the scott lemieux/jonathan chait axis

i understand that establishment tools like chait, and lesser establishment tools like lemieux, have one and only one function: cheerleading toady.  that's fine, but when they take on soft targets like drew weston just because that target might not be sufficiently deferential to their leader, that's pretty bush league.  weston's kind of a dope, but lemieux and chait's thesis is pretty fucking lame: because obama failed to be a leader, presidents have not ever been leaders and are incapable of being leaders, so obama is really cool--and shut up!