Reply #7: You confused me, and if there's still time you may want to edit.

[ElboRuum]

"....Obama would back the former group and not the latter"

I think you mean he'd back the latter group.

Now, let me get to the point.

As I've often thought about this oft spoken argument, those who make this distinction offer up this false choice to justify their latter group membership.

Firstly, the way you characterized the former group, in such a derisive manner, while respectfully characterizing the latter group sets up your strawman. And please don't do like everyone else does when they are accused of setting up a strawman... deny it. A strawman is a fragile and often overly simplistic construct of the opponent's position in an argument meant to be easier to tear down than one that was fairly observed. Strawman. You have it.

Secondly, as characterized, this former group does not exist. Support for the President, given the fact that he has done more well than poor, is justly warranted. This AIG exec bonus thing is definitely one of those mistakes, but look, he's taken ownership of it. He's accepted responsibility for it. Often, the measure of a person is not what they succeed at, but the manner in which they handle that which they failed.

Thirdly, as characterized, the latter group does not exist either. Criticism is welcome. Constant criticism means you're a pain in the ass. Very few that have wrapped themselves in the "just concerned and vigilant" flag and who have stated that they will be supportive if they agree with what the President is doing, oddly, have rarely actually been observed BEING supportive at those times. If we take them at their word, and that their particular view is the correct one, we could very easily assume that the President is doing a particularly sucky job. I can't imagine anyone here truly believing that the grand assessment thus far is "Bill of Goods with Failure to Deliver", so I am left skeptical of the supposed virtue and lack of hypocrisy which is being embraced by your characterization of the latter group.

If I had to be as equally devoted to strawmen as your argument predicates itself, I would say the following, "People preoccupied with the exposure of failure, possessing the gift of hindsight, and having little desire of fidelity to reality will invariably find all fault no matter where it hides... and also some where it does not." This is, of course, NOT how I would characterize the latter group, however, I would say that a modicum of support, to introduce balance in one's mind that a single failure should not erase a hundred successes, to understand that criticism without discussion of an alternative is just criticism, and not the ever-so-virtuous constructive criticism we so desperately want to think we're offering would be a welcome change from what I believe to be a relatively accurate representation of the latter group, people unwelcoming of the necessarily gradual movement of the political process to develop a LASTING change, not one that will be upended at the next changing of the guard, whenever that happens.

Edited to add:

Nearly forgot to put this in, it was what inspired my response.

I disagree in that I don't think Obama would back either group as the false choice you've presented would preclude it. I'm sure he'd see your attention to debate admirable, however, I would also see actual support of success among the base as instrumental to developing support for his policies across the wider political spectrum. This third bunch is here, stuck in the middle of two groups who, oddly, aren't here.