Granted, I hang around with professionals and academics mostly but, again, what I've been hearing from liberals/progressives is that - after selling hope and change - what Obama's done is copy Granholm and capitulate, fold and pursue an idiotic bipartisanism, that anyone with any consciousness of the last thirty years was dead in the water before the starting gun went off. Liberals/progressives I know expected the man to lead, to change the nature of the wars faster, to actually embrace government transparency, to end rendition, to actually push for climate reform, to designate people to push for clean energy, and to at least follow Stewart/Colbert to the point of periodically calling Repugs on their BS. These folks believed, hoped and wanted change. They're disappointed in the man and his administration, not rueing voting for a black man.
^^^^^^^ CB: I could be wrong, but I'm thinking about the people like those who voted for Obama in the Iowa Caucuses. Most of them are not progressive and probably don't call themselves liberals after 30 years of liberal bashing. (Somehow the Reaganite movement has succeeded in making "liberal" a negative epithet). They're like "middle Americans" or something. They like Bill Clinton. They are a much bigger portion of the American voting population than progressives. Obama's win for the nomination and the election had to have mostly these centrist or middle types. Although "centrist" probably implies too much depth or breadth to their political thinking. And they are not as firmly or emphatically anti-racist as the types of people you describe. Your associates were probably glad to be able to vote for a Black man to express their anti-racism. The "middle" people were trying something new. And the final step in my reasoning must be that they are suceptable (spelling) to the redbaiting and other stuff.