If I understand Obama, the person least upset by "criticisms" of Obama is Obama

[BeyondGeography]

From the day Barack Obama announced his candidacy in February of 2007 I jumped on board and never regretted my support for a moment. A key reason was the man himself.

I don’t think I’ll ever see a politician with a better temperament, more emotional intelligence, more empathy for all people including his opponents and more generosity of spirit. I don’t think I’ll ever see a politician who was more comfortable in his own skin. He was an anomaly; he never needed to grow a thick skin which can lead to cynicism and world-weariness because his understanding of what truly mattered kept all the darkness out.

At the same time, I think fetishiizing the Obama presidency is silly. And it wouldn’t surprise me if Obama himself agrees. He was in power for eight years, not everything he did looks pristine four years later and candidates should feel free to point out what they would do differently without being treated as apostates, so long as the criticisms are reasonable.

I get that criticizing Obama is bad politics in a Democratic primary, but so is using him as a mute button. If your worried about his legacy, I don’t think anyone is doing his presidency any favors by using it as a shield, turning reverence into paralysis, or just to score a political point or two. I think he’d agree.

[bigtree]

1. big k&r

...this.

[theaocp]

2. Crazy loads of agreement here.

Polarization is just that.

[JI7]

3. the issue people have about attacks on Obama is not about how he feels

but about their own disagreements with those attacks and criticisms.

many people DO want to keep ACA.

[BeyondGeography]

4. So let's talk about health care

without turning the conversation into a “how dare you criticize Barack Obama” moment. That’s all I’m saying.

[JI7]

5. it helps candidates to be seen as Pro Obama so they aren't going to stop

[BeyondGeography]

7. We'll see how the dynamic evolves

I don't doubt that it will continue. Whether it's effective politics from here until next November is another question.

[still_one]

6. The reason why is because they can't even walk in his shadow.

[BannonsLiver]

11. +1000000

[loyalsister]

8. +++

Agree 💯

[ehrnst]

9. True self-confidence. Not getting rattled by Twitter trolls and FoxNews - and even

by other Dems is a hallmark of a great leader.

Like when Speaker Pelosi's reply when asked what she thought of Dems running in 2018 on "not supporting her for House Speaker" - "Just win, Baby!"

Being prickly works against being a good leader.

[Bradshaw3]

10. K&R

Obama was the greatest president in recent history but he wasn't perfect - no one is. And like the OP said, a person was is as honest and level-headed about himself as Obama is, would agree.

[treestar]

16. nobody's perfect but dwelling on the imperfections

is negative. I know people in life who are like that. Only see what is wrong. Maybe that is why I react negatively to it. In a world where Orange Creature is in the Oval Office, going on about the imperfections of Democrats is insanity.

[Bradshaw3]

17. Or maybe examining the past is a sane way to improve the future

We can't ever use the ridiculously low bar set by this WH as a standard for what Democrats can do. BTW, I think the whole "controversy" about them "attacking" Obama is overblown, as this writer shows:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/2020-election-when-will-obama-stop-dividing-democrats-by-attacking-obamas-record.html?via=homepage_section_features

[treestar]

19. Ridiculously high bar

Is just as bad. I live around a person who always has at least one complaint since nothing can be perfect. “The only thing I didn’t like was ...”. Maybe that is why I react this way.

[Bradshaw3]

20. I wouldn't characterize it as a ridiculously high bar

To get healthcare coverage for all, or to have an immigration policy better than what we have had.

[treestar]

24. Healthcare coverage for all involves Congress

so they are subject to that bar too. Any Democratic President would sign that.

[ooky]

12. Tuned into M$NBC a few minutes this morning.

Looks like "attacks on Obama" is the newest Republican talking point.

[wyldwolf]

13. same way he reacted to Kanye West, I'd bet

[Hortensis]

15. Pretty sure it has to be true. What has to upset him is

how badly the CNN-styled circular firing squad debate format displayed our candidates to the nation, and that too many didn't rise to overcome it.

[bigtree]

18. his 2008 campaign ad

...which stated that, Hillary Clinton 'will say anything and change nothing...'

Barack Obama understands hardball politics.

[Hortensis]

21. Yes, that was dishonest. He knew that her agenda very strongly

overlapped with his. Just like our candidates now, they both had to create differences to run on and insist they were very significant and immutable when usually they were really neither.

[Princetonian]

22. No, it was honest in the context of the content of the radio ad.

[peggysue2]

23. It's not about fetishizing the Obama Administration

It isn't about protecting Barack Obama's legacy or how President Obama feels regarding the criticism. It's the way our candidates looked and sounded dissing our last Democratic POTUS. On a public platform in front of the very voters we need to win in 2020, a former president, I might add, who is incredibly popular across the board with the vast majority of Dems and Dem-leaning Indies (95-99% approval).

All this to take a potshot at the former VP while hoping to boost early primary numbers for those lagging behind. At the moment, that strategy doesn't appear to have worked but it looked and sounded desperate while providing Trump and his cohorts ammunition as we roll into the GE.

As stated, CNN set this up and a number of candidates were all too willing to take the bait. It was a mistake in an election season where we cannot take anything for granted.