The Criticizable Obama

So I guess the idea is out there that those of us who are backing Barack Obama at this point aren't just supporting him, but we're deranged lunatics who think he's completely above criticism and that any dissent is beyond the pale. Well, I dunno, maybe there are some people like that. For the record, though, I think the people who have been pointing out that his health care plan isn't really viable over anything other than the shortest of terms unless it's modified to include the sort of mandate that he's criticized are correct. I don't see this as nearly as big a deal as some other folks, but the criticism is accurate. Similarly, as I've said before he didn't cover himself with glory with his coal-related conduct in the Senate. And it's also true that he was basically MIA from some important war debates throughout 2005.

More broadly, though, while I definitely prefer Obama on foreign policy grounds, he's left himself open to a lot of legitimate criticism. The problem for Hillary Clinton is that she hasn't made those criticisms, instead she's made different criticisms I disagree with. But I warmed considerably to John Edwards before Iowa when he started talking about things like explicitly disavowing preventive war as a tool of non-proliferation policy and putting his critique of the "war on terror" conceptual framework front and center. Obama's recent promise to "end the mindset" that led to the war in Iraq is a tantalizing hint of a doctrinal dispute with Clinton that goes beyond "I was against authorizing the war and you weren't nyah nyah nyah" but I don't think it's really been fleshed out.

So there you have it. Nobody's perfect, not even Barack Obama. And, indeed, it must be extremely annoying for Hillary supporters to watch Obama get mostly-glowing press coverage while Clinton continues to be beseiged by the media's evident loathing of her. That said, the habit of arguing against Obama by knocking the least-sound arguments made on his behalf is pretty silly -- it's a giant country with hundreds of millions of citizens, and any widely known politician is going to be supported by some dumb people wielding silly arguments. It's the good arguments that you need to worry about.

Comments

I'd add that the hints Obama has dropped that he'd somehow get rid of lobbyists in DC, or at least drastically reduce their influence, amount to, charitably, wishful thinking. Nobody, not Obama, not Jesus, not even Chuck Norris, is going to significantly change the structure of influence of lobbyists in DC.

(I voted for Obama and hope to do so again)

Posted by when the rain | February 13, 2008 11:47 PM

"But I warmed considerably to John Edwards before Iowa when he started talking about things like explicitly disavowing preventive war as a tool of non-proliferation policy..."

Yeah, but you've been wishy-washy on whether war in any case is a valid approach to non-proliferation, especially in the case of Iran, which is the only "proliferation" issue on the table at the moment (unless you count Israel - which you should - and haven't.)

"and putting his critique of the "war on terror" conceptual framework front and center. Obama's recent promise to "end the mindset" that led to the war in Iraq is a tantalizing hint of a doctrinal dispute with Clinton that goes beyond "I was against authorizing the war and you weren't nyah nyah nyah" but I don't think it's really been fleshed out."

That part - that it hasn't been fleshed out - is correct, as I've been screaming about for days here.

Obama is clueless about the problem of terrorism, as is Clinton. Worse, he's had quite a problem with militaristic talk about "finishing the fight in Afghanistan" and "taking the fight to Al Qaeda in Pakistan". That, to me, sounds like a doctrinal mindset not much different from McCain.

At least with McCain, you can pretty much assume he's going to start throwing troops into Afghanistan and Pakistan (IF he can find any) almost immediately, if not actually attacking Iran five minutes after the Inaugural.

But with Obama, it's vague "fightin' talk" without any apparent perception of the problems the US faces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Has Obama no advisers on his team that can give him some sort of comprehension of what's going on in those two places? He can't be more specific about his overall strategy in dealing with those two countries?

Aside from his rhetoric about Iran being a "threat", and his babbling about "diplomacy", what exactly is his end goal in dealing with Iran? No comment.

There's no "there" there in Obama's foreign policy. It's all rhetoric - albeit different rhetoric than McCain's - with no specific strategy or specific goals.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 14, 2008 12:24 AM

Hmm very interesting. A whole post clearly criticizing Paul Krugman and yet I don't find the name anywhere.

Not that you are worried that he is influential and has a thin skin and has been hammering Obama for months because the Obama campaign said he flip flopped on mandates.

I however have the courage to type his first and last name and my first name. You won't say who I am right ? right ? (just found out I had to give an e-mail address)

Posted by robert banana | February 14, 2008 10:55 AM