before being understood.

Tired of the primary being fought over and over.  Do you really think Hillary Clinton, when she embraced the death penalty years ago betraying her values at that point, was doing anything different than Obama is.  Yes, it's repulsive anyway you look at it, regardless of candidate.  There are no saints here.  And yes, unless you are a Lincoln or a Roosevelt it probably is the way to get elected.  

Kerry stood by his values and although it got him my undying respect, it did not get him the presidency.  

Not sure there is much decency to any of this, but there is the question of where the differences continue to lie between us and the GOP and that is substantial enough to vote for whomever the candidate is.

"Serious Question: If Obama supplanted his own personality with that of George W. Bush, would you still support him?"

George Bush has a personality?

I thought it was a personality DEFECT!

To answer your question with some seriousness, I guess my take is, when I saw Obama being RIPPED on the Daily Kos, I took that with less of a grain of salt then I did the ripping here.

My take on the ENDLESS concern diaries here was as follows: since virtually 100% of them were written by Clinton supporters, my feeling was, at least in general, they would have given Senator Clinton FAR MORE the benefit of the doubt on any of these "moves to the middle" as it were.

Funny, there were a few very conservative posters that were actually pleased at Obama's statments, but mostly he got flamed by people that called him a thug and unqualified to begin with?

On the Great Orange Satan, those were hard core Obama supporters flamming his ass.

Here, I thought it was just mostly more piling on.

And, that answer is about as short an attention span as I also can muster, after a long vacation weekend.

Where do we draw the line with diaries asking where do we draw the line?

Obama didn't shift positions on Iraq.  He is saying the same thing now as he did several months ago.

I am a Clintonista who is still struggling to give Obama all the energy and affection I gave to Hillary.  But we should not be carrying water for the McCain camp's false narratives.

This topic has been exhausted.  Are you PUMAs looking for the one key issue that will turn us against Obama?  Well, you're not going to find one.  But, if you have an opinion on the issue:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/8/12295 5/1207

Is it "short attention span" because there have been at least 2 other similar diaries in the past day?

Here's a question: Would you support Hillary Clinton if she used a mad scientist's device and transplanted her brain into George Bush's body?  If so, which would you support?  George Bush's brain in Hillary Clinton's body, or Hillary Clinton's brain in George Bush's body?

It's an important question worth talking about!

Not really.

You guys are OBSESSED with this unity BS. Get over yourselves. Some people still call for it, but most of us have moved on. You can spend your months refighting the primary while we actually get on with real life. Obama's the nominee, and why in the hell would any of us drop our support of the Democratic party's nominee?

Do you understand this concept? He is the Democratic party nominee. We are not choosing between Democratic candidates anymore. We are not choosing ideologies. We do not have that luxury. So no, we will not drop our support. This is just stupid.

You are asking us to quit our jobs because we had a job offer a month ago that has since been rescinded. It's just nonsensical. I don't know how we can make that clear to you, exactly how far out of reality your mindset is right now.

And very few have gotten this much flak for it.  The reason, there are still a lot of PUMA folks out there.  Whining.

He hasn't shifted anywhere near anything we should hate as progressives.  He's supporting the lifting of immunity from the telecom bill.  His big change on Iraq...  doesn't exist.  This is all BS.  

And you compare him to W.  I see your agenda.

Your question is unworthy of a response.

The problem is that most here think that to criticize means you are voting McCain.

Listen, he's the nominee. We have to live with it. If you want private satisfaction, you can enjoy the fact that Obama played the progressives with all of that new politics bullshit--and IO guess that when they were singing kumbaya he was biding his time.

but beyond that, let's win first. Then worry about how he falls short. Cause Johnny Mac falls shorter, I assure you.

Seriously, third diary today about the same shit.

This is an ELECTION.  There are 2 choices.  The flipping "line" or "tipping" point is when Obama turns into a Republican.

Until then this whole argument is complete bullshit.

I think the inverse question is more interesting:

What line as a supposed progressive do you have to totally obliterate to consider voting for McCain?

Do you have to completely ignore 90% of the Republic Party Platform?

Do have to embrace 3 decades of entrenched homophobia, racism, sexism, as codified in the Republic party platform?

Do you have to ignore 4000+ dead GI's and God knows HOW many Iraqis to vote for the party of Dick Cheney, and his bloody oil war?

what line do you cross to realize that, putting McCain in office means all the good little aparachicks that have been eviserating the good of the common people at Justice, FDA, EPA, Labor, ALL remain in place.

Yeah, I was NOT happy about Obama and the faith based pandering.

It's like a small grain of sand in my shoe compared to the burning pile of toxic waste that is the Republic Party.

What tiresome claptrap this is.  

You use the term "Obama supporters" as if it were meaningfully a subset of Democrats.

He is our nominee.  The question, more properly phrased, would be "Democrats, where do you draw the line?"

The wording of your question evidences your continued existence in a pre-June reality.

Get over it already.  

One month of grieving is more than enough.

Not that I take the protestations of any No Quarterite seriously.

Obama hasn't said he wants to add a cabinet post to coordinate faith-based initiatives.  He was asked by a reporter whether he would do this during a press conference and gave this answer:

"I want this to be central to our White House mission. Just as I want a White House office on poverty to be -- which I've already discussed previously, and urban policy -- to be part of high level discussion in the White House.

"So whether we're actually creating a new cabinet position or we're simply making sure this person has a direct line to me and is working with all the cabinet officers to coordinate faith-based initiatives, we'll figure out the organization as we move forward in the context of our overall White House organization. But the important principle is that using the talents and the gifts of the kinds of folks who are here...."

Which, by my read, probably means no.  Obama isn't great at answering questions in the Washington style (eg. ignoring the question and getting out the information you want, or avoiding extraneous detail, or just giving simple answers so as to avoid ambiguity).

This is a trait he probably would carry into the White House (all presidents have foibles and this is one of his, this is like Clinton's sillier mitigations, Gore's hyperbole, or Bush's inability to admit fault on anything).

That is really all that matters to me.

Obama could choose Cheney to be his VP and as long as the PUMA's were pissed about then I will give him the benefit of the doubt.*

*This is hyperbole.  I don't like Dick Cheney.  I hope Obama's AG presses charges against him.  Hopefully that will piss off the PUMA's somehow.  

If Hillary Clinton were Obama would you still support her?

If X were Y, would you still Z?

I draw the line at taking anything you write seriously.

I don't find the criticisms of Obama on policy sad nearly as much as I find it fair and deserved. I wish Mrs. Clinton had been extended the same consideration rather than being attacked on personality, appearance, and her womanhood more than her political positions.

I used to find the bristling indignation of his supporters sad in their responses to criticism of his shifting positions, but lately it has become amusing.

If you could refight the primary, and make Barack Obama a female quadreplegic, and Hillary Clinton a blind shoe salesman, who would win?  

Oh also, WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? and WHERE DOES IT END, MAN?  That's what I want to know.

"If Obama supplanted his own personality with that of George W. Bush, would you still support him?"

Wow.  You went from an interesting diary about the food at the convention to this garbage?  This isn't even a diary, it's nonsense.

Serious question (or at least as serious as your question): If you replaced Bush's own personality with Obama's, and then replaced that personality with the combined personalities of Saddam Hussein, Jim Belushi, Gary Coleman, and Katie Couric and no one was around to hear them talk, would it make a good diary?

this diary is not well written.

Ogre:  "What if C-A-T spelled 'dog?'"

If you're in this group, can you understand how we Clinton Democrats felt in the primary when Obama and others trashed a phenomenal woman and former president, both of whom are admired around the world, one of whom is the only Democratic president to serve two terms in the last 40 years?

God damnit!  Can you understand how insane it is that a former President was going out of the way to trash candidates in his own party?  

this is the third, third diary on the same subject.  the only difference I can see is that it doesn't have tipping p