Glenn's essay today would be required reading for everyone who is permitted to post messages at democraticunderground.com, freerepublic.com, fark.com, slashdot.com, and the next 100 popular posting forms devoted to politics. Not only required reading, but they should also have to pass a basic exam with an essay question on the concepts involved.

Of course then only about 2% would be left to post anything, but still it is a daydream worth pursuing.

The conservatives do.

Anyone who had a problem with Bush and Cheney also has a problem with Obama and Biden.

I am certain that McCain and Company are responsible for the impression that Obama was liberal, progressive and antiwar.

A few of us were not fooled.

You see, skin color and race really do not make any difference - unless you are stupid and racist.

who'd take on Giordano ... the guy is so full of himself .. it is not funny .. it's like he didn't learn anything during the 8 years of BushCo

THIS is the one to which you (especially) ought to pay attention:

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

That is simply not true.

Conservatives are very diverse, actually. Most are very disappointed in Bush and feel he was irresponsible.

Many conservatives thought going to war was wrong. Most totally could not stand his excessive spending.

If this were true, then many conservatives would have not voted for Obama...which they did.

"It should be emphasized that mere criticism for its own sake is also not a virtue. Those who reflexively and blindly criticize whatever Obama does (based on the immovable, all-consuming conviction that he is intrinsically Evil) are nothing more than the opposite side of the same mindless coin as those who reflexively and blindly praise whatever Obama does (based on the immovable, all-consuming conviction that he is intrinsically Good). Pre-ordained, overarching judgments of Obama that are detached from his actions are irrational in equal measure, whether the judgment is praise or condemnation."

Well said. By the same token, I feel that people like Andrew Leonard, who ask that we give Obama the benefit of the doubt, shouldn't immediately be written off as members of the Obama cult.

A rational citizen, by definition, praises and supports political leaders when they do the right thing (regardless of the motive) and only then, and criticizes and opposes them when they don’t.

How long before somebody shows up to explicitly delineate it?

"Greenwald doesn't have the info that POTUS has. Therefore who is Greenwald to judge the actions of the Leader? The ONLY thing that matters is the motive. POTUS*! is Pure, and Good, and wants only to make, is in fact capable only of making, the Correct choice. For all of us."

As was Chimpy before him.

Time will tell.

As I recall, Bush II did not receive blind loyalty until 9/11/01 and the "War on Terror". Obama is still new in office and we have not yet seen a false flag operation.

I would also point out that the "conservative movement" of the last 8 years might well be called the "neo-conservative movement" instead. Whatever one calls it; I sure hope you are correct and we never see men of the left follow a leader as blindly as Bush II was followed.

Good post Glenn.

"...but many progressives are retaining their critical faculties despite the economic crisis consuming not just America but the world."--Glenn

Thus we have one of the inherent disadvantages of following one's honest assessments of policies while correctly ignoring the human (authoritarian propensity) of cult-like, papal-infallibility neuroses.

When anyone (left/right brain ideologists) face their demons of partiality they have the option of disregarding the obvious bias and confronting the painful realization that, for example, Clinton/Spitzer is running the country/state well, but their personal, sexual life is embarrassing and hurts their family and country.

A conservative is faced with the paradox of non-conservative, corrupt, lawless initiatives while Bush is President and decides to give him a pass, because it's too painful to admit they love the ensuing results of those contradictory policies.

Moreover, to give any ground to admissions of duplicity for some people is to give their enemy a point advantage.

One is never enlightened or exuberant to see a supposed thinking person reject the recent reality of facts and obvious conclusions to further an ideology of self-promoting a bankrupt cause.

To me, the reasons for different attitudes about Leaders between Conservatives and Liberals are less a question of Ideology than one of a belief system. Mainly, that conservatives, as presently constituted, are nakedly authoritarian, something which strikes a deep chord with a disturbingly large number of Americans, transcending any actual policy decisions. As long as a government promises to be a powerful enforcer of one's own prejudices, it needn't do anything specifically for that person. It's like having a REALLY big brother, following you to the playground to beat up everyone you don't like, and that feels good to a lot of people.

Liberals, on the other hand, actually fancy that they might be able to sell tangible results of one sort or other, always placing them at a disadvantage if whatever endeavor isn't a roaring success. Worse, they must sell these things to a more skeptical audience, who have a lot of reason to be skeptical.

It really is a matter of belief over reason and fear over hope, but most important, authoritarianism over freedom, of both thought and action.

Conservatives are different, and not in a good way.

I balk at most of the comparisons to Kim Jung Il (or Mao) because I feel those raising them have no credibility. Just as Glenn says, there are those who will criticize whatever Obama does, just because he's not on their "team".

Also I think there's a substantial difference between the Bush image-management - "message force multipliers", photo ops on aircraft carriers, that insidious billboard that was probably sponsored by the heritage foundation or Focus on the Family - and the Obama "hope" image, which was produced by a 20-something artist in (was it) Colorado (?). The Obama folks even considered suing the guy, but decided it would be in bad taste. No Bush cheerleader has ANY standing to criticize the geniune grassroots movement that sprung up around Obama, in thie free society, just as a result of his traveling the country and talking to people.

ALL THE SAME-

I too am wary of this type of iconography. It's not hard to make parallels to the cultural revolution, which started within a small military circle but was buoyed by a grassroots swell of nationalism, or to the Rawandan genocide, which had centuries of ethnic resentments and incendiary (but popular) radio stations partly to thank.

That's why those of us who thought Obama was a good person to be president for our own independent reasons owe it to everyone to remain independent in our judgment. That's why we have elected leaders, and not kings, in this country. People are imperfect, prone to ambition, conflicts of interest, corruption. Once good people (see: Robert Mugabe, Sharpe James, Ernesto "Che" Guevara) can become tyrants simply because of the power of power to corrupt.

Hmmm...I think that covers it.