Is it me or has the Snowden worship disappeared?

[Summer Hathaway]

108. Isn't it amusing

to watch people who have called Obama-supporters "worshippers" for years on this site now object to the use of the term when it comes to Snowden-supporters?

Of course, there is one glaring difference between the two groups:

Obama has been a known entity for a very long time - via the political offices he has held, the public statements/speeches he has made, the books he has written, and the positions he has taken.

Needless to say, once elected POTUS, Obama, like any other president, has been scrutinized by supporters and non-supporters alike. He has been questioned on every issue, every stance, every word he utters. The minutest details of his life have been laid bare.

Those who support him do so based on all of the above - which, I doubt anyone would disagree, is a rather substantial body of knowledge to be weighed and evaluated in coming to a decision as to whether one supports him or not.

Snowden, on the other hand, was deified by many here within forty-eight hours of his name being heard for the first time. They had no idea who he was, what he stands for, what his motives were in doing what he did, etc. He was simply hoisted on the collective shoulders of those who heard what they wanted to hear - accusations that the Big Bad Gov't was 'spying' on them, a statement that many saw as the "smoking gun" that could be used to bring Obama and his administration down in flames.

In other words, the Snowden-supporters based their support on the word of a man they knew absolutely nothing about.

As soon as details started to emerge about Snowden the man, his supporters were quick to insist that it's not about the man, it's about what he had to say. And the fact that what he had to say was (a) old news, and (b) assertions never proven to this day, was irrelevant. They had chosen their hero, and as that hero proved less than heroic, they refused to hear anything that might destroy the sainthood they'd already blindly conferred.

Any queries into Snowden "the man" were immediately characterized as "smears". Any facts brought to light about his past were labelled as "character assassination".

And one can't miss the irony in the fact that the same people who post every single detail they can find about every Obama appointee - in an effort to get all the facts about an individual on the table, usually in order to yell Is THIS the kind of man/woman who should be placed in this position? - are the same people who think Snowden should not be subject to the same scrutiny in order to assess his credibility.

The phrase just ignore the man behind the curtain, oft-invoked by those who think there is something suspicious about the people behind every Obama administration position or decision, are now telling everyone that the curtain is what we should all be focused on - while the man behind it is not to be so much as peaked at, lest he be proven to be something other than as advertized.

Those who jumped on the Snowden bandwagon without kicking the tires before hopping on board now have no alternative but to admit they leaped before taking the time to look. And they will continue to insist that they couldn't possibly have been wrong in their decision to do so - despite all mounting evidence to the contrary.