The point is that even if Obama was "really" for limiting the tax cuts, he was unwilling to mobilize masses of people around a more egalitarian program. And that's because, overall, he holds to pro-corporate policies that would be undermined by mass mobilization.
======
YES. I like this much better than my own argument -- for this is what I have been arguing for years has been fundamental to DP politics for a century. Even the most "liberal" leaderships have been willing to 'give u' on any policy if achieving it meant the risk of arousing mass activity.
I think I have often repeated something like, "The DP exists primarily to absorb, deflect, dilute mass political activity at almost any cost." The "War on Poverty" was carefully structured for this end. That is, it _nominally_ encouraged popular participation but in fact throttled it. We actually _got_ popular participation in Bloomington/Normal -- with the result that the city council would not give its approval -- hence: No Money-- a hollow victory for mass participation.
Carrol