He has also consistently voted for Iron Dome rearmament packages, which materially supports the genocide.

He didn't "change his mind based on new evidence", public opinion just shifted to the point where he couldn't get away with not calling it a genocide. The whole time he has always taken the most Israel friendly position he can get away with without losing credibility. Hell, in the very first line of his statement calling it a genocide he still insisted on repeating Isreali lies about October 7th.

They specifically mentioned the liberal establishment. You're talking about criticism from people that probably abhor the liberal establishment even more than they do progressive liberals like Bernie.

Also I think this kind of criticism is important and I don't know why it bothers people so much. It's okay to be critical of things you ultimately support, either for ideological or simply for tactical reasons. It's called critical support, and I think people should do it more often. Even if the criticism isn't ultimately supportive, that doesn't mean all of a person's hate is directed in that single place. There may be more than just the surface level WHAT, like the WHY of it all and what that implies, that you are missing (or dismissing).

You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, and refusal to engage in critical analysis - pretending any politician can do no wrong (or the contrary case; can do no right), getting defensive, and outright rejecting any investigation to prove or disprove your conclusion - does not fall into the category of 'standing for something' to me but rather overzealous team sports.

We have to practice more critical thinking, despite how badly our political class does not want us doing that. Whether it helps any specific politician win an election or not (which you can still do even with criticisms). Especially considering that it's this kind of criticism that has made it untenable for a growing number of politicians to deny the genocide in Palestine; it's pretty clear that the only needle that uncritical support will move is that of the progressives, towards the liberal end of the spectrum. After all, it's our criticism of the current system and its complicity in human suffering that makes us progressive in the first place.

I mean. To dismiss everything because one mistake, even if that mistake is massive, and then correcting that mistake, if belatedly, to me, says something very positive about that politician.

even if it's clear that he's been doubling down on that mistake when presented with the evidence and then only switched it's become clear that the tide has begun turn?

There's more, he criticized protests against ICE in LA turning into riots, and had some nice things to say about Kirk after he was killed.

That said I think it's really unproductive for people to turn on him after he was a big spark in a movement and is still outspoken. He has irritated me a few times lately but he's still one of the most influential leaders.

I thought that happened after the biggest interest in her had already faded but I might be misremembering it.

It's sort of like Malala, and how she remained committed to socialism and Islam. I think ten years ago for a while the western boosters who brought her to international attention thought she'd flip and be a useful stooge. When she turned out to not be, we heard less and less of her.

Same deal with Greta Thunberg, who is something more dangerous than someone who can be bought: she's someone who is principled for climate justice and human rights.