Maybe this is what Gibbs meant when he complained about the professional Left:
I wound up at blog called Coyote Crossing via a link from DailyKos, I think. The post was titled "Why I'm not voting for Obama in 2010." It was the usual litany of magical thinking and "I didn't get my pony" whining.
But some of the comments were pretty good, pointing out that if Obama did nothing else, he legitimized the aspirations of young black people. Of course this, and DADT, and all the other things Obama accomplished, aren't good enough for our dear Chris Clarke.
So I added a comment supporting the intelligent posters. For me, it was remarkably non-vitrolic. (You can read it here, if you care - Coyote Crossing, but you'll have to scroll down to find my comments). Chris responded with "your comment is pretty much composed entirely of fact-free condescension" and "So you’re willing to vote for a torturer to be pragmatic," to which I responded with, "Yes, if my option were a murder. And so would you."
Chris then responded with "We welcome disagreement here, but only that of the honest sort," told me I didn't know what deontology meant, and then... banned me. But not before one of his followers got in this:
Yahzi, Apparently you know the theory of everything but the context and value of ‘NOTHING!’. Have you been running into walls lately? As in head first? Huffing gasoline perhaps? Or perhaps it’s congenital? Mommy had to many post-preggers drinky-poos?
So I've been banned and mocked for suggesting that voting for Obama instead of a theocrat is the right thing to do. On a liberal blog.
Maybe Rick Perry has a shot after all.
Crossposted at MCPlanck Rebooted
Edit: Oops! Added link.