I think that the problem of most (if not all) political commentators in Reed's camp is that despite their left-wing rhetoric, they stand on a rather romantic and thus reactionary concept of political action - one that mixes charismatic leadership with spontaneous populism. In that vision, a true leader must be charismatic, and being charismatic makes it possible for him to accomplish any political objective by mere fiat of his will and perhaps direct appeal to the "masses." Any leader that falls short of this ideal and relies on political mechanisms, such as coalition building, negotiations, deals, etc. is by seen as a "sellout" and a "traitor." A prototype of such leadership is Fidel Castro, but also Adolf Hitler.
[...]
...............
It's quite alright to disagree with Reed but this is almost incoherent...or, more likely, evidence that you didn't read the essay but still wanted to brew a morning cup of theory.
Charles Brown strongly objects but at least he has the decency to address the essay's actually existing contents.
There is absolutely nothing in Reed's piece which could rationally be interpreted as a call for 'charismatic', 'populist' action. And, at no point does he suggest or explicitly state that Sen. Obama is a 'sellout' or a 'traitor'. He calls him a Democrat, of the standard sort, but with interesting aspects we should be aware of.
In fact, had you been paying attention instead of doing..whatever it is you do, you might have noticed that the piece's real target isn't the Senator at all, but his liberal and 'progressive' supporters - or rather, their beliefs.
You pulled this Salvador Dali-esque insight straight from the 8th dimensional recesses of your arse.
.d.