relationship to be successful, both individuals have to genuinely make the other one feel needed and valued and important. But that has nothing to do with pickles, or mowing the lawn, or washing the dishes. My girlfriend needs me when she feels like crap, she needs me to be in the audience when she performs, she needs me to tell her she's beautiful and amazing (because it's true, after all). And I need her to be there for me too, when I feel like there is just too much to do and face and accomplish and I can't figure out how I'm going to make sense of any of it. And if there are pickles involved, between the two of us we will figure out how to open the jar. It's not that difficult.

Who suggested that?

No one, I suppose. I just think it's silly to assume that the Republicans' fear of Obama is unique or particularly news-worthy, or that they wouldn't be just as terrified of any other strong Democratic presidential contender. As you have said, their claim that they are worried about the Obama cult of personality rings hollow because of their own worship of GWB, Reagan, etc. They are simply trying to find an excuse for their irrational dislike of Obama the same way they have already done for Hillary, and the same way they would be doing for anyone else in Obama's place.

I guess ultimately my point is that this article's headline suggests that this is a specific problem for Obama, when as the actual article details, the problem is the Republicans' need to find a reason to demonize their opponent.

The fact that they are Democrats is enough for a Republican to dislike a Democrat. (The same can be said for most Democrats, though, can't it?) But of course, they have to justify the hatred and uneven criticism somehow. So in Obama's case, it looks like they are going to accuse him of being just a talking head with a cult following. Because that makes it sound reasonable to pick John McCain instead. For Hillary, they say she's an emasculating bitch who will have us at war once a month (yes, I actually have heard that from a Hillary-hating acquaintance of mine).

Obama has lived in second-world countries and traveled extensively.

Well duh. America is a second world country, after all. I hate how no one understands what "first," "second," and "third world" actually mean.

As a registered Montana voter, this move totally blows all of our plans to dominate the nominating process. I am so upset. Almost as upset as I am that Montana only has like one delegate anyway. Almost as upset that Montana will probably vote for McCain in the end.

I like Montana, but not all the time.

You may be too young to have actually lived through a presidential election, but unless you are completely daft, you would be aware that McCain would be drilling on Obama's inexperience regardless of whether or not Clinton did it first.

Calling someone a monster and accusing them of being duplicitous in their advocacy for the poor is not part of the so-called "politics of hope" unless all they're "hoping" for is that the voting public will share their mischaracterization and pick Obama instead.

The kids in our society seemed to be trapped at two extremes of the self-esteem spectrum. First, there are the people that this camp is clearly aimed at... low self image, depressed, etc. But as a 21 year old college student, I can also say that there are a shit ton of kids who are spoiled beyond belief, and are apparently victims of the self esteem movement. These people feel like they are entitled to anything and everything they desire, they think that having a thought every now and then is evidence of their unparalleled genius, they think they will all be the next best thing and not have to work an ounce to get there. Yeah, there are a lot of people who suffer from too little self esteem, but there are also legions of people who have been warped by being constantly told by their parents that they are special and unique and naturally smarter than the other kids and incredibly talented, etc.

Hopefully this camp will not feed those egos that should be kept in check by reality and the simple fact that not everyone is good at everything, all the time.

In all fairness, scandals like this get blown out of proportion all the time when it's right-wingers. Like that congressman who got caught tapping his foot in a bathroom stall in the MSP Airport. I mean, he didn't actually commit a crime in any sense. It just kind of looked like he wanted to have sex with another guy, maybe. And that one was all over the news.

Sex scandals are overblown all the time, but the moral outrage seems to be equal between all sides.