A gold star for the Donatist reference.

Nice.

bdop4 wrote:

"I can only imagine what our country would be like if that kind of thinking pervaded during the Revolutionary War."

Perhaps this kind of thinking was more prevalent than you think during the Revolutionary Period. Check out:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/9/155824/3452/395/547778 "Unacceptable Founding Fathers?"

Joan--

For once I agree with you completely, unequivocally, and wholeheartedly about Obama. His vote on the FISA bill is unconscionable and indefensible.

Unlike you, however, I can't see myself voting for him in November. I'm one of his early supporters for whom FISA was a deal breaker.

I used to worry about what it would mean for this country if John McCain were to become President, and I shuddered especially when contemplating the supreme court appointments he might foist on us.

But like a terminally ill patient who has reached the acceptance phase of the stages of grief, I am no longer dreadful of a McCain victory. Here are three reasons:

First, Obama's flip flops make me doubt he really offers an alternative to the Republicans; second, I believe the Democrats will increase their Congressional majority significantly, effectively limiting McCain's power; and, finally, the GOP under Bush got us into these messes (Iraq, the economy, the environment). It only seems fair that they should have to clean it up.

Meanwhile, thanks to Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, the ACLU, EFF, and all the others who tried so valiantly to preserve the Fourth Amendment. They're the real heroes here-- not the fearmongering Republicans or the spineless Democrats who make up the U.S. Congress.

2000 - " Al Gore is no better than George W. Bush. Better to vote for Nader and let Bush win. Then when America goes to crap, progressives will be called on to save the world!"

2004 - " What idiot ever said Gore is no different than Bush? Nader should be hanged!"

2008 - " Obama is no better than John McCain. I'm not going to vote for Republican light. I mean, what's the worse that can happen in a McCain Presidency if Democrats control Congress?"

Man this is getting old!

How predictable to see the rigid idealists in the Democratic Party / Progressives slicing and dicing their candidate because the candidate does not conform tho their particular view on their particular issue.

Sure, you can be as pious and critical as you want. Good luck with that. You will get something worse than Obama, but you can hold your heads high that you never compromised, never backed down. I'm sure it makes you feel good.

As smart as some of you are (Joan), you fail to see the big picture. The country has not spun fully around and headed in your direction. It takes 20 years to steer an observably new direction in the ship of state. If you want change, then realize that the change you ultimately want will not be fully embraced by the first candidate who represents the initial political "sea change". The country simply has not yet made enough of a fundamental political shift.

But this is lost on the true believers. They will slash and cut away at their "imperfect' candidate in an angry tantrum every time they perceive their candidate as deviating from the rigid ideal. Then they will spend the next 4 years excusing their actions and blaming the candidate for losing because the candidate did not adhere to every orthodoxy of the true believers.

The real reason Obama will lose this year is tradition: The Democrats love their circular firing squads.

So apparently Joan Walsh and all the other rich others want to pin every grievance on Barak Obama.

What hope is there other than his reasonable wish for an honest conversation. I can understand that Joan Walsh prefers dishonesty and pinning tails but why project that on him.

Accept that he will win and help him. The world is watching and in the proof is in how San Francisco divas bury their grudges.

Thanks, yeah, the term popped up in my mind as I have just re-listened to a (delightful) Joseph Campbell audio lecture about the Arthurian Romances, specifically Parzifal, where he brings up the Palagian and Donatist heresies as proving some context into how those stories originated.

Basically (as I understand it) the Donatist Heresy was an early Christian heresy that stated that if the sacrements were not given by a sinless priest then they were invalid.

You can imagine why this would be a major problem, so the early church had to assert that the sacraments transcended the vessel.

I'm seeing a lot of this kind of acute binary thinking lately in the blogoshere and it saddens me.

Let me be clear. I hated Obama's FISA vote with the white hot passion of a thousand suns. But I don't hate Obama with the white hot passion of a thousand suns. Hate the sin, love the sinner as they say. And it is a sin, no doubt about that. Obama (politically) sinned. Of course I am disappointed. The Donatist, however, would say that at this point he has fallen from a sinless state and is now permanently corrupted and therefore completely invalid.

Its a flawed belief system and it is not healthy. Psychologically its regarded as a type of personality disorder (don't remember which). Have you known people like this in your lives? I once had a very serious relationship with a woman who had this extreme binary outlook. She would put people initially on the highest of high pedestals. But eventually you'd do or say something wrong, and you'd instantly go from the very top of the pedestal to the lowest depths of the abyss, forevermore. Of course, initially I didn't see this pattern, as I was so flattered to be on the top her pedistal, hell she practically deified me. But one day (can't remember why), I must have done or said something Wrong and was forevermore shunned and banished into the abyss.

This is not a workable way to get through life, be it with personal relationships, or to a lesser degree by your political choices. And in this year of 2008 I'd contend that it isn't a lesser degree, as our choice for President this year will absolutely effect everything.