[I use an example of a particular blogger as he might -- as an example of a trend that goes beyond him, just as an op-ed can provide a launching board for discussion while not being seen as gospel.]
Glenn Greenwald repeatedly cites statements that underline to him that President Obama has violated campaign promises, such as openness during the health care debate. It all gets rather depressing, especially since he does not really provide perspective: the overall message is that he is a same old same old liar, leading to loads of comments about how crappy everything is. The problem is that this simply is not true -- things have improved and some good things have occurred. The reduced expectations does not change this.
GG might say that it's not his job to cheer on Obama, but his accounts (at times shoving qualifiers like how he is ambivalent about the health care bill, not strongly opposed, deep inside posts) with titles and repeated references that send a different message. The result is somewhat misleading. When called on this, he is at times a tad too defensive, and it pisses me off a tad. This does not erase his message -- Obama deserves to be called on various things. On some level, I feared this when he ran, since Obama seemed to me then to (ironically) not be audacious enough. Compromising too much, even while promoting nice sounding things in principle. And, on some level it was not just compromising, but he himself deep down supported. [Bottom line, if he thinks something is not politically possible, what he would like in 'let's all have a pony' land is really not too important.]
Sometimes, the problems are mixed. The NYT had an article today about how Gitmo might not close until 2011 ("at the earliest"). This after even President Bush (fwiw, i.e., not much) said we wanted the place closed down as did McCain. Of course, McCain is a b.s. artist, even Maureen Dowd now on his case as a naysayer no different than your average Republican. Obama's detainee policies underline that responsibility in this area is partly on his shoulders. Nonetheless, congressional Democrats also share the blame here, since any move would have to be paid for by Congress. Something allegedly bipartisan -- Gitmo has to close -- suddenly is deemed controversial. Yet again depressing mixed with aggravating.
Other times, it rests on Obama's shoulders. He didn't have to stay behind the scenes as health care was delayed in the Senate. He surely didn't have to provide this level of b.s. ... saying he didn't "campaign on" [note the b.s. -- a message is sent but it can be spun otherwise; see the comments in the DK entry here trying to avoid the common sense understanding of his words] the public option. The thing to do in situations like this is to note that you really wanted something, but given the necessities of the situation, compromise was required. And, the net result is still useful in promoting your overall aims. You don't simply say that you never really promoted the idea. It really rankles in this area since it is just a piece of the whole bait and switch -- single payer was not even "on the table" (as with impeachment, what the hell would be the problem with that? a fair hearing doesn't mean you have to pass the f-ing thing) since a compromise was put in place.
But, progressive supporters of what Obama himself promoted don't deserve to have the bargain upheld. Come on, it's necessary, don't be like that. People who call them on it are naysayer fools, like Howard Dean, clear a bunch of Naderites or something. The likes of Sen. Sanders do get useful things like health care centers added to the bill, but overall the general public might rightly be upset about the whole thing. It just rankles to have Obama come out Peter-like (public option? I know not what you are talking about ... but we have evidence from your own lips ... I deny it) on this point. The spin some supporters used when a Daily Kos diary pointed the matter out is almost amusing if also sad.
For Weber, "three pre-eminent qualities are decisive for the politician: passion, a feeling of responsibility, and a sense of proportion."
These guidelines are pretty useful in general, though if you are an advocate, not so much. You often are somewhat "johnny (jane) one note" though I think even there useful advocacy can be done by keeping some perspective. A cause is often promoted by accepting the complications of the situation. Anyway, even a politician has to be kept to certain standards, and at times (even in the perspective of a politician) Obama does not. There we can call b.s. and push against him, demanding more. Such situations can very well be those where even as a politician, he is acting badly. Obvious b.s. like this statement is bad on that front. Note how the Kos diary speaks of "surprise" -- not "disappointment" alone.*
Ah well. It shall be a slog, if somewhat in the right direction.
---
* See also, Joan Walsh:
The latest insult is the president telling the Washington Post on Tuesday: "I didn't campaign on the public option," when in fact it was a staple of his policy papers and Web platform. It's an astonishing statement. His supporters are right to chastise Obama.
Again, note the "astonishing" bit. Walsh knows how politics works, she isn't naive. This underlines the level of b.s. in the statement. Here's a more sympathetic view of things. I'm not really convinced. "Campaigned" now means "invested much time" now? Come on. It's not that convincing is it? On that level, it deserves the footnote status it is getting here.