Obama has many good qualities but this does not prevent the circulation of massive amounts of "Obama insecurity," as evidenced by some of the comments on a recent post. (It’s not about disagreeing; note how the tone changes.) For some people no comment on Obama, other than the purely laudatory, is anything other than a hackish right-wing attempt to forge an alliance of lies with Karl Rove and his ilk. But an election need not be framed as a war where all remarks must be strategically proper and in line with the objective of electing a preferred candidate; a blog is a discourse first and foremost.
The mood on Obama reminds me of the response of some MR commentators to Eric Lyon on Radiohead.
I cannot imagine how devastated and hopeless the Democratic left would feel if Obama loses. That response would be a big mistake but in part it explains "Obama insecurity." The left is uneasy that so many of their hopes are pinned on this man and as Paul Krugman points out he is somewhat unknown. There is a secondary fear that Obama is in fact committed to the notion of America as a center-right country or at least is unwilling to challenge that idea.
"Obama insecurity" hurts his electoral chances and hurts the intellectual future of the left as a corrective force in American politics. There’s not a convincing or credible path toward painting his enemies as immoral, even if that is what you believe. Some campaign lies are painting Obama as weak, inexperienced, and non-American or even anti-American. Responding with a dose of "Obama insecurity" only plays into the hands of those who would turn this into a race of emotions and innuendo.