There two separate issues here: action (what Obama does) and reaction (how hoi polloi react).

I want to focus on door number 2. The "Don Obama" tripe is not the only evidence of runaway monarchism on display at dKos. This morning a poll was put up there asking for opinions about another dynastic transfer of the newly vacant NY Senatorial seat. When I first looked the vote was overwhelmingly pro-Kennedy; now it is closer but still pro-primogeniture:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/8/94530/1645/764/670474

(post is long; scroll down)

I expect this kind of knee-jerk fealty from the authoritarian right; it is deeply disturbing to see the same willingness to bow to royalty on the left.

The great philosopher Pogo was right.

Well, there's no question that they DO matter. I am really disturbed by Gates, for example. On the CIA and NSA, I have no clue what he should do.

I can only hope that Obama is true to himself and to his past statements. Having said that, I will always give any man the benefit of doubt should he change his mind.

I don't think that Obama lied to us to get where he is, but I wouldn't presume to think that he doesn't know what he's doing, and I wouldn't think that everything that I thought about him was a lie.

I have no idea what his thinking is. I have no idea what his strategy is, or if he has some "greater plan" that is unknown to us, because he hasn't revealed it yet.

I am CERTAIN of one thing: He is a better choice than John McCain and he will do a better job. He may not be as liberal as I would like, but for now I can settle for whatever HE decides to do, whether I agree or not. I'm not going to get crazy about anything. The past eight years have pretty much worn me out!

And click the linky, beeatches!

http://gopkorea.blogs.com/flyingyangban/images/2008/03/17/obeyobama.jpg

"And it is true that a President's actions matter more than his appointments"

Since when aren't his appointments his actions?

His appointments ARE his actions and thus far, his actions stink to high heaven.

Obama doesn't want us to be the change we want to see anymore. He wants us to see the change we wanted him to be. (If he hasn't already said that, I'm sure he will.)

I have no idea what this means, nor am I sure that I care.

It means that yesterday, good, loyal Obama supporters had always been at odds with Centrist Politics — and today, they have never been at odds with Centrist Politics, and have always been at odds with Left-wing Progressivism.

If that doesn't make sense to you, then you are probably also busily writing to MoveOn urging them not to rest just because Obama won, pestering your representatives to let them know that you care about cabinet appointments.

As a pillar of rectitude (my, how well that trips off the tongue — thanks, Holly!) I find all of that most un-American.

Glenn, I wish I had your gift for words. This was my response to Hildebrand on HuffPo. Note that the vast majority of the posters over there seem to be "you're either for us or against us" folks who want to angrily shout down all criticism of PE Obama.

Mr. Hildebrand, your post has significant problems. You should think more carefully before you speak, since you are in a perceived position of influence with Mr. Obama, and already your words are echoing -- with negative consequence -- around the blogosphere.

Regardless of the problems facing the President-elect, those of us who believe principles matter will be following his actions closely. Simply stating that the problems Obama faces are daunting, and therefore progressives need to (paraphrased) "shut up" is simply an "ends justify the means" argument.

Some of us find some things so abhorrent -- torture, warrantless wiretapping -- that we will never tolerate them, no matter whether those things are carried out by a Bush appointee or an Obama retread.

Obama's cabinet choices *matter*, sir. These are not minor, insignificant positions we're talking about here. These are people who will wield tremendous power over the day to day lives of Americans, and over the international relations of America for years to come. Who mans these positions *matters* because their ideology matters.

So, sir, I will not be quiet. I will not "tone down" the criticism of Obama simply because he's the guy I "voted for." I do not expect President-elect Obama to obey my every whim, but he should not, in turn, expect me to support his every action.

That's politics. Get used to it.

As you may have noticed, I comment here frequently, but not nearly as frequently as some do. Nor do I tend to get into these clubby wink wink nudge nudge clever little insider games here. So I'm not as up on my "who's who" as you and others here may be. Unless something is obvious snark--which to me her comments were not, as I've come across enough of this tripe on DKos and elsewhere--I tend to respond at face value. I honestly don't have the patience and nuanced critical talents to always tell when sincerity ends and snark begins.

Nor are the lines always clear, as I suspect that a lot of people engage in what Al Franken once called "Kidding on the square", or something like that, where you say something and then take it back, claiming that it was snark, but where one is not convinced that it actually was. I suspect that this is what Amity is doing. Or, perhaps, she really does believe this crap. I don't know and frankly I don't care. It's crap, and I'm dealing with it as such.

I'm actually not always as earnest and "serious" as I'm sure that I'm coming across here. But after 8 years of the worst president in US history and in a discussion about illegal wiretaps and how the next administration intends to deal with such constitutional and moral violations by the present one, apologies if I'm not exactly in the mood for levity in this context. It certainly has its place, but it's SO not nearly adequate to the task of what needs to be done now.