I can't tell you what others expected, but I'm sure you recall my reasons for backing him: Had I wanted another Republican Lite "Democrat", their virtual founder was desperately awaiting my vote. I backed Obama because he pledged himself to the neo-New Deal for which I'm equally desperate, and because I thought he had the intelligence and knowledge of American history to realize our current crises are almost entirely due to the repeal of New Deal reforms Reagan began a generation ago. Seriously, all Obama had do was erase FDRs name and hand the mans homework in as his own, which I thought (and still think) he had the wit and observational skill to comprehend. He certainly SAID he did, so what happened?

Unfortunately, Obama has all of FDRs skills at cynical manipulation without equal integrity (that's saying a lot given that FDR died with his mistress at his bedside and probably knowingly allowed Pearl Harbor). His only excuse seems to be that the huge Democratic congressional majorities for the first half of his term weren't huge ENOUGH, a pathetic defence since, even if we call Lieberman the Republican he is, FDR passed all his New Deal legislation with the same number of Senate seats Obama had: 59*. Honestly, if Obama needs unanimous Congressional support to accomplish anything that's basically saying he can only be effective as a dictator; I wouldn't accept that in a President even if it were true, but I think the sad truth is that Obama is doing exactly what he intended and blaming Republican obstruction for his failure to achieve liberal policies he never genuinely wanted in the first place.

Obama had the horses, he just didn't use them; his re-election is imperiled by liberal and independent recognition of that, not inability to charm Republicans convinced he's a Kenyan (or maybe Indonesian... ) born Muslim terrorist. Those ignorant maniacal bigots didn't elect him in '08, and they won't beat him in '12, but the disillusionment of die hard liberals and millions of first time college voters very well might. That's perhaps Obamas most tragically shameful failure: For the first time EVER the hordes of liberal college voters Democrats expect every four years but never see ACTUALLY VOTED! Obama has vindicated their absence from every election since we lowered the voting age 40 years ago. It could well be this generations J/RFK moment, but this time the hope of an idealistic young generation wasn't assassinated, he committed suicide. You can say he hasn't been all that bad but, when pressed for reasons to re-elect him, the very people his campaign tasks with finding those reasons could do no better than this:

Seriously, guys? You think voters "will like" an auto industry bailout panned by some as corporate welfare and others as a UAW gift, a Wall Street "reform" that's little more than yet another no strings corporate bailout and a healthcare bill that PROVIDES insurance to none but REQUIRES it of all (despite his promise that, unlike Hillarys, HIS bill wouldn't do that)? The regs on predatory lending might get widespread support but, while repealing DADT and pushing clean energy may be laudable accomplishments, they are, at best, zero sum niche issues politically; for every gay and/or green voter they gain, they'll lose two straight and/or labor voters. That's not to say they're trivial, but with 30 million Americans unemployed and uninsured while Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt, maybe they aren't the highest or most urgent priority.

Where is Obamas WPA, his NRA, his CCC, his SEC? Where are the promised jobs rebuilding an American infrastructure that's falling apart largely because the 80 year old WPA projects have been so long neglected? Obama hasn't given us a TVA; he hasn't even given us Americorps. Why didn't he have a First Hundred Days like FDRs instead of doing nothing but writing up a couple trickle down industry bailouts? The most obvious thing we needed in the wake of the housing bubble was a return of the Glass-Steagall Act that prevented it right up until being repealed in the last days of the Clinton administration, but what did we get? The Dodd-Frank regulations that have been called a "watered down version of Glass-Steagall". It says something about the efficacy of Dodds bill when a Republican like Richard Shelby objects, "It's an obvious conflict of interest.... It's basically a case where the banks are choosing or having a big voice in choosing their regulator. It's unheard of". That's right: A Republican (rightly) complained that the Democrats banking reform bill let the banks choose their own regulator.

The whole Democrat vs. Republican paradigm is a shell game; when times are good (or we think they are) supply side greed sells and Republicans get elected by pushing it; when it blows up in our face (as supply side always does, sooner or later) an enraged and wounded public elects Democrats who promise radical change but deliver the exact same policies. Again, I'm sure you recall why I backed Obama over Hillary: I didn't want another DLC, Third Way, Triangulating, New Left supply sider in liberals clothing, and Obama MIGHT have lived up to his promise to provide some old school liberalism after I'd seen the Clintons break it when I was that idealistic liberal first time voter. But, no, even when Democrats nominate a young non-establishment liberal untainted by the cynical lure of the Democratic Leadership Council, even one who openly repudiates it, after election we discover he's part of the same old boy network that delivers for their corporate bosses as reliably as the GOP. That they insult my intelligence by claiming it's accidental rather than deliberate makes it that much worse. From here on out I'm with the Greens or whichever third party offers legitimate genuine liberalism, because the Democrats have conclusively shown themselves to be no more or less than the moderate wing of the Greedy Old Party. That's bad for national policy, but a completely useless political system has dire implications for the growing millions of disenfranchised, alienated and increasingly desperate people demanding more than rhetorical change. I'd prefer to meet their needs through effective political reform rather than wait for them to start rioting in the streets.





*To be fair, the Senate only had 96 seats in 1932, but it also still required a 2/3 majority to override a filibuster, because the necessary ratio wasn't reduced to 3/5 until well after Dixiecrat filibusters against JFK and LBJs civil rights legislation. In other words, FDR passed his entire legislative package with 59 of the 64 Senators needed to override a filibuster. With 60/60 Obama barely managed to pass a stimulus package and awful healthcare bill by one vote each, after weeks (in the latter case, months) of wrangling and watering down that made the resulting bills worse than nothing.