Back on June 8th, I posted on Obama being criticized by Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald is still at it, although he does also cover the more outrageous behavior of the right (as does the rest of Salon) and Congress, and the media, etc etc. I want to throw John Stewart into the criticizing Obama from a liberal perspective category too. Somebody had a piece (maybe Slate, I dunno) about how Stewart is showing that 'I believed in you and you have let me down' sort of vibe. And fair enough, I can understand Obama on health care reform, letting Congress do the heavy lifting but also taking the most moderate approach imaginable. I can understand Obama on Afghanistan, trying to leave the country with a stable democracy by ramping up before we leave (I pretty much disagree with that, btw, though all the options have lots of downsides). But I can't understand Obama continuing Bush era policies regarding wiretapping, and I can't understand the administration aggressively prosecuting the soldier involved in the Wikileaks-helicopter gunship attack in Iraq video.
I mean, I am willing to say that in the real world, we need to look at what Obama has had to deal with, versus what has gotten done. In the real world, the stimulus probably got as much done as it could, considering the limitations loaded into at the start by Obama and the Congress. And healthcare reform sapped maybe as much as a year of the political narrative, making it difficult to do anything in that time. But if wire tapping or whistle blowing come up, don't move to the right.
Now, a bad Obama is still much better than Bush nine times out of ten. Doesn't mean Obama shouldn't be criticized. I can complain and still vote for the man (and I will try to praise him when he does something I approve of). I might vote for someone else in a primary, but if Obama is the democratic candidate, I will likely vote for him. I suspect Jon Stewart and Glenn Greenwald might voice similar opinions.