There is nothing wrong with criticizing future president Obama, but some on the left want to make him pay an electoral price for not doing what they want. It is a dangerous strategy and it needs to stop.
First Robert Creamer has a great article over at Huffingtonpost explaining why the left can criticize all the want, but needs to back off the character attacks. Check it out here.
Key point here:
1). Go right ahead and disagree with an Obama position or statement -- but disagree on the substance. Don't impute some venal motive. Remember that even when you disagree with him on an issue or policy, Obama shares our progressive values.
I think there are some "issue activists" who 1) think they are right, and refuse to entertain anyone else having another position. 2) Think if they attack his charecter, the risk of damage will force Obama in to their position.
By far the worst example is people on the left who have jumped on the Iraq meme. It is the ultimate concern troll, in that they are warning him not to do what the press is saying he did, even though the two I have read, admitted her didn't change his position.
First comes from Bill Press, also via HuffPo:
Still, those were not issues central to the campaign. Obama could shift positions on such secondary issues, most observers agreed, as long as he didn't waffle on the war. Uh-oh. Guess what? He just did.
That is funny because we all know the quote he is going to use and Obama didn't waffle on it, if he had it would be a HUGE deal. Thanks Bill press you just reinforced the right wing lie. Your concern has been oh so helpful to Obama.
So after he repeats the "refine" quote he rants for a couple of paragraphs how bad this is.
Then gets to this:
To his credit, Obama quickly moved to clarify his statement. He repeated his determination to end the war and to start bringing homes immediately at the pace of what he hopes will be one or two brigades a month - by which schedule all American troops would be out of Iraq in 16 months. There was, Obama insisted, no change in his position.
And in fact, during the primaries, Obama repeatedly expressed the caution (perhaps lost on his supporters) that how quickly we could pull troops out of Iraq would depend on conditions on the ground. As he put it so artfully: "We have to be as careful getting out, as we were careless going in."
My favorite is how the caution had to have been lost on his supporters. Actually we knew about it, that is why we know his statement is consistent. Apparently the caution was willfully lost on the media though.
Still, the damage is already done. Perception, too often, is reality. To hear Obama say he's open to "refining" his policies on Iraq is enough to inject joy into the McCain campaign and fear into the heart of every Democrat.
Really what democrats are freaking out? I have seen none.
So the point of Bill Press' article: Obama has been consistent, but this is still all his fault. And what was his stated claim for writing this? It is in the tittle "Note to Obama... Don't Go Soft on Iraq!" He didn't but your article seems to be hell bent on making him pay a political price on the illusion of it.
Then we get to the most egregious attack I have seen yet(on FIsa not Iraq). Paul Rosenberg at openleft.
Obama vs. Obama--Whatever Happened To THIS Guy??? (+)
by: Paul Rosenberg
Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:49
February 10th, 2007:
"This campaign can't only be about me. It must be about us - it must be about what we can do together. This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle, of your hopes, and your dreams. It will take your time, your energy, and your advice - to push us forward when we're doing right, and to let us know when we're not. This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.... That's why I'm in this race. Not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation."
July 3, 2008:
"Never mind!"
Discuss :: (194 Comments, 2 new) digg it
After reading that I removed myself from the Fisa group at mybarackoabam.com. Its essentially name calling and it fits into the republican talking point. "You don't know this guy, you can't trust him."
I let Mr Rosenberg know how, I thought he was risking the war, to win the battle.
He reponded:
You think that FISA is the battle, and the election is the war.
We think that the election is the battle, and the preservation of the Constitution is the war.
Actually I think president McCain would do far more damage to the constitution than the Fisa Bill passing. The implication is clear though: His position supports the constitution, having an opposing position means you don't.
The attitude is "I'm right, and if you disagree with me you are flawed." This attitude is actually something Obama has criticized from the right and the left. At open left they have never liked that. Openleft also argued (correctly) throughout the entire primary that Obams message was centrist. Mr Rosenburg has blogged on this topic, so it is completely disingenuous for him to claim that Obama's quoted statement lead him, or anyone else, to believe that Obama would not take centrists positions.
So you may ask what is the point of a gratuitous attack on Obama? My guess is that some on the left think they can make him pay an electoral price for not doing what they want. Dont take part in this risky strategy(yes I know I'm kinda concern trolling, but I really think it is dangerous)