Today the disgruntled liberals in the spotlight are Bob Herbert of the NY Times, and in his second appearance, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post.  Bob Herbert, who up until now has never penned a story about the President that cast him in an unfavorable light, is concerned that Obama doesn’t feel the pain of the unemployed nor an urgency to create government funded programs to employ them:

The big question on the domestic front right now is whether President Obama understands the gravity of the employment crisis facing the country. Does he get it? The signals coming out of the White House have not been encouraging.
[snip]
We seem to be waiting for some mythical rebound to come rolling in, magically equipped with robust job creation, a long-term bull market and paradise regained for consumers.

It ain’t happening.

I get that Bob Herbert is feeling people’s pain, but my intuition makes me suspect that he’s concerned as much, if not more, about the electoral prospects of the Democrats in 2010 should unemployment remain high, as he is about the unemployed themselves.

Richard Cohen is also having doubts about Obama, this time around it's about his inexperience and how that affects foreign policy.  And, in not so many words, he wonders aloud whether the President is perceived as weak:

This is the president we now have: He inspires lots of affection but not a lot of awe. It is the latter, though, that matters most in international affairs, where the greatest and most gut-wrenching tests await Obama. If he remains consistent to his rhetoric of just seven weeks ago, he will send more troops to Afghanistan and more of them will die. "This is not a war of choice," he said. "This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."

[emphasis-ed.]

George Will, while hardly a liberal, also weighs in on the first couple’s self-centeredness as well as Obama’s certainty that the very power of the wisdom flowing forth from his lips is enough to sway any audience, solve any dispute, and correct any problems; and more realistically, the folly of that belief:

Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about . . . themselves. Although the working of the committee's mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago's bid for the 2016 Games on aesthetic grounds -- unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport.

In the 41 sentences of her remarks, Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns "I" or "me" 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences. Still, 70 times in 89 sentences conveyed the message that somehow their fascinating selves were what made, or should have made, Chicago's case compelling.
[snip]
It was gallant of the president to say to the Olympic committee that Michelle is "a pretty big selling point for the city." Gallant, but obviously untrue. And -- this is where we pass from the merely silly to the ominous -- suppose the president was being not gallant but sincere. Perhaps the premise of the otherwise inexplicable trip to Denmark was that there is no difficulty, foreign or domestic, that cannot be melted by the sunshine of the Obama persona. But in the contest between the world and any president's charm, bet on the world.

Notwithstanding Will’s snarkiness, he is most likely correct.  But there will be some folks who read these words that feel he’s just another right-wing hater;  I direct them to these postings by Ace in which he not only refutes the assertions nicely, but also flames a few of those wringing their hands in concern over such a pronounced and unpatriotic lack of civility.  So in keeping with one of the President’s favorite memes, let's consider such crying and gnashing of teeth to be mere distractions; more of the corrosive “old kind of politics” that have gone the way of the dinosaur in the age of Obama.

Still, there are many in the legacy media who remain ardent supporters of the President, such as those leveling the accusations of Republican sedition vis-à-vis the 2016 Olympic bid.  One of the higher visibility examples, in exposure only and certainly not gravitas, is part-time economist and full-time shill Paul Krugman, also of the NY Times.  His latest column, “The Politics of Spite”, an exposition on the Copenhagen catastrophe, is such an archetype of partisan high dudgeon that it should be included in a poli-sci style manual.  I’ll spare you direct quotations from the smarmy diatribe, but instead will point you to Bookworm’s post where she employs a plethora of evidence from Krugman’s own past columns  which exhibit the same behavior that he decries today; and in doing so proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that his picture should accompany the dictionary entry for “hypocrite”.

Rocketman

"The trouble with Obama is that he gets into the moment and means what he says for that moment only. He meant what he said when he called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" — and now is not necessarily so sure. He meant what he said about the public option in his health care plan — and then again maybe not. He would not prosecute CIA agents for getting rough with detainees — and then again maybe he would."

[emphasis-ed.]
It must be tough on the guys to realize that all of Obama's promises come with an expiration date. On the bright side, if an increasing number in the legacy media become disillusioned with the President stories like this may become a regular feature at POWIP...

(H/T AllahPundit)

Rocketman