"Cult or no cult, this week I just started getting really confused about you. I mean, when people start to say that your strengths are actually weaknesses? That just makes sense, if you really think about it. I mean, what's the point of being such an inspirational speaker if all you can do is give inspirational speeches? Do better, Barack. I mean, do worse!"

Hello?! The butt of her joke is not "Obamaniacs." It is the people who slap support for Obama with this term, implying that the inspiration people feel from Obama is in of itself indicative of his lack of substance, when of course it does not "make sense" that a strength like the ability to inspire is actually a weakness. Nor does it make sense that you can't be taken taken seriously unless you appear to "be more of a jerk or play hard to get"--so your supporters can claim that their support is more "objective" just because they can say they don't personally like you much.

Certain Obama and Hillary supporters here really need to examine the source of their own self-righteousness if they believed that Lithwick is actually dense enough to criticize an Obama supporter by suggesting they would abandon their "cult" because "cults are sooo 70's."

Being able to inspire earnest hope in people is a GOOD quality in a leader. It's not a sufficient criteria but neither does inspiring cynicism prove you have everything else. If Clinton supporters want to claim Obama has no substance they need support it with the actual weakness they find in his positions -- claiming the apparent lack of cynicism in his supporters is just not, well, substantial.

I don't know why you think the target of Lithwick's post is those who criticize Obama supporters as easily swayed by inspirational speeches. It sure sounds to me like she's saying those who support him are shallow fad-followers and will withdraw their support for him for equally shallow, fad-following reasons.

No. The OP is completely right. The voice that Lithwick wrote this piece in is of a vapid idiot. She's mocking the Obamamaniac/cult meme that conservatives and Hillary supporters are promulgating.

I'm also amazed that so many Slate readers can't recognize sarcasm.

Can't she be mocking both? Isn't satire about not just exposing the ridiculousness of the world around you, but your own, too?

The author is firing sarcasm with an indiscriminate shotgun blast, with Obama supporters, cynical bloggers of all stripes, flighty and fickle 20-somethings and trend-conscious fools all receiving their share of the harm. I don't think this brand of cynicism is very useful, and isn't that amusing. Amazingly some people "fell for it" which I suppose couldn't have been the point of the overly obvious conceit of the piece. It's a bit difficult to parse the author's actual perspective through the sarcasm and cultural references, but it's still clear enough that there are multiple targets.

It's almost a bit hard to believe that a few of the respondents can actually manage to set up the e-mail account required to register at Slate. Perhaps they didn't catch the absurdity of a writer so vapid using phrases like "venomous drone" and referencing far too many outside sources and helpful links. Either that or the layer of sarcasm of the responses is so deep and impenetrable that a statement like "I think it's great this smart girl was able to realize the error of her ways and come out of that Obama fog" has fooled this reader into assuming that many really cannot detect sarcasm and satire.

As for the article itself, it left a sour taste in my mouth. That could be because I'm an Obama supporter not entirely confident in the rationality and thoughtfulness of the population at large, but it also could be that it wasn't that amusing a commentary in the first place. And even though it was a bit reminiscent of a particularly bad Maureen Dowd column, it was certainly incisive. Hinting at least at the zeitgeist of the hip and cynical youth of our mid-February moment. I think I'll make my way back to Andrew Sullivan's blog now where the Obama praise flows freely. Thank you for the interlude.

Lindy:

Minimumly competent satire requires an incisive characterization of its target. Wanton vituperation (such as the oft-used cheap gimmick of equating your opponent to Hitler) only conveys the melodramatic spite of the "satirist".

If someone actually believes Obama supporters are so asinine as to be unconscious of the self-parody in comparing their own backing to an I-phone fad, then he/she just helped Dana Lithwick score a point.

areinstein:

From the same case I made above, whatever convincingly critical shot Lithwick is aiming at Obama supporters is lost on the crudely cartoonish characterization of the self described recovering "Obamamanic."

And regarding Andrew Sullivan...those looking for a real convincing parody of unbridled Obama worship will find his site a good place to start.

shoeshinesal:

I think I'll make my way back to Andrew Sullivan's blog now where the Obama praise flows freely. Thank you for the interlude.

Yes, please do! Because reading opposing opinions is unpleasant and unflattering to the ego, let's be honest. Go wrap yourself in a cocoon of people who agree with you, and don't ever worry about anything else, ever.

I mean, you say you're concerned with "the rationality and thoughtfulness of the population at large" and yet, you can make statements like the above with no sense of irony whatsoever. Wow.

Its not a lack of cynicism its a lack of reality. Insiration is a good thing for a leader to have but dangerous if that leader cant back it up. I dont have a problem with Obama, he's doing what he needs to do. I take issue with people like yourself crying foul because of the bad words people use against your "leader". You people are sinking the dem's. Plain and simple. Once again you've been lazy and havent done your homework. Similar to sitting at home when Bush was elected yet again. Clinton may not be perfect but either is the world we live in. To combat this imperfectin we need some one who knows the way around DC. I listen to Obama supporters and they all sound like the white guy from Texas that Matthews asked, "what did Obama support while he was on the Hill?, Name one..." The guy couldnt. Gives you a birds eye. Below is some supstance for you...

The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?

I believe its already to late...You've doomed us to another four years of stone age thinking. Think about that when you, your wife or your girlfriend no longer have the chance to make a choice.