..but no philosophical underpinnings.
There is only one thing in common with all people who are dissatisfied with the disenchantment with and criticism of the President.
That is, they think “liberals” criticize the President too much. Not “conservatives”, no, they are to deal make with and make sweet bipartisan music.
There is only one general agenda item on the list for people who want greater support of Barack Obama and viscerally attack his liberal detractors, and that is to somehow gain greater support for Barack Obama (though, how one gets more support for the President by slapping around those who have doubts, or even attack him, is a mystery) among liberals, or to silence their voiced criticism.
There is no want, no need, no emergency, no evinced specific desire for change or improvement, that is universally and uniformly evinced by the Support Obama Genre.
Except, possibly, compromise as a first principle with any and everyone who wants to make hash out of turtle soup — those people we generally call “conservatives” when principles and not personalities are discussed. And even that is not universal, since liberals are to be bashed, not compromised with.
That’s what it has become: a genre. Like science fiction or drama.
And so now, we have a deliberate obfuscation of what the words liberal and conservative mean generally: To disagree with and attack the President is to either be a radical right winger or a radical left winger, to believe in and support the President is to be a “moderate” or a “good liberal” or a “centrist”.
This is a destruction, a deconstruction, of what those words mean, so now we are disagreeing over the basic definition of words. But, still, there is no principle that embodies these words.
There are many people who support Obama who otherwise have wants and desires. It is not to say one cannot support Obama and also be a liberal by the old definition. That is not the point. The point is, it appears the sole universal complaint of people who lionize Obama and lash out at his critics — the sole defining thing they all seem to share — is not about principle, is appears to be that to not see Obama is Just and Wise, just as Tom Tomorrow would facetiously write about Bush supporters that Bush was Just and Wise, is unacceptable.
(To endlessly argue whether we agree that President Obama is Just and Wise is not the point of anything. Or that Obama is a good and decent man, or that he believes in compromise and national reconciliation. Whether he is or believes any of these things is not my point at all.
My point being, does it matter, in terms of principle of any kind, whether any of this is so? Is it possible, to maintain moral authority in the absence or vacuousness of principle, and more importantly, what are the tangible results for the average working American in preference to political exigency of “elect Democrats or all is lost”?)
To be even vaguely liberal and to also have a want or desire that is at odds with what the President wants or does, and to criticize the President therby, even if it falls squarely into the reform column, is to put onesself at odds with the President’s supporters, professional or otherwise, and to be attacked, and called, collectively, “the professional left”.
Did you ever wonder why there are no dead penguins on the ice in Antarctica? 
Really, not as intense a tragedy as Kent State, but if he gets the Speaker’s Gavel in a wave election, another tragedy from my home state, Boehner of Orange.