Reply #26: I don't think I can be accused of "picking nits" by using your own terms.

[spoony]

Here's the problem: there's a huge difference in arguing that Obama serves, willingly or otherwise, corporate interests, and simply calling him names. You were arguing specifically that the latter was going on. I searched and did not find that the case. I did a similar search on "corporatist tool"--a step up from "whore" but still probably uncharitable--and similarly found very few instances of it referring to Obama after the election (apparently the primaries were more vicious than I remembered, though).

Guess what the only result for "bankster shill" is? Yeah, your post. And saying that the President has "corporate masters" is not, I don't think, an insult. It's a reality. It's not even necessarily a critique of Obama; it's rather a recognition of the fact that for a long, long time our leaders have been expected to cater to, and have usually caved in to, corporate interests. Obama has done a lot more than his predecessors to kick against the pricks, but he has also, imo, nodded to them more than I'd like to see.