Obama and the netroots

Paul Krugman doesn't seem to like Barack Obama. Neither do many of the big liberal bloggers. From what I can tell, this has little to do with the policy positions he holds than his general attitude. Indeed, the only complaints about Obama that I ever hear mentioned among the netroots are:

1. That he opposes mandates for healthcare, and by extension opposes universal healthcare
2. That he mentions a Social Security "crisis"

That is about it. It seems a little silly to dismiss the most talented Democratic politician since Bill Clinton by these criteria, so the arguments usually boil down to complaints about his attitude:

• He hasn't sufficiently embraced the progressive movement
• He is too conciliatory toward the "bad guys"
• He does not understand/is not committed to fighting the obstacles he will face in office

I suspect that the second bullet point is the big deal-breaker here. Opposing mandates is a legitimate gripe (and I disagree with Obama there) but mandates aren't perfect either, and it just seems like a minor distinction. Since nobody is proposing Medicare for All, the goal here is to try to create a system that takes a few steps in that direction that can be scaled up in the future. All three plans do that, and they are, for the most part, interchangeable. The Social Security thing is just stupid. It's not a crisis, and Obama is wrong to refer to it as such. It's a minor issue, but probably not for seniors (and more than a few beltway types). The idea expressed by Krugman (among others) that Obama is somehow negating the Major Progressive Victory Of The Bush Era is a little overblown. Only Fred Thompson is talking about privatizing Social Security, and Wonkette's nickname for him is apt. The victory stands, largely, for now.

On the other hand, Obama's attitude does not mirror the bloggers'. The Kos-Atrios wing of the party might complain about his understanding of what he'll need to do as President, but I suspect that Edwards is their favorite because he's been willing to embrace the movement and strike an ultra-confrontational pose, and these folks don't want to just win, they want to beat the bloody pulp out of the conservatives. And I sympathize. They might turn out to be right. But a strong mandate and an expanded Senate majority might make for some good leverage, and panicking conservatives would probably be more willing to meet Obama halfway than Edwards or Clinton. A conciliatory approach might not work, but it does leave the toolbox open for the future, and Obama could legitimately claim later on that he tried to bring people together, but that those darned obstructionist Republicans kept it from happening.

In sum, the case against Obama would only make sense to me if an argument could be constructed that collaborating with the GOP at all would make a progressive agenda more difficult to pass. I don't buy that. Questioning Obama's commitment to progressivism is more legitimate, but there's nothing that's made me question it yet.