A reader writes:
Greenwald is in error when he states that people like me who don't identify with the left anymore (I now consider myself an open-minded moderate) want no criticism of Obama. By all means, dissent and dialogue on every issue. That is what brings a deeper understanding to all. What I object to is the nutty dogmatism, the "Obama is a liar!," "Obama is Bush/Cheney," "Obama is... whatever." It's those folks screaming about what Obama isn't doing and what he should do who seem to have invested him with Godlike qualities, not the more pragmatic of us.
They do seem to have seen him as the savior that the right was constantly suggesting many viewed him as. That he would wave his magic wand and all our problems would just evaporate. It's a very immature view with a lot of foot-stopping that seems more emotionally invested than those of us who thought he was smart, thoughtful, compassionate, and broad-minded, and would bring those qualities into all his decision-making. That's what I was looking for and that's what I'm getting.
Another reader adds:
Greenwald seems to be writing off personality traits like they are irrelevant and secondary to policy decisions, but while they may be secondary they are far from irrelevant. The point is that most of us on the outside have to form our opinions with relatively little to go on (that’s why there are so many reflexive warmongers or reflexive peaceniks.) I am not privy to most of the information the president has when making his Afghanistan decisions. I’m am also not former military, and don’t have in depth knowledge of military strategy and logistics, so while I do have an opinion on Afghanistan, I think it is most important that the president (the person with access to that knowledge) have certain personality traits that I think are conducive to finding the best solution. I think this is far more important than him reflexively supporting my uninformed opinion.