Maybe I'm too thin-skinned, but some of Glenn's attacks, particularly his claim that Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Prize, seemed petty and nasty. Hello, didn't Obama run and win on a platform of ending the Iraq war? Hasn't he already scrapped a missile-defense program that was a) a boondoggle and b) a needless provocation to Russia? Hasn't he established a new tone of respect and dialog in the middle east? Those are not trivial achievements, even if he hasn't managed to make the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan magically vanish.

In the very post I wrote about his Nobel Prize, I wrote at the very top:

I say that despite my belief that -- as critical as I've been of the Obama presidency regarding civil liberties and Terrorism -- foreign affairs is actually one area where he's shown genuine potential for some constructive "change" and has, on occasion, merited real praise for taking steps in the general "peace" direction which this Prize is meant to honor.

Obama has changed the tone America uses to speak to the world generally and the Muslim world specifically. His speech in Cairo, his first-week interview on al-Arabiya, and the extraordinarily conciliatory holiday video he sent to Iran are all substantial illustrations of that. His willingness to sit down and negotiate with Iran -- rather than threaten and berate them -- has already produced tangible results. He has at least preliminarily broken from Bush's full-scale subservience to Israel and has applied steadfast pressure on the Israelis to cease settlement activities, even though it's subjected him to the sorts of domestic political risks and vicious smears that have made prior Presidents afraid to do so. His decision to use his first full day in office to issue Executive Orders to close Guantanamo, ostensibly ban torture, and bar CIA black sites was an important symbol offered to the world (even though it's been followed by actions that make those commitments little more than empty symbols). He refused to reflexively support the right-wing, civil-liberty-crushing coup leaders in Honduras merely because they were "pro-American" and "anti-Chavez," thus siding with the vast bulk of Latin America's governments -- a move George Bush, or John McCain, never would have made. And as a result of all of that, the U.S. -- in a worldwide survey released just this week -- rose from seventh to first on the list of "most admired countries."

Several days before that, I wrote a post entitled "Iran: More accomplished in one day of negotiations than in 8 years of threats" that was all about his negotiations with Iran.

I've praised his executive order closing Gitmo, banning techniques outside the Army Field Manual, releasing the OLC memos, etc. etc.

That's what I do. I praise the policies that I agree with and criticize the ones I dislike. There's no other way to be an honest and rational commentator except by doing that. There are a lot of policies of his I dislike, some vehemently dislike, so I say so. But I've praised him repeatedly and in many different contexts, but for his fans, no praise is sufficient.

Excepting the DNC - a clunky beltway institution that exists more as a balance to the RNC than as anything anyone otherwise cares about - whom does GG see as either imposing or exercising the principle of blind loyalty to the President anywhere? Name names.

Did you read what I wrote? Did you see this part:

Yesterday in The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson returned to the DNC's pernicious theme of last week by arguing that those who were "mocking our nation's leader . . . as unworthy of" the Nobel Peace Prize have "joined with the Taliban"; are "exhibiting what [conservatives], in a different context, surely would describe as 'Hanoi Jane' behavior"; have violated core precepts of "good manners"; and deviated from the "only reasonable response": to congratulate the President.

Is that naming names? Beyond that, I linked to a post I just wrote two days ago how the DNC and Media Matters did the same thing. Right in this comment section, TAndrew quoted Rachel Maddow saying the same thing. And beyond that, in virtually every comment section here ever day -- including the one today -- there are numerous comments complaining about excessive criticisms of Obama. Just skim here and you'll see them.

That's naming names. The comment section and email is a way that I interact in an ongoing conversation with readers and I see and hear this sentiment constantly. As I said, I think there is far more criticism of Obama from the Left than there ever was of Bush from the Right - I began by saying exactly that -- but the notion that there's too much criticism of Obama, or that it's illegitimate, is pervasive, and I documented several of those saying so.

However, other bloggers (Hamsher, Aravosis, Greenwald, Bink) are accusing the Obama admin. of repeatedly ignoring the online left."

Leaving aside the practice of relying on the summary of second-hand sources to justify your claim, even this description -- "accusing the Obama admin. of repeatedly ignoring the online left" -- has absolutely nothing to do with what you said: "they get their (what's digby's phrase?) panties all in a twist over a little blow back from (ooh, very scary) a White House source."

Nobody cares if a WH aide says bad things about bloggers. The issue is how the WH views criticisms from progressives and the Left. And, as every person who wrote about it made as clear as the English language permits, the issue wasn't this comment but that it expressed a sentiment consistent with their actions and numerous other comments. It's about what drives the Obama administration.