In other words, stop defending yourself and start taking it like a sacrificial lamb. Inevitably by attracting a large number of young supporters Obama was going to disappoint some of those who do not remember and do not yet understand that politics is about Swift Boating and pre-empting your opponent's narrative, not tea and crumpets.

Obama responded to Maggie appropriately:

"That's what you do when you run for president," Obama responded, getting a laugh.

Nevertheless, Maggie's clueless comment gave Matt Drudge as well as the Republican Party smear machine ammunition for a prompt message through a RNC spokeswoman, noting that:

"Unfortunately for Barack Obama, this campaign is not a fraternity hazing ritual, and Americans are not going to elect a rookie politician who has ditched his 'politics of hope' mantra and gone on the attack now that he's dropping in the polls," Amber Wilkerson said."

The idea that Obama is somehow engaging in unjustified attacks is ludicrous. Obama has responded to attacks that he is "naïve and irresponsible," that he talks to openly about issues like using nuclear weapons, and that he "is not black enough." If anything, Obama has been far too tame in responding to his critics, Republican, Democratic, MSM, and otherwise. The result of this timidity is on display in today's Political Insider, which is representative of the trash coming out of the mainstream media these days, in which Obama is accused of being wrong because... he was right:
http://politicalinsider.com/2007/08/bara t_obama.html

"Then came the threat to bomb Pakistan; to me, anyway, he was correct to say this -- but in the public mind, in the wake of the first misstep, it wound up looking like a candidate reactively struggling to define himself. Then came the casual comment that we'd never use nuclear weapons along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. This too might have been defensible, but it was followed by his "scratch that" dissembling -- and a very adult taking to task by Hillary. And now we have the latest: a puzzling statement that in Afghanistan, our military is "just" bombing villages and killing civilians. Well, yes, it may be partially true -- but you cannot win an argument when you start out by appearing to malign U.S. troops.

For all three "missteps," the writer admits Obama may have been or likely was right. But he is nonetheless criticized for (1) "reactively struggling to define himself," (translation: stating a clear position on the issues after happening to be criticized a week earlier by an opponent who has not stated clear positions on the issues) (2) making "casual comment[s]" and "dissembling," (translation: qualifying a response to a reporter that he knew would quickly be taken out of context), and (3) making a "puzzling statement" that appears to "malign the U.S. troops" (translation: criticizing current U.S. military policy which, INEVITABLY, involves criticizing what U.S. troops are currently doing, through no fault of their own).

If Obama does not respond, and respond assertively to this kind of nonsense, then slowly but surely up becomes down and down becomes up and before you know it, a Swiftboating is the result. If anything, the politics of hope requires more assertiveness than politics as usual, not less. By attempting to change the paradigm and question establishment assumptions like Obama has done with regards to foreign policy and lobbying over the past two weeks, he inevitably opens himself up to vicious attacks by those desperate to maintain the status quo. Without a willingness to defend himself, "hope" and "vision for change" will be twisted and re-framed as "unsure of himself" "inexperienced", "naive idealist", and "unfit to lead."

We have seen similar, perhaps even worse attacks on John Edwards, for his haircut, investments, etc., over the past few weeks as well. This too is a response to Edwards' challenge to status quo thinking on poverty and the role of government. But unlike Obama, Edwards is not hampered by a misunderstood politics of hope, (admittedly, a misunderstanding that the Obama campaign has failed to remedy) and so John and Elizabeth Edwards have responded with justifiable assertiveness. Stories about Edwards' hair (which has already been thoroughly diaried) and comments like Maggie's are given inane attention, while analysis of policies and other substantive political news are ignored or -- worse still -- discussed only in light of how they relate to these nonsensical stories. Naive comments like Maggie's force Obama between a rock and a hard place, at least in the hyper-reality of American political media coverage. Either he is naive and inexperienced or hypocritically shrill.

The politics of hope and change is as much or more about substantive policy change and a vision for the country as it is about the tone and temperament of politics. But I fully admit, it is ALSO about tone and temperament. So in that respect, Obama will inevitably be held to a higher standard than many of his opponents. That is fair. Thus, criticisms of his campaign for the memo naming Hillary Clinton as D-Punjabi were fully justified. But the added emphasis on tone and temperament does not mean that the politics of hope must slowly slide into the politics of submission.

The politics of hope and change in Washington, although condemning base appeals to sexism, racism, religious division, regionism, or attacks on personal lives of politicians, requires assertive defenses of one's policies and vision for the future of the country. It also necessitates making distinctions between the policies and visions of those who support the status quo. Obama is right to point out that nuclear weapons should be off the table against Pakistan. Obama is right to point out that, apparently unlike many of his opponents, the only war we should be fighting is against al qaeda. Obama is right that lobbyist influence must be curtailed. Obama is right that we need more dialogue with hostile nations around the world. And Obama is right to defend these positions through distinctions with the positions of his opponents when he is attacked.

Sorry Maggie, you are certainly entitled to voice your opinion, but I fundamentally disagree with you.  Hopefully Obama's campaign will benefit from your criticism by (1) realizing that some of its supporters are under naive misconceptions about Obama's politics, (2) correcting that misconception, and (3) doing the opposite of what you advise. But Maggie, if you only want change and hope if it comes through obedient submission to criticism, then I think you are supporting the wrong candidate.

Update [2007-8-15 7:50:4 by thenew]: - This morning Obama has an interview with the Washington Post in which he brings out more of a contrast with Hillary Clinton on a number of issues and especially foreign policy. Notice that the Clinton campaign's response is to argue that Obama is "turning away from the politics of hope," pushing the narrative that Maggie has reinforced. All the more reason why Obama needs to explain more clearly that the politics of hope is not the politics of submission. It is nonetheless good to see he is ignoring Maggie's advice. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401939.html?hpid=artslot