Well for starters there's his appointment to comms secretary of Seumas 'David Irving of the Left' Milne. There's his endless prevarications about Ken Livingstone, his refusal to repudiate his crackpot brother, his insistence on associating with the racist cunts and rapist-enablers in SWP/StWC; these are not obscure people and groups that hardly anyone has heard of or cares about, and you're underestimating the voting public - especially the Labour-voting or potentially-Labour-voting public - by assuming that.
We've been here before so I'm not going to tread over old ground, and all I'll say is this: do you accept that some of the criticism levelled at Corbyn can, in principle, be warranted? Because unless you think it's logically impossible for him to make a mistake, then you have to accept that *some* of the criticism is justified, even if it's often greatly exaggerated and mixed up with unjustified criticism by the dreaded right-wing media (which these days apparently includes The Guardian (!), since Corbyn is the acme of leftiness, so any criticism is right-wing by definition).
Because the moment you put Corbyn on a pedestal and insist he is above criticism, you're no longer a supporter of a politician, you're a member of a cult. And it's precisely this cult-like nature of his core support that's helped to alienate many other potential voters. This is all so obvious it's ridiculous I'm having to explain it to an intelligent person!
1/ Ken Livingstone, agreed - he should have been thrown out of the party. I think the others are minor issues to most people (descriptive rather than prescriptive) - I just heard endless IRA and Hamas talk in terms of Corbyn 'associates'.
"racist cunts and rapist-enablers in SWP/StWC" - I'm a fan of neither - they've both behaved horrendously in individual instances, and might well merit those terms. But if you're using those very strong, blanket terms, then you must accept that the legal system in the UK is also a rapist-enabler, and the UK population is racist because many don't challenge racism? If so, fine, but I have the sense you might baulk at these descriptions. Strong terms have to be applied with equality across the board.
[Just as with the ludicrous anti-Semitism witchhunt vs Labour in the press - absolutely right to critique Labour on the issue, but to do so without so much as mentioning the vast sewers of racism within the Tory Party was just insane]
2/ I'm mystified as to how this follows from what I said. Obviously I've never said that Corbyn was above criticism (indeed, the quotation you cite
explicitly acknowledges that some of his policies are open to criticism from the left as well as the right), but neither does this have anything to do with the point I was making about the media bias, which was chronic.
The Guardian allied itself with the right wing of the Labour Party in its bias towards Corbyn, therefore echoing what the right wing press was saying. It doesn't make the Guardian right wing, obvs, but it is worthy of note and of criticism. Precisely because the consistent criticism of the first actually left-wing leader to arise in 30 years in the UK was all couched in vague allegations of 'unelectability', and not a serious appraisal of Corbyn's potential (there were some excellent columnists who were much more balanced though). Put it this way, Corbyn's success owes very, very little to the mainstream 'left wing' media of the UK.