It seems then that you do agree there’s a difference between voting for Obama because of “Obamania” (you know, the Che’bama t-shirts, etc) and voting for him as the lesser evil. In which case, IMHO, that seems to answer the first part of your post where you wonder how it is that Doug can have it both ways. It seems he can exactly by pointing out these different types. Which then brings us to the real issue, which as you say, is whether anything good can be gained by harping on this difference.
> Now, again, that Obama engaged
> new groups of people in politics (people who tend to be among the main
> natural constituencies of the left, so we leftists have a vested
> interest in those people taking whatever baby steps they can take
> collectively) was duly demonstrated in the electoral turnout (and, to
> some extent, is still shown today in the steady support that some of
> them give to Obama, in spite of everything)?
The turnout makes Doug’s point, no? Youth vote came out in 2008 due to Obamania. By 2010 they were disillusioned enough to stay at home at greater percentages than they usually do for the mid-terms… they were no longer interested in politics (or they never were). The hero worship, as you note (“steady support”), lingers on, so each time Glenn Greenwald tweets in criticism a blatant Obama betrayal or ruthlessness, they retort with flames. I think this is why criticising Obamania and saying “I told you so” matters. Not for the pleasure/schadenfreude but to reinforce the validity of the initial argument. Conjectures, verifications, refutations, that sort of thing.
Subtract anyone who went for any of the anti-war rallies 2001-2005 from those who went to the Jon Stewart rally last year, and you are left with a sizeable chunk of humans who are issue conscious but apolitical. It seems valid and important to ask/say whether they can be politicised and whether weaning them off Obama is the first step in that direction.
—ravi