Sorry for my absence yesterday. Things happened.

PUMA: What are the movement's objectives? AnnaBelle offers her "first draft" of a formal statement. Much to consider here.

Kos is backing away from Obama! Savor these poorly-written words, and try not to snort liquids out of your nostrils:

Now I know there's a contingent around here that things Obama can do no wrong, and he must never be criticized, and if you do, well fuck you! I respect the sentiment, but will respectfully disagree. We're allowed to do that here. But fair notice -- I will never pull a Rush Limbaugh and carry water for anyone.

This, from a guy who has carried more water than the California aqueduct. If non-Obots were allowed to disagree "respectfully" on progressive forums, then why were so many Hillary supporters "axed" to leave?

Moulitsas has, by this point, made himself so thoroughly hated on both the right and the left that a public "divorce" would serve Obama's purposes. Is the rift staged...?

COB: For those wanting to follow up the discussion of Barack Obama's birth certificate, the discussion here is very geeky and learned and persuasive.

I knew that my previous post would evince some rather annoying reactions. As my readers are continually shocked to learn, I'm somewhat open to various forms of conspiracy theorizing -- until the discussion turns to scientific or technical matters. At that point, a conservative and cautious attitude sets in. Many readers see that stance as contradictory. For example, they can't understand why I praise Daniel Hopsicker's work on 9/11 while expressing contempt for the "bombs-in-da-buildings" wackos.

BO and CD. Speaking of those folks: It turns out that Barack Obama's official campaign blog has become a favorite hang-out joint for the 9/11 twoofers (or, as I call 'em, "trannies"). Does Obama share their views? Probably not. (Does Jeremiah Wright share their views? Interesting question!)

Recent events have demonstrated that it may not be a good idea to allow just anyone to walk into a presidential campaign's website and exercise unfettered free speech. A campaign site is not a personal blog (such as the one you're looking at) or a more generalized public site (such as Democratic Underground).

Consider this: What if a contributor to a candidate's website were to post material praising (say) The Protocols of Zion? Obviously, that would reflect badly on the candidate. Just as obviously, such material would have to be censored.

But once the site's managers take that step in an obvious and extreme case, they face the question of where to stop. If we admit that, in general principle, a candidate bears some responsibility for everything published on an official campaign website bearing his name, we then have a right to ask: "Barack, how do you feel about the pseudo-scientific bilge filling your pages? How do you feel about the offensive graphic that called McCain a war criminal?"

The candidate -- any candidate -- must keep fairly strict control over any site managed by his or her team and funded by his or her resources. Any Obama supporter who wants to spew wacky pseudo-scientific theories about 9/11 may start a brand new blog, free of charge, all praise be unto Google and Wordpress. I disagree with what the CDers have to say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it -- elsewhere.

Keeping the faith: Obama says that he plans to maintain and expand Bush's grand "Faith-base initiatives" ploy.

But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions was likely to invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination.

David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.

(Emphasis added.) In other words, Kuo and some other evangelicals feel that Bush's plan was mere window dressing. Obama needs to court evangelicals in order to make up for the deficit in pissed-off Hillary voters. Thus, Obama has pledged to transform Dubya's program into something real, not merely cosmetic.

This turn of events buttresses a theory that I usually express in the context of the Social Security debate: A Democrat who feels compelled to appease conservative forces may end up doing more damage than an actual conservative would do. The Bay of Pigs fiasco taught us this lesson.

Anglachel has a great post up:

The public relations campaign, insofar as there is one, revolves around threats (Roe! Roe! Roe our boat!), shaming (You’re just racists if you won’t vote Obama), but mostly dismissal - “You have nowhere else to go.” The opposition is dismissed as emotional, racist, low information, culturally backward, and republican dupes instead of driven by very concrete material interests.

In the past, I've suggested that the Obamafolk ought to attempt a very different tactic: Humility. Apologize for smearing Hillary. Just quiddit awready with the arrogance. Say you done wrong and that you won't do it again.

But they won't go that route. For many progs, the primary was all about Clinton-hate. They hate the former president and his wife more than they love Mr. O. And progs just don't do humility.