hear hear.

I think the way some of his internet supports are behaving is bigger liability to Obama's message then anything else out there.

It doesn't stop me from supporting him, but it sure doesn't help me get energized about his campaign.

Sure enough Clinton supports are just as bad, but they have the excuse that their candidate is losing. They're just sore losers, but nothing is worse then sore winners.

and the folks in Florida and Michigan who decided to shoot craps with the votes of their people by moving up the primary dates.  

Obama didn't make up the rules, he just followed them.  Nobody should expect him to undermine his own supporters, and override the rules against his own self-interest.  That's not altruistic, it's stupid, and disloyal to those who are contributing to his campaign.  

And if Hillary was so damned interested in giving these delegations a place at the table, she would have accepted the Michigan compromise.  Only that wouldn't have been in her own perceived self-interest--so naturally, she didn't.  

I don't really blame Hillary much on this--except for raising the whole "disenfranchising" flag.  That decision was made by the legislators of Michigan and Florida, not Obama. To say that Obama should accept these delegations is the same logic that held that Gore should yield the Presidency in 2000, and Kerry shouldn't contest the Ohio results in 2004.  Haven't we had enough of that sort of thinking already?

I said democracy is sacred to me.  I have studied democracy from it's roots (Pericles, Socrates' writings on political philosophy) on through John Locke to Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, et al on up through law in present day america with my father who is a retired professor of constitutional law.  My position is closer to Obama's and to Dr. Dean's that yours.  You are mistaken.

I do think that Michigan and Florida will get something (even though they shouldn't) because it's expedient for Obama and Dean to do so, but the farcical january beauty contests will not go to conference as is.  As for disenfranchisement, Obama wins Michigan.  Hillary loses it. Clearly they're not as upset about it as you.  

Not only do you say that as an Obama supporter, but also as a person with no sense of reason evidently.

Just like Clinton he's a middle of the road democratic candidate unlikely to make waves with his policies.

They both have liberal tendencies, they both have centrist tendencies. A side effect of that is that's its easy for people to pick and chose what they are depending on their support and dislikes Clinton is conservative and Obama liberal or Clinton Liberal and Obama conservative.

It's "project your own silliness on our candidates" season.

What about you Killjoy? Who's your team?

They don't seem to work because both candidates are middle of the road dems that don't differ from each other on any significant policy points.

So all pigeonholing that differenciate between the two don't work because they're based on silly interpretations of off hand comments.

In the general there will be real difference between McCain and Obama and we can all pigeonhole to our harts' content.

But I echo your recommendation, mostly because it's difficult enough to get them into big boxes. I doubt that would fit into tiny ones. Politicians don't fold that well and tend to spoil pretty quickly if not kept in dark and dry conditions. ;)