Do you regret voting for Obama in 2008?

Sozobe wrote:

Gah. Seriously? Shall I answer what he did to win the presidency in the first place, too?

There is nothing unusual about a Democrat winning the presidency in 2008. The country saw a wave of disgust for the Bushies and popular support for the Democrats. Obama did little more than ride it. His numbers at the voting booth were just about the same as those of the average Democratic candidate in that election cycle.

Sozobe wrote:

So the short version is -- Obama did a shitload of stuff, much of it subtle and not-obvious, to get health care reform passed.

I agree it's non-obvious what he did to get health-care reform passed.

Seriously though, the subtle stuff doesn't count. That's the chief-of-staff's role, not the presidents role. When a party proposes a major extension to its county's social contract, the party's leader and the country's president can't be subtle about his support for the reform. Rather than hide behind his lieutenants, he has to campaign for his reforms vigorously and publicly.

I'm surprised how often I hear this complaint from disappointed Democrats. But what kind of president did he promise to become? During the 2008 campaign, when you compared his concrete policy proposals with Clinton's and Edwards's, two points emerged quickly and clearly: First, there wasn't that much difference between the three of them. Second, to the extent that there were differences, Obama's proposed policies were consistently the mellowest, most compromising of the three. Why did you believe that "change you can believe in" wasn't a bumper-sticker slogan, but a credible prediction?

Give the ribbon to me! I like ribbons! White Sox rule!

(how's that?)

I think you have a unique situation in the United States. Conservative politicians can at the least partially appeal to reactionary elements without sacrificing any political capital with the thoughtful conservative voter, who will ignore the more extreme rhetoric and focus on the apparent political program of the candidate.

A liberal candidate, however, cannot do that, thanks to the success of conservative rhetoric over the last 30 years or so. Any liberal candidate who attmped to throw rhetorical sops to the extremist wing of the liberal movement could be certain that he or she would be subject to attack based on conservative hysteria.

Any liberal candidate who attmped to throw rhetorical sops to the extremist wing of the liberal movement could be certain that he or she would be subject to attack based on conservative hysteria.

Yet Hillary managed to muff her chance rather spectacularly.

He's done a lot already, and has at least two years and hopefully six years left.

I think people were entitled not only to rely on the explicit promise (which Obama broke), but also on the implicit message about the kind of president he'd become (which Obama betrayed).

But it was only after he took office that it became clear that, for Obama, process was policy, and that, faced with the choice, he'd sacrifice policy for process every time.

That's why I was frustrated, but not the least bit surprised, when I heard his latest budget speech on the radio. First he blasted the Ryan plan and its supporters as cruel and incompetent---correctly on both counts! But then came the interesting part of the speech: what was he going going to do about it? Have Republicans and Democrats come together, talk, and compromise, that's what! His treatment of the disease made absolutely no sense in terms of his stated diagnosis. And that's not a new thing. Obama has always been thinking that way.

The problem, as someone posted earlier, is that Obama negotiates from the middle. He starts off with reasonable and ends up with center-right.

[david] So stipulated [/david]

That's why we need Dennis Kucinich in the White House. He'll take no prisoners.