File this under Beginning of the End: One of the four superdelegates that pledged their support to Obama today was Virginia DNC member Jennifer McClellan, who flipped, after having been a declared Hillary supporter.

I'm really curious what has happened to the Daily Kos readership over the course of primary season. It's pretty clear that we tipped over to Obama's side pretty heavily, and then there was the "strike". So I was just wondering who's still here -- is it all Obama all the time? Are there Hillary lurkers? How many people are sick of primary season -- and of those, who's still here posting on non-primary topics and who has left?

I've noticed, as I'm sure most people have, that whenever Barack Obama criticizes John McCain, he starts out by saying he respects him and that he's a war hero. Typically something like: "I respect Senator McCain and his heroic service to our country, but we can't afford 4 more years of failed Bush economic policies."

Now, initially, I read this as trying to appear as respectful as possibly to McCain, but now I have a different reading. Obama is trying to marginalize McCain as nothing more than a war hero. Let me explain...

Apologies if this is more of a comment than a diary, but I wanted to make a fairly simple point about this whole deal.

Does being a member of a group force you to subscribe to anything it stands for, or anything it's leaders or members stand for?

No, of course not, that's patently ridiculous. Hell, I support Obama but I reserve the right to distance myself from some of his positions while wholeheartedly supporting him. Wouldn't you?

I want to build on a case made by PsyFighter37 in a diary here.

The case is that the ground is fertile for an Obama presidency, not because he differs substantively from Hillary Clinton on major policy issues, but because his approach is different.

Take just the following:

Dear Kossacks, I've been a (mostly-silent) member of this community for a few years now and I hope I'm not out of line asking for a favor...

I'm a student conducting research in social psychology which I think is not only interesting for its own sake, but also has implications for politics and political discourse. It would enormously helpful to me to have people take about 10-15 to fill out a short anonymous survey on hypothetical investments. It's quick, painless, and maybe even kinda fun.[continued after the jump]

Thanks so much for your help!

Participate in the Study

Below the fold, I want to recommend a book that, to me, has important implications for how I look at politics. It's not a political book at all, it's about the way people understand themselves and how that affects their motivations, their beliefs, and their actions. But really, I think it has very interesting implications in how we think about profoundly political questions. I also think it sheds light on why sometimes liberals and conservatives see problems differently, and resolve them differently. The good news is, according to the research presented in the book, we were right again!

There are various theories as to why the administration felt compelled to break the law. Many people suspect that the government is doing data mining which the courts wouldn't allow, and congress wouldn't approve. There are also plausible claims that Cheney and his cabal wanted to go around FISA to show who's boss and extend executive power by marginalizing the legislative and judicial branches of government. I want to consider a much less plausible explanation: they really needed to do what they did.

But that's just the thing. It isn't Israel vs. Palestine; at least not in the minds of many on both sides. Lets not delude ourselves, there is quite clearly a conflict that has no easy resolution, but there are plenty of people on both sides who, while in disagreement on many points, come to the discussion in good faith. This discussion should be one we are having here.

More on the flip.

This theme is hypochristianity. The appropriateness of the name itself is open to debate, but the idea is this:

Every one of us knows that many of the preacher/politicians on the right who rant against abortion, seethe about stem cell research and gay marriage have no more beloved mantra than Family Values. Yet there are piles of evidence of these self same sermonizers have been divorced, caught in affairs, cheated on their taxes, employed illegal immigrants and worse.

(more below the fold)

For those of you who followed this weekend's Redskins game against the Packers, you will recall that Green Bay got out to an early 17-0 lead, much like Kerry looked great in the early exit polls. Washington then came back to make it 20-14 in the 4th quarter, just as Bush rebounded in the electoral college. Now here's the kicker (no, not Ryan Longwell)...

Show the quote (play the audio, or have it read if the voice is instantly recognizable):

Let it sit up there for a few seconds, and then show Nixon and give the attribution: President Nixon, 1968 RNC Acceptance Speech.

According to Annenberg (I think) 46% think Bush is behind the ads and 37% think they're independent.

The basic premise is that when someone is accused of something that they believe to be false, they will in some circumstances respond to disprove the allegation, sometimes in a costly and unwise way.

For instance, when during the McCarthy era people were suspected of being Communists, they were often forced to forcefully refute the allegations, often requiring them to abandon wholesome beliefs and allegiances that were deemed to be suspect. Today, with history repeating itself, the same is true of allegations of being "unpatriotic." To take one case, failure to support the war in Iraq is enough to call into question one's patriotism in some circles.

The request after the jump...