At this point I remain undecided as to who to support, and at times looking at the candidates offered by both parties I’m not sure that it is even worth the wear and tear on my shoes to go out to vote for any of them. There is an excellent possibility that I’ll vote more against one candidate as opposed to for any. That said, I must say that instead of dissuading me, every time I see the left blogosphere attacking Barack Obama I count it as another point in his favor.
There’s another round of attacks on Obama today, including from Chris Bowers and Digby. The attack is centered around what is being mischaracterized as Obama attacking Paul Krugman, which apparently to many liberal bloggers would be a major sin. In reality what occurred was that Krugman has criticized some of Obama’s statements. Obama responded by defending his position and showing that Krugman had previously written favorably about the same policies he now attacks. Considering that Krugman is influential among potential Democratic voters it seems entirely reasonable to expect Obama to respond to criticism from Krugman. Liberal bloggers complain that Obama is attacking Krugman, someone from the left, as opposed to attacking Republicans. As Obama is fighting for the Democratic nomination it makes more sense that he respond to criticism from Krugman at this time as opposed to attacking Republican critics who have no influence on the Democratic primary race.
The attacks on Obama make me sympathetic towards Obama because, while I do have some disagreements with him, he is actually right in these areas. As someone who actually works in health care I find Obama’s arguments to be far more reality-based than those coming from his critics from the world of journalism. I’ve already discussed mandates in far greater detail in several posts, such as here and here. As a defender of the great liberal tradition of supporting individual liberty I cannot agree with Krugman’s argument that considering matters of choice versus government mandates constitutes adopting right wing talking points. Obama’s health plan, even without mandates, remains to the left of any of those proposed by the Democratic candidates in 2003, including John Edwards. It is also not necessarily right wing to consider the long term stability of Social Security and it is certainly not “reality based” to ignore the long term demographic trends the program must contend with.
These attacks make me more sympathetic to Obama for reasons even beyond the fact that Obama is right on these two issues. One of the reasons Obama is appealing is that he shows signs of looking beyond the orthodoxy which has developed on both the left and right which has led to increased polarization with neither side necessarily having all the right answers. While I am happy to see prospects for the Republicans to be thrown out of office, I also see danger in the Democrats again having complete control over the government. The liberal blogosphere, while right on so many issues, is developing an unhealthy uniformity of opinion in which differing views are too easily dismissed as Republican-lite. Obama’s greatest strength may be in understanding the views of other political groups far better than those who attack him. Seeing Obama pursue a liberal agenda while still managing to differ from the orthodoxy of the Democratic Party, including being the target of attacks from Krugman and a number of liberal bloggers, is a positive sign in my book. This view might not be popular in the net roots, but it is why Obama is doing so well among the more independently thinking Democratic voters.
