Kicking Fido

Vastleft at Corrente asks a damned good question:

The continued lashing out against PUMAs, ex-PUMAs, presumed PUMAs, etc. — what's that all about?

Given that folks like Lambert and I simply aren't in the business of whining about how Hillary is Teh Awesum, why is it necessary for the Sirotas, Boomans, DU community, etc. to pretend that we are... in addition to calling us insane, "hate stalkers," and so forth.

I get that gender issues could be a factor. But I suspect it's about much more than that. What gives?

Yeah. What gives?

Although I am often accused of being a Hillary worshipper, the truth is that I didn't want her to run. This blog ignored her until the prog-bloggers mounted obscene tirades against all things Clinton. I haven't been talking about her lately. Most of the PUMA-friendly bloggers haven't been talking about her lately. And yet those familiar attacks are back -- at this stage of the game. At a time when Obama needs unity, we're being told that his biggest problem is "Clintonism."

Why?

I think we are witnessing a form of psychological displacement. We all know about guys who, after being insulted by the boss, will come home and kick the dog. Obama has disappointed the Obots, so the bots are kicking the Clintons. They're the dogs.

I was going through an old post which catalogs a number of spectacular Obot hate-gasms from last summer. One of the gems from that collection is this comment, from last June:

Clinton is a pathological liar. McBush will continue the unconstitutional wars and warrantless spying on Americans. Obama is the clear choice.

Let's talk about lying, shall we?

Obama, of course, lied about knowing Tony Rezko. He lied about campaign finance, he lied about NAFTA, he lied incessantly about his Iraq war stanceS, he lied about his corrupt father, he lied about Selma, he lied about his voting record, he lied about his accomplishments as a "community organizer," he lied about Ayers, he lied about Wright, he lied about lobbyists, he lied about representing change -- and, of course, he lied about his alleged opposition to warrantless spying.

Obama has a pathological phobia for the truth, and his supporters are starting to sense this. Many of them still refuse to express their discomfort; many of them try to squelch the interior voice saying "You've been conned." No matter how they try to censor their own doubts, that inner unease is going manifest itself in some way. That's why they're kicking the Big Dog. It's all his fault. Don't ask why or how: It just is.

Glenn Greenwald is brave enough to think the forbidden thought:

During the 2008 election, Obama co-opted huge portions of the Left and its infrastructure so that their allegiance became devoted to him and not to any ideas. Many online political and "news" outlets -- including some liberal political blogs -- discovered that the most reliable way to massively increase traffic was to capitalize on the pro-Obama fervor by turning themselves into pro-Obama cheerleading squads.

At the same time, cowardly bloggers who hated what was happening to Hillary refused to speak up, for fear of losing readers. (Here's looking at you, BF.)

The major problem now is that these entities -- the ones that ought to be applying pressure on Obama from the Left and opposing him when he moves too far Right -- are now completely boxed in. They've lost -- or, more accurately, voluntarily relinquished -- their independence.

Part of the political shrewdness of Obama has been that he's been able to actually convince huge numbers of liberals that it's a good thing when he ignores and even stomps on their political ideals, that it's something they should celebrate and even be grateful for.