1.  What rules "agreed to by Hillary and Obama"?  Try to be specific - you've made this claim previously without specifics, and there's usually a reason for that - much like an Obama campaign speech.

2.  You said that Obama voters were regularly called "ignorant, stupid, and/or sheep" here.  Now, you're offering a single poster who may have made such a comment - no link or context?  If this is the kind of thing that you see regularly here, it would be easy to post a few examples, right?  I read Anne's comments regularly and haven't seen such a comment in the past couple of years, but you want to claim it's done regularly here?  Given your habit of misstating and exaggeration, particularly when it comes to other's comments, I'm not buying.  But assuming, ad arguendum, that Anne made at least one comment at some point in the past, you're surely not trying to suggest that it's representative of all or most Obama critics here, right?

They changed the rules to give FL and MI some sense of voting but that shouldnt change the outcome based on the rules everyone agreed upon.

some think that Senator Clinton should have fought to have the entire Florida delegation seated, & maybe they're right

but the DNC's Rules & Bylaws Committee, with certain of its "uncommitted" members actually already in the tank for Obama, rigged the game in his favor & violated not just the RBC's own "roolz" but also the Democratic Party's very charter when it, yes, handed Obama delegates won in Michigan by Hillary Clinton (the link goes to a video proving that not "everyone agreed" to what the RBC did)

now, you're right about one thing - Obama had been maintaining a ludicrously slight lead in pledged delegates, but the train was leaving the station, with more delegates poised to jump onboard, & with Obama himself poised to become the nominee, so the ultimate outcome was not going to be affected by this (to put it delicately) miscarriage of electoral fairness

that is exactly why it was (to use Obama's own description of his behavior on another occasion) such a "bonehead move" on his part not only to oppose revotes in Michigan and, of all places, Florida (revotes that the DNC had already approved) but also & especially to let his partisans put up such a dirty, petty fight about 4 (count them) 4 Michigan delegates

& it's in comments like this one:

What kind of message did [Michelle Obama's choices] send to the thousands of female-head-of-households within minority families . . . ?

well, golly, i don't know - has any other first lady ever been held uniquely responsible for sending any particular "message" to "minority families"? why is that Michelle Obama's job?

& it's in evidence-free assertions like these:

I think there were several reasons behind [Michelle Obama's] comments. One is to use the race card to shore up the black vote again for the election. The second is that I think Michelle really does view America through a white vs. black view . . . . Her comments show someone who has a naive and narrow historical and cultural perspective of America and who is tactless when speaking publicly on issues of race.

as if any descendant of people who were slaves on American soil "has a naive and narrow historical and cultural perspective of America"

as if people whose families are unmarked by that experience are qualified to decide who is being "tactless" on "issues of race"

& when Hillary Clinton's campaign was generating excitement in Ohio & Pennsylvania & West Virginia & Kentucky, i don't recall commenters at Riverdaughter's then overtly P*MA blog accusing Hillary of using the race card to shore up the white vote

then there's the comment that charges Michelle Obama with acting "more like a spoiled princess than an angry black woman with legitimate [sic] grievances," a comment that goes on to say that Michelle Obama

signed on for creating the notion that black women too have a right to be "white chicks"

well, the role of "white chick" is right there in the culture, isn't it? - the role of "white chick" is at least partly about privilege, since "white" is a political category, not a biological one, but is anyone at Riverdaughter's blog dissing any particular self-identified white woman for signing on to the role of "white chick"? wouldn't that be a good place to start?

anyway, since "white chick" is a role that entails at least some privilege, based as it is on belonging to a privileged political category, shouldn't any woman, if she so chooses, have the right to sign on to that role? (reading recommendations: How the Irish Became White, by Noel Ignatiev, & Working Toward Whiteness: How America's Immigrants Became White: The Strange Journey from Ellis Island to the Suburbs, by David R. Roediger, & How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says About Race in America, by Karen Brodkin)

& that's all i have to say, since you asked, on the subject of racism at Riverdaughter's crypto-P*MA echo chamber

Remember NAFTA during the Midwest primaries?  Obama ran as the more progressive candidate to get the labor/union vote by falsifying quotes from HC, blaming HC for NAFTA, and promising to renegotiate NAFTA, all the while reassuring the Canadian government it was all just posturing.  Of course, when he got elected, the promise went out the window.  He also ran on the EFCA - but that got tossed, too.

Need the anti-war vote?  Make a nice speech!  Of course, apart from giving a speech, he voted precisely the same as HC.  Maybe you remember his support to limit the use of cluster bombs (as opposed to the warmonger HC) and his vague promise to "carefully review" the Cluster Munitions Convention and do "everything feasible to promote protection of civilians in conflict".  That went out the window after the election, too.  Close Guantanamo?  Oh, well...

Civil libertarians?  Filibuster the FISA "compromise" ... or vote for it.  Decry the use of executive powers and warrantless searches - or keep right on using them - even expanding them in some cases.

Need the environmentalist vote?  Support a ban on offshore drilling and a windfall profits tax on oil companies to fund alternative energy programs!  Restore the Superfund program!  After the election ... no need, anymore.  

Health care reform?  No more secret meetings like Hillary!  we're going to televise our meetings!  Any plan I sign must have a public option!  We're going to import prescription drugs to make them more affordable!  Or, ... I'm going to have backroom deals with the insurance lobbyists and forget about a public option and importing prescription drugs.  Ooops!

Want progressives on tax policy?  promise to repeal the Bush tax cuts - or at least, just let them expire.  Also old news.  

This doesn't even touch on the issues where Obama failed to take a position, where he spoke in generalities which were freely open to interpretation by progressives and moderates alike.  What it adds up to is a candidate who, with little to no voting history on many issues, allowed himself to be sold as both a progressive and a centrist, depending on the audience and how much he needed their votes.

I never ever thought Obama was the person you describe. Ever.

Good for you - I never did either, but the issue isn't what you thought.  The issue is what many other progressives were duped into believing, sometimes because of specific promises, sometimes because they thought they were "reading between the lines" of Obama's often vague speeches and slogans.  Strange, though, ... given your ability to "read between the lines" to find instances of racism, ...

I mean come on.  No black man could get elected POTUS running as a far left liberal.  By virtue of his race HE HAD TO RUN AS SOMEONE THE RIGHT WOULDN'T FEAR.

Seriously?!?

As if any Democratic candidate could get elected POTUS running as a "far left liberal"?!?  As if the Right wouldn't have demonized any candidate (regardless of race) who was running openly as a "far left liberal"?

One person's truth is another's mischaracterization,  I think half the stuff said about Obama here, by Anne and Edger in particular, are complete mischaracterizations.

You (regularly) misstate and mischaracterize the arguments people are making, then attack their motives by suggesting they must be PUMAs or motivated by racism.

Yman was talking about you misstating and mischaracterizing the comments of the people here at TL - as in, if I say I think Obama's wrong on buying into the deficit hysteria, and tell you why, you don't get to turn my words into something else so you can have that argument instead of the one I'm making.  You can, on the other hand, tell me why Obama's right to have a case of deficit hysteria - that's how most people debate the issues here, at least most of the time.

Second, please provide some backup for stating that you think half of what Edger and I say about Obama are complete mischaracterizations; please be specific.

Third, please provide any instance where I called Obama voters "ignorant sheep."  I'm sure, if you have such a vivid memory of it, you won't have any trouble finding it for me.

Have I said on many occasions that there was plenty of information out there that would have shed more light on how a President Obama was likely to govern?  Of course - because there was.   Were there a lot of Obama supporters who cast that information aside, who refused to acknowledge it or even discuss it even when confronted with it?  Yes, because I saw it first-hand - as did many others here, I'm sure.  I'm someone who believes in the value of knowing as much as possible about whatever I'm making decisions about - I have a problem with people not doing the same, and then acting like they've been jobbed when it goes bad on them.  

You said:

Your position is based on "clear, reasoned, researched, reasons" while my support for Obama's actions is based on, as far as I can tell, pure horsesh*t.

You list the same knocks you always have and that's fine.  

The issue I have with you is that there is a big stack of accomplishments that you completely ignore in your analysis.  

Our disagreement is over the value of those positive accomplishments.

My problem with you is that you don't even acknowledge that a reasonable person could differ from your valuations.  Only someone ignorant, or stupid or brainwashed by Obama's super powers could.

That's why we butt heads

Okay...I clearly stated - I will re-post what I said:

So, you like his performance, his decisions, his actions - and I - speaking only for me - do not.  I don't have a problem with your liking how he has governed, but I do have a problem with you trying to convince me that what I know and see to be conservative policy is really "liberal."

And I have acknowledged on more than one occasion that reasonable people can disagree, but the problem I usually have with your arguments is that after you've twisted my words and assigned ulterior motives to them, I have to question just how reasonable you are if you can't have an honest debate.  And by "honest," I mean responding to the words that are there, not the ones you need them to be.

We don't agree that Obama has accomplished as much as you want to give him credit for.  Yes, he's checked a bunch of items off the to-do list, but I am, and always have been, less concerned with the list than the content of the initiatives and legislation behind it.  So, yes, he passed ACA, for example, but I don't believe it will do what it was sold as - solving the crisis in health care - nor do I believe it will save the people any money.