@Kitt

"Isn't that what this post of Glenn's is basically about? Holding the guy accountable for his actions?"--Kitt

To be honest, no. I don't think Glenn is contributing to holding Obama (or Bush or anyone else) accountable. Nor should he be in that biz.--zeroworker

(1) If Obama takes action or makes a decision that you think is good and constructive, say so and give him credit;

(2) If Obama takes action or makes a decision that you think is bad, wrong and/or destructive, say so and criticize him for it;

(3) If there were things you claimed to find so horrible and wrong when Bush did them (indefinite detention, denial of habeas corpus, renditions, state secrets, endless wars, military commissions, compulsive secrecy), and Obama does them, apply the same standards. As Bob Herbert put it rather simply: "Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House."

(4) If there are ongoing debates about policy, agitate for the outcome you think is best rather than the one the White House wants, where those two are different. If there are policies you think should be adopted that aren't, complain about that, critique it, and find ways to maximize pressure.

(5) Don't personalize political leaders and be driven by emotional attachments to them one way or the other. They're nothing more than public servants -- an extremely powerful one in the case of the President -- who should be assessed based exclusively on their actions.

(6) If anything, when it comes to the most powerful political official on the planet, it's best to err on the side of excessive checks and criticism rather than excessive deference and trust. Presidents have no shortage of people and institutions loyally devoted to their message and agenda.--GlennGreenwald

Sure looks that way to me.

Brilliant - now for the hard part. How do you propose to hold him accountable, besides ranting on the UT comment section?

-- zeroworker

Isn't that what this post of Glenn's is basically about? Holding the guy accountable for his actions? That takes many more forms than "ranting" on UT comment section. Is what Hamsher has been doing what you'd call "ranting? For that matter is what Glenn has been doing what you would call "ranting"? Elections are not the one and the only moment of accountability. There is a record being well documented of what Obama has and has not done. Unlike in the last election, that record will speak many more volumes than what we had to work with regarding his record the first time around.

A primary candidate running against Obama is not such a wildly out of the question route for us to take. Because, as I said, Obama is building a track record, and some of it is undeniably awful.

I don't know and don't need to know just yet who could run well against Obama. It probably should be someone who all ready has a record, such as Feingold. But it could also be someone we have yet to hear from. I know that a Senate run is not the same level as a presidential run but still, Lamont did well against an entrenched incumbent, the horrid Lieberman. If Lamont would have had a bit more staytoitiveness he might have won. So it might be that someone who, at this time, is not a household name could come along and then do well against Obama in a primary and then win the general.

even if he hasn't managed to make the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan magically vanish.

Look, the guy does not have a magic wand. Heck, Harry Potter DID have a magic wand, and still took seven volumes to defeat Voldemort!

-- Susan Wood

Why is it that you and others who try to defend Obama against what I am calling reasoned criticism you use that snark-ass line about "magically vanish"? What we are asking is to see real attempts and progress about moving in the right direction of getting us out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan. That has not been happening. And, even though you might think that Obama is some kind of God who can make things "magically vanish" or "magically" makes something happen, we don't. We think he is a man, a president who happens to be in a position to do one thing or the other or move in one direction or the other. We are displeased with what he has and hasn't done. We are displeased with the directions he has taken. We are not concerned with what he has or has not done "magically", because we don't believe in magic when it comes to politicians. Do you?

PS to all of those who believe in magic. My apologies for speaking out of turn if magic is part of your belief system.

Other than the DNC

I'm not really sure whom this post was intended to address.

-- wyne11

Well let me help you then. You could read the following comment which can be found directly after your own. Comments just like this one can be found in the thousands on blogs such as Kos and HuffingtonPost.

This President has the potential for greatness. He has the integrity, the vision, the charisma, the intelligence and the drive. He wants to do good. He's trying to inspire people to do good. Why participate in the conspiracy to tear him down at every turn over petty shit? This makes him less effective, not more effective, and it just make you look like a bitter extremist.

-- Maristow