I'm sure neither of you won't (will ? - CB) find anyone on this list - or, more generally, on the left outside of the Democratic Party - who feels "betrayed" by Obama because they had illusions he was a "leftist" or who put much stock in the campaign promises of politicians.
^^^^^ CB: No . What they won't say they "feel" betrayed. They'll just say that Obama betrayed some left stawman. It's snarky as an ____. What they'll say is Obama betrayed his "change promise". In other words, the "change promise" was implicitly very left.
^^^^^^^
On the other hand, you will, find many liberals inside the Democratic party who do feel betrayed by Obama (who was and almost certainly still is a liberal) because of the administration's very public surrender to Wall Street bankers, blue dog Democrats, and establishment Republicans on a wide range of domestic and foreign policy issues which need not be recapitulated here. ^^^^^^^^
CB: This is just an inaccurate statement. there are very few liberals in the Democratic Party who consider the Obama administration's actions a betrayal of them or a "public surrender." Liberal Democrats are very pragmatic. They did not interpret Obama's campaign ( which occurred during the Wall Street crisis) to mean he was going to take over Wall Street or act differently on a wide range of domestic and foreign policy issues. Not only that , the liberal Democrats followed what happened, which was the bizarre promotion of the Tea Party by the media, and the betrayal _by_ the Blue Dog Dems. So, they know why Obama was not able to get more liberal things done in less than two years.
Put it this way. You don't hear any liberal Dems in Michigan, and certainly not in significant numbers, expressing the feeling they have been betrayed by the Obama administration. That's just not true.
^^^^^^^
Disappointment with the administration, let it be noted, also extends beyond and to the right of the DP, to independent voters - the "centrists" on whom, in your view, Obama based his campaign - who are now deserting him in droves, and well into the ruling class, to both liberal and conservative economists, commentators, and business and government officials who were hoping for bolder action and reforms to promote a more robust recovery and improve American competitiveness.
^^^^^ CB: The Independents and centrists are desserting Obama for the exact opposite reasons you give. They are to the right , listening to Tea Party noise about health care.
^^^^^
Nor did anyone, including on this list, expect Obama to be a traitor to his class. On the contrary, many expected him to be the savior of his class, as FDR was in the 30's.
^^^^^ CB: Wow. Obama is not in the same class as FDR. You don't know that ?
^^^^^
Given the crisis he inherited, it was not unreasonable to suppose his administration might have tackled the financial, housing, employment and health care crises with a similar energy and will to confront the inevitable obstructionist interests on the right .
^^
You and Carrol believe, for your separate reasons, that it was not possible for Obama to proceed along these lines. Fine. We've debated the issue to death. But it would be good if you both at least had some understanding of where Obama's critics, not only the left but all along the political spectrum, were coming from.
^^^^^ CB: I have a very good understanding where Obama's critics are coming from. I'd say you are not clear on who the critics are ( they aren't liberal Democrats) nor are you clear that the main criticism in this campaign that produced the Republican advance came from Obama's and the liberals' right.
You don't want to face that the Republicans won the House because of a big right-wing upsurge, not a left wing protest. The Republicans didn't gain because of the type of criticisms you are making of Obama. That should be patent.