An excellent diary on the rec list points to a Special Comment by Keith Olbermann calling out Robert Gibbs for his ill-considered remarks about the left. Olbermann's comment is good, but doesn't go far enough. Want to know what's far enough? Follow me.
The Rude Pundit always lives up to his name. In the case of the contemptible Robert Gibbs, though,he hits the nail on the head not once but repeatedly.
So, let's get this straight, Bobby G. We on the left warned your boss and the Democrats that every time you reached out your hands to the Republicans, those fuckers would just gnaw on 'em. But you kept on with the effort of bipartisanship, watering down bills and watering 'em down. Anyone with a lick of sense knew that the GOP was just setting you up: force 'em to compromise and then make sure that what gets passed does just a scintilla of what could have been done. On bill after bill these mad negotiations occurred, and now you're accusing us of not living in reality? No, really, truly, fuck you, man.
Everyone on the left understands the need to compromise. People on the left aren't threatening to sit out the election just because of compromise, but because of lack of leadership. To take just one example, taking single-payer and (in back room deals) taking even the public option off the table before health care reform negotiations even started isn't leadership. It's not change we can believe in. It's not even a negotiating tactic because only an idiot would fail to realize that in any negotiation you start out asking for more than you expect to get. Only an idiot would fail to see that advocating for single payer and a public option would lay down a marker for the future. And since Obama is not an idiot, that means he didn't want single-payer or the public option in the first place. The deal was a sell-out of the American people to corporate interests because that's how Obama rolls.
Gibbs also said, "I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested. I mean, it's crazy." You really wanna have this fight? 'Cause when's the last time you called the Tea Party delusional or "crazy." And here's a hint on how to prevent liberals from saying Barack Obama is like George W. Bush: stop acting like Bush. Howzabout an easy one: don't take the same cruel positions as the Bush administration in court cases that continued after Bush was out of office. Howzabout another easy one: do something without compromising, like order a halt to any effort to drum gay soldiers out of the military. Howzabout closing Gitmo, like the President promised endlessly on the campaign trail? Howzabout not saying you have the right to murder Americans abroad at will? Howzabout recess appointing everyone the Republicans are holding up? An aggressive stance towards the GOP ain't just about words, man. Words are worthless. It's action that matters.
To which I add, howzabout prosecuting torturers and war profiteers instead of whistleblowers and child soldiers? Howzabout NOT putting the same people in charge of the economy who helped Wall Street commit the biggest theft in human history? Howzabout not putting an oil industry flunky in charge of the Interior Department?
And to Obama's defenders, from the professional flacks like Gibbs to the amateur hero worshippers people around here, howzabout answering the criticisms for once, instead of attacking the messenger or changing the subject with a list of exaggerated achievements. Go ahead:
*Justify giving torturers and war profiteers a pass
*Justify prosecuting whistleblowers
*Justify ordering assassinations
*Justify claiming the right to imprison people FOREVER without trial
*Justify 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan at a cost of 30 billion dollars a year
*Justify appointing Ken Salazar
*Justify not firing Ken Salazar for his incompetent oversight of MMS
*Justify letting BP try to cover up the size of the spill through the massive use of dispersants
*Justify the formation of a Cat Food Commission on Social Security stacked with people who are on the record in favor of slashing it
*Justify campaigning for Blanche Lincoln after she threatened to filibuster health care insurance reform if it had the public option
*Justify candidate Obama's 180 on FISA and subsequent lying about safeguards that the bill did not contain
*Justify appointing two of the architects of the biggest rip-off in human history, Geithner and Bernanke, to his economic team
*Justify having a prominent, homophobic backer of Proposition H8 give the invocation at the inaugural. Out of all the clergymen in the world
*Justify caving in to the right-wing noise machine instead of confronting it on ACORN, Van Jones and Shirley Sherrod
*Justify record defense budgets
*Justify the lack of a strong stand on net neutrality
We all get that this Administration is better than the last one in some ways. Yes, Obama is better than the worst president in history. I'll concede that. We all know that there are some accomplishments. That does not, however, make the criticisms any less legitimate.
UPDATE: Thank you all for commenting, including those of you who disagree. I'd just like to ask that we all avoid name-calling. It's hard to do and as you can see, I had to correct myself in this very diary, so I'm certainly no angel. I think we should try to keep in mind that however much we may disagree on individual politicians and on political strategies, we all want most of the same things when it comes to the direction we would like the country to be headed. Mataliandy does a nice job trying to keep us from talking past each other.
UPDATE II: There was an excellent diary last night that covered much of the same ground and did it better in some ways. Certainly more thoughtfully. Hesiod also has one that sheds more light than heat.
UPDATE III: marknspokane has requested that I include a reference to the Shirley Sherrod debacle. So let me add:
*Justify not firing Tom Vilsack for his cowardly, panicked firing of a devoted public servant on the basis of a video put out by a proven liar.
UPDATE IV: 3goldens added some more issues, further establishing that there's a lot more to the criticism from the left than wanting Canadian-style health care (not that there's anything wrong with that) and the elimination of the Pentagon.
UPDATE V: About that poll. Several people are angry that it did not give the option for "none of the above." Personally, I think the comments give ample opportunity to express disagreement and the poll was meant to be a joke. In future, though, I will add "Pie" as a stand-in for "none of the above."
UPDATE VI: Well, lots of comments, on the rec list for more than a day and the only criticisms I got were either for being rude or for opening my mouth in the first place. As of this writing, NONE of Obama's defenders were able to respond to the substance of the criticisms, except for occasionally pointing out the 60-vote requirement in the Senate. That is relevant, though arguable, with regard to health care reform. PERIOD. Unfortunately for Obama's defenders, Obama is constrained by the 60-vote requirement on NONE of the other issues on my list. He is 100% responsible for those actions. And that, ultimately, is why Gibbs' whinging is so out of line. It is quite simply wrong for any defender of Obama to try to claim that criticisms of him should not be made or are without substance.