Are progressives losing faith in the Obama admin?

[Kuya]

It would seem that Obama's retreat on the public option has so wronged liberals that they are quite displeased. In fact, the loss of support Obama and the democrats are experiencing according to this poll is actually from the Democrats and liberals:

The conventional wisdom, however, has been that the Democrats are suffering from some sort of political Icarus syndrome. They are flying too high and too soon, and the public disapproval will send them crashing back to earth.

The problem with that rationale, at least in our numbers this week, is that it doesn't match with the data.

Across the board, the drops among Obama and the Democratic Party have come not from the loyal opposition, nor have they come from dismayed Independents.

They have come from Democrats.

A cursory look at the graph for Obama's favorability, broken down by party, shows that after a long period of relative stability among Democrats, there was a sharp drop this week:

Here a futher claim that the problem is also with the liberal base, as they seem to be rebelling.

Naturally, i've spent quite a lot of time criticizing the democrats and Obama and i found what i call obamadrones to be quite aggravating, but it seems like a lot of progressives are now really waking out of that warm summer's dream they were in. As some are saying, the backtracking on the public option seems to be the last straw, but instead of me bitching about it, i'll let my friend Paul Kraugman do it for me:

According to news reports, the Obama administration — which seemed, over the weekend, to be backing away from the “public option” for health insurance — is shocked and surprised at the furious reaction from progressives.

Well, I’m shocked and surprised at their shock and surprise.

A backlash in the progressive base — which pushed President Obama over the top in the Democratic primary and played a major role in his general election victory — has been building for months. The fight over the public option involves real policy substance, but it’s also a proxy for broader questions about the president’s priorities and overall approach.

And let’s be clear: the supposed alternative, nonprofit co-ops, is a sham. That’s not just my opinion; it’s what the market says: stocks of health insurance companies soared on news that the Gang of Six senators trying to negotiate a bipartisan approach to health reform were dropping the public plan. Clearly, investors believe that co-ops would offer little real competition to private insurers.

On the issue of health care itself, the inspiring figure progressives thought they had elected comes across, far too often, as a dry technocrat who talks of “bending the curve” but has only recently begun to make the moral case for reform. Mr. Obama’s explanations of his plan have gotten clearer, but he still seems unable to settle on a simple, pithy formula; his speeches and op-eds still read as if they were written by a committee.

Meanwhile, on such fraught questions as torture and indefinite detention, the president has dismayed progressives with his reluctance to challenge or change Bush administration policy.

And then there’s the matter of the banks.

I don’t know if administration officials realize just how much damage they’ve done themselves with their kid-gloves treatment of the financial industry, just how badly the spectacle of government supported institutions paying giant bonuses is playing. But I’ve had many conversations with people who voted for Mr. Obama, yet dismiss the stimulus as a total waste of money. When I press them, it turns out that they’re really angry about the bailouts rather than the stimulus — but that’s a distinction lost on most voters.

So there’s a growing sense among progressives that they have, as my colleague Frank Rich suggests, been punked. And that’s why the mixed signals on the public option created such an uproar.

It’s hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to appease people who can’t be appeased, and who take every concession as a sign that he can be rolled.

Indeed, no sooner were there reports that the administration might accept co-ops as an alternative to the public option than G.O.P. leaders announced that co-ops, too, were unacceptable.

So progressives are now in revolt. Mr. Obama took their trust for granted, and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back.

So, to the progressives/liberals on this forum, do you feel that you've lost confidence in the Obama administration or the Democrats? You can also chime in if you never had any trust in them in the first place.

[thetruepandagod]

Charisma and promises of curing every aspect of America and being the messiah of the media in which he could do no wrong and fix every problem in America. What could go wrong!

PS: didn't vote for any candidate because neither one was good in any regard.

[Colenzo]

lolitics

[Skjie]

Didn't believe he was what he promised in the first place. None of this is surprising that his supporters are turning on him.

[Kuya]

As for the Democrats, i find this statement by Glenn Greenwald to be particularly true:

Over the past decade, the Democratic Party has specialized in offering up one excuse after the next for its collective failures. During the early Bush years, the excuse was that they endorsed Bush policies because his popularity and post-9/11 hysteria made it politically unwise to oppose him. In later Bush years when his popularity plummeted, the excuse was that Democrats were in the minority and could do nothing. After 2006 when they won a Congressional majority, the excuse was that Bush still controlled the White House and had veto power. After 2008 when a Democrat won the White House, the excuse was that Republicans could filibuster.

Now that they have a filibuster-proof majority, a huge margin in the House and the White House, the excuses continue unabated, as Democrats are now on the verge of jettisoning one of the most significant attractions for progressives to the Obama campaign -- active government involvement in the health insurance market. The excuses for "compromising" are cascading more rapidly than ever: We need Republican support to ensure it's bipartisan. The Blue Dogs won't go along with what we want. Centrist Senators will filibuster. There are similar excuses being made to defend Obama from accusations that he deserves some of the blame for the failure of the "public option."

We, in this forum, constantly bash the GOP and seem to blame them for all political failures, but how much longer are we going to believe that the excuses the Democrats make have any basis in reality? We could make two different points of view, either that the democrats are spineless and easily bullied, or that their constant whining about being blocked by the GOP is just a cover up for them acquiescing to their campaign backers. We could come up with more points of debate probably.

[kuronosan]

I wouldn't say I'm losing faith in him so much that I am disappointed that he has all the charisma and potential to change the face of the world and of diplomacy yet lacks the "balls" to do it.

He needs to realize he can't please everyone and just put his foot down. He originally didn't comment on the Iran situation but then the Republicans were pressuring him about that so he did. He commented on the Israel situation but then Republicans bitched about that, so now he says nothing. Then he presented an option for Health Care which was the main platform he was elected on... and now he's backing down because of "opposition".

The man needs to seriously start stepping up or people are going to really start wondering why he was even elected.

So to answer your question, no, I'm not losing faith in Obama's administration. I'm just wondering if it's possible to achieve any sort of change because of normal human nature.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Then he presented an option for Health Care which was the main platform he was elected on... and now he's backing down because of "opposition".

Is the opposition the majority of the country though? If so... Well... Yea.

[kuronosan]

Well, that depends of your definition of the majority. If, by majority, you mean the people that actually wanted it, then no - not the majority.

But if by majority you mean the majority of idiots in the country who have a larger voice than the real majority, then yes.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Well, that depends of your definition of the majority. If, by majority, you mean the people that actually wanted it, then no - not the majority.

But if by majority you mean the majority of idiots in the country who have a larger voice than the real majority, then yes.

Actually I just meant the number of people. I know some are louder than others. Also have no clue what you just said.

[kuronosan]

Neither do I.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Now that I'm thinking about it how do Dems feel about the GoP potentially getting elected into office and taking care of their child (Healtcare)?

[Kuya]

I wouldn't say I'm losing faith in him so much that I am disappointed that he has all the charisma and potential to change the face of the world and of diplomacy yet lacks the "balls" to do it.

He needs to realize he can't please everyone and just put his foot down. He originally didn't comment on the Iran situation but then the Republicans were pressuring him about that so he did. He commented on the Israel situation but then Republicans bitched about that, so now he says nothing. Then he presented an option for Health Care which was the main platform he was elected on... and now he's backing down because of "opposition".

The man needs to seriously start stepping up or people are going to really start wondering why he was even elected.

So to answer your question, no, I'm not losing faith in Obama's administration. I'm just wondering if it's possible to achieve any sort of change because of normal human nature.

I would question one of your premises and your intent on blaming Republicans as the sole cause of your dissapointment. For starters, was that faith you had in Obama ever justified? Actually, what is the wisdom in trusting a politician? If we constantly make this about how the Republicans ruin everything, then we end up with the conclusion that we can't do anything substantial about it. Maybe we should start paying more attention to the Democrats and campaign finance.

[Sirrus_Asura]

I would question one of your premises and your intent on blaming Republicans as the sole cause of your dissapointment. For starters, was that faith you had in Obama ever justified? Actually, what is the wisdom in trusting a politician? If we constantly make this about how the Republicans ruin everything, then we end up with the conclusion that we can't do anything substantial about it. Maybe we should start paying more attention to the Democrats and campaign finance.

This. There is none. Esp when the Democrat's gets the majority "donations" from lobbyists. Who exactly are they representing?

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/contribs.php

Your politicians suck as much as everyone elses'. I hope this is not news to you.

[Not not Mattaru]

Well, technically I didn't vote, because my absentee ballot was a problematic experience....but I would have voted for Obama.

I voted for Obama because I thought he was an intelligent person and Hillary just didn't do it for me for various reasons. McCain...if it was the McCain of over a decade ago I think it would have been harder, but still.

I saw Obama when he came to Denver, with my friends who you may call Obama-drones, I would disagree though, because I know them personally and they are diverse people and intelligent people. Anyways, they asked me if I was an Obama supporter - I answered I am wary abou tmost politicians because of the profession they choose. Not to say I could never trust a politician or believe that all politicians are crooks out to get us, but I try not to be blind about it. For the record, I wanted to see him because he is a great speaker and most likely a part of history - I think that is worth seeing.

On to my point:

Quite frankly, no one can win an election without lying rampantly. I think most reasonable people and people in the media know this, but they play into the game just the same. They want to be lied to or their expectations are so high they are just asking for it, and a politician lies to them and then everyone is like "OMG why did you lie to me". So I think it is ridiculous, and really short-sighted to point the finger at politicians only, people are complicitly playing the game just the same. Then when it is in our advantage to do so we call politicians out.

Which is why I think most people on any side, including your side Kuya whatever that may be, just want to be right before anything else, they want to be the one who is like "I told you so". Which doesn't change anything, it means you get to be King of the Hill until you aren't so lucky.

I mean, why else would you be posting this other than to be a 5-year-old saying "I told you so" or just shifting the blame? Whether you are right or not doesn't even concern me, I could care less. There is a Chinese proverb, I know it is cliche, but it is just so true "When things go wrong, first look in the mirror." Not to say that people should blame everything on themselves at all, rather don't be quick to lay blame without examining your own role.

Continue trolling, that is all I have to say.

[Kuya]

What did you expect from the Obama administration, mattaru?

edit: What is the role of the people? And further, why are you saying politicians lie because people want it?

[eunhye]

For the record, I wanted to see him because he is a great speaker and most likely a part of history - I think that is worth seeing.

I honestly have no care of history. The failures of the past presidents, government policies, and unwanted intervention into the lives of citizens is my major concern. If he's such a great speaker, become Anthony Robbins. I see angst though with your messiah amongst the people.

[guartz]

Not to sound like a devil's advocate, but this is precisely why fear based politics are so much better. I mean more effective. Or better. you know, whatever helps to keep the rabble in line.

[Meian]

I wouldn't say I'm losing faith in him so much that I am disappointed that he has all the charisma and potential to change the face of the world and of diplomacy yet lacks the "balls" to do it.

Personally felt that Hillary had more balls than both Obama and McCain combined (didn't vote since she wasn't one of the choices).

Edit: I am at the point where I just stop caring and look for results.

[Kuya]

Not to sound like a devil's advocate, but this is precisely why fear based politics are so much better. I mean more effective. Or better. you know, whatever helps to keep the rabble in line.

Speaking of which, did you see the news about Tom Ridge admiting that the Bush admin wanted him to raise the terror alert for the election? Haha and to think we still haven't put some of those people in jail! I believe there was even discussion that the flimsiest reasons were used to raise the terror alert level. I must say, you must be right, because anybody who questioned it was inmediately bombarded by accusations of being conspiracy theorists.

[guartz]

Speaking of which, did you see the news about Tom Ridge admiting that the Bush admin wanted him to raise the terror alert for the election? Haha and to think we still haven't put some of those people in jail! I believe there was even discussion that the flimsiest reasons were used to raise the terror alert level. I must say, you must be right, because anybody who questioned it was inmediately bombarded by accusations of being conspiracy theorists.

Don't think democrats are above it either, Kuya. I saw this video ages ago, the question was asked to Clinton regarding his opinion on Bush's fear politics. The man shrugged his shoulders and said "if it works, why not?"