The low spark of Obama trolls
The arguments against were of precisely the same low quality you'd find at rightwinger blog or a Christian apologetics site.
Here are the first five "rebuttals":
1. Jeez, didn't LC (Larry) Johnson already run this... particular hit piece? His was shorter and easier to read than your screed.
I.e., my short attention span — and my canny mention of a random post in the world's busiest blogging community — qualifies me to call your thoughtful analysis a "hit piece." See, see, I gotcha, and I didn't even have to address the substance of the original post!
2. Reminds me of a Dennis Miller rant.
I.e., I'm comparing it to a guy who's not funny or progressive anymore. See, see, I gotcha, and I didn't even have to address the substance of the original post!
3. You completely misunderstand Obama (just as conservative columnists do) by taking him completely literally - like he actually wants to sit down and compromise with arch-conservatives. "Post-partisan" rhetoric is a clever tool for cloaking progressive reforms.
I.e., how dare you expect Obama's words to be defensible! By pretending to be an accommodating wimp who repeats disempowering Village memes, he's actually going to be strong and will get to change everything!
4. as a black man [he] can't win without campaigning as a centrist, and that's what he's doing.
I.e., a guy with that much melanin belongs in the centrist part of the bell curve.
5. [Re: the clever "post-partisan rhetoric" strategy] This is so obvious that, at some level, his Democratic detractors must understand it. But they have their own candidates to sell.
I.e., I'll bet you like poopy old Hillary or poofy old Edwards. See, see, I gotcha, and I didn't even have to address the substance of the original post!
C'mon Obamaites — better trolls, please!
If Obama does win, I hope these guys are available to play their signature song at the inauguration.