That doesn't mean I think Obama walks on water. Far from it. The guy is going around idiotically attacking Paul Krugman, dancing with homophobic preachers, and while his rhetoric is beautiful upon first listening, an hour later you're left wondering if he said anything of substance at all (and the answer is usually "no").
...not that he is alone in doing so or that the transgression solely targets a particular candidate. I refer, of course, to his casual dismissal of Obama supporters, who apparently believe their candidate is flawless, antiprogressive, homophobic and substanceless all at the same time. You could accept this or, alternatively, you could simply ask Obama supporters frankly what they have to say on each subject, or look back in the past and learn something of it.
You might learn that Krugman's tone did indeed change between columns regarding Obama's healthcare program. You might notice Geekesque's diary calling out the campaign on the McClurkin debacle (I also sent a fairly scathing e-mail in the campaign's direction, and the response while on-topic was not particularly satisfying). You might learn that Obama issues speeches on policy as well as fluff on the stump, and if you're concerned with whether he bears substance you would choose to critique his record, or his policy statements, rather than ethereal rhetorical effluence every candidate issues alike.
But then, that's not really the point.
"Walks on water," of course, inherently dismisses any of my comments above, because, clearly my response is emotional- not rational. Clearly if I have defended Obama against Krugman or Clinton I cannot, logically, criticize him for McClurkin?
This sort of blind castigation of the emotional state of those with whom we disagree does not serve the goals we presume to uphold... we are here to elect members of OUR party, and we each have an equal say in who belongs, and we all have the capacity to contribute rationale in that decision. To imply that those who defend or support Obama "walk on water" is not somehow an immoral statement, but it is inherently, logically, false.
Dismissing Kucinich supporters as purity trolls is inherently false.
Dismissing Clinton supporters as monarchists or corporatists is inherently false.
Dismissing Edwards supporters as supporting a no-longer-relevant candidate is inherently false.
Dismissing Obama supporters as idolaters is inherently false.
and so on...
And at the end, I'll just be excited to bid adieu to the primary wars and get enthusiastically behind whoever wins, whether it's Obama, Edwards, or Clinton.
It's come time that there are nearly as many warriors against the primaries as there are those who fight the battles, and it's more than reasonable to lament the level of discourse upon which the primary is based- but then, we're all perfectly empowered to change that. This is, after all, an important decision in our nation's history- and it seems worthwhile to make a substantive decision and to convince others of that decision's worth rather than denigrate those who feel passionately about the matter. I say this as someone who has been hesitant regarding political involvement as a matter of disillusionment- who mate his first political donation this cycle out of the hope it might make a small difference.
Invalidating the ability to reason of another is not a power given to anyone.
Stop it.
UPDATE: Headline changed- it's giving people the wrong idea. Have to run soon but will comment again when I have the chance in response to anyone who wants a say. Thank you all for contributing.