Bear with a very short story:
When I was in college I attended some meetings sponsored by a lefty activist group, and I vividly remember brainstorming ways to oppose supporting sweatshop labor. The activists were great people and friends of mine—compassionate, intelligent, and brave. But I was consistently frustrated by the ideas they proposed, which seemed irrational and short sighted. I remember someone asking if any of them knew where the fraternities and sororities on campus bought their t-shirts, thinking that might be a good place to raise awareness and start a change. They all thought it was a nice idea, but none of them wanted to talk to that element of the university community. They wanted to march and yell and piss people off.
They were angry, and I understood that. I was angry too—not just about sweatshops but about the general direction our society was drifting in 2000. But I didn’t want to perform street theater. I wanted change. I was willing to shave, get a haircut, and give power point presentations to frat boys if that would help. But no one else was. They were still nursing wounds from high school, and in their minds, the Greek crowd was the same abusive group of rich, popular kids from 10th grade. On a certain level, they didn’t want the Greek system to start buying fair trade tees because it would have meant sharing the moral high ground. I should have stayed and done it myself, but I was immature, too, so I left and told everyone I knew that the activists were posers—more interested in identifying themselves as radicals than in actually accomplishing anything (thus claiming the moral high ground for myself).
I felt at the time (and continue to feel) that we were making a huge mistake in rushing to claim our ethical and moral superiority at the cost of alienating huge groups of people able to help us accomplish real change. It’s easy to hate on people who disagree with you when your passionate and sequestered from real interaction from other viewpoints. That’s the danger of blogs like Kos—at their worst, they keep you from constructive, respectful interaction with people who disagree with you and degenerate into self-congratulatory groupthink or long trails of back and forth sniping. It's a basically anonymous forum, and so it's easy to forget that you're conversing with real people (well, most of the time).
My family is split almost exactly down the middle politically, and my father recently announced his decision to vote for McCain (BECAUSE of his position on the war). I almost had an aneurysm. But his position comes from a deeply principled belief that we need to sleep in the bed we made in Iraq—even if it costs us dearly, and even if the administration who led us into the mess lied to get us in and bungled the task. I think my father would feel genuinely responsible for the loss of life were the situation in Iraq to worsen after the exit of our troops. I don’t agree with him (personally I think that there will be trouble there even if we stay for McCain’s 100 years), but I don’t think my dad is a bad person for holding that position.
I’m voting for Obama because after Gore’s bullshit defeat in 2000 (and especially after Kerry 2004) I began hoping for a candidate capable of describing important policies in way that allowed them to be judged on their own merits rather than by the party affiliation of the sponsors. I began hoping for a candidate with the passion and rhetorical skill necessary to take Gore’s mantle and lead a nationwide movement to avert disastrous climate change. And I began hoping for a candidate who could convince conservative-leaning people of faith that God has more on his mind than gay marriage and abortion (and might have views on the subjects that differ from the GOP party line).
Obama is that candidate. I'm voting for him in large part because he can oppose a position without demonizing it, and because I think he might persuade my dad to agree with him on some points that Hillary never could (and I like Hillary—a lot). I’m voting for him because he demonstrates a sobriety and maturity that belies his age and (yes) his experience.
I recognize that this makes me sound like another supporter basing my position on Obama’s pretty rhetoric, but let me say I firmly believe the "he lacks substance" argument is a straw man, ably and incisively rebutted all over this site. I also think that his brand of political talent is much rarer than policy acumen (which I also happen to believe he has). And I believe that knowledge has become so highly specialized in our society that it’s much more important to be able to assimilate and judge new information than to store large amounts of it in your head. Clinton and Obama (unlike our current leader) are plenty inquisitive, concerned and intelligent to handle that task.
The difference in Obama stems from his approach—one that resists clinging to old grudges and advocates pragmatism and consensus. The question is, do the people following him on this site actually buy into that vision, or are they just tolerating it because they think he has the best shot to win? If it’s the latter, fine. Makes sense. But if it’s the former, maybe we should tone it down a little and remember we still have to share this country with our opponents (Dem and Repub alike) after the election.