The really shitty part of that is blaming the size and effectiveness of the stimulus on Obama.

Possibly in FDL's world the POTUS rules over both the House and Senate?

That post you cited is another example of why I have stopped reading many of the lefty blogs I used to read daily. Many of them wrote off Obama as a failure within a month or two of the inauguration. Hell, some of them wrote him off before the inauguration.

What cracks me up is how self-important many of them are. They love to talk about how they are "holding Obama's feet to the fire." Like he spends a single minute of any day thinking about them. And the endless "what Obama needs to do" posts (which always demand that Obama become some kind of snarling, table-pounding liberal dictator who bulldozes over anyone daring to disagree) are increasingly tiresome.

Look for them to throw their support to some third-party twit in 2012 -- probably Nader.

@Steve: I almost completely agree with you. They'll come running back to the tent when they realize that people aren't paying attention to them or when they see the opponent.

I'm sick of all these comparisons, even when they are positive. When history is written, Obama will be Obama - there will be no comparison.

Gee, nice to know adhering to progressive social justice principles and demanding accountability of our elected representatives is viewed as "whiny" and "self-important".

Perhaps you missed this but it's the Democratic PROGRESSIVE (read:activist)Caucus in Congress that has been holding the line on health insurance reform.

Yes, there are indeed times when compromise and negotiation (honey vs.vinegar) are necessary...however, the other side has to be operating in good faith in order for that to work. The other side has shown over and over and over again that they have no interest in working with our President. Perhaps THAT'S why some of us left of left have seemed shrill lately...we are sick and tired of seeing the "Change We Can Believe In" turn into the "Whatever You Are Comfortable With".

@steve
I would happily throw my support behind a Bernie Sanders or Anthony Weiner in the next general election, however, I doubt even you would consider either one to be a "twit"!

@Allon
Nope, I won't be running back to the tent as long as folks like Nelson, Lieberman and Bayh are considered Democrats.

The Firedog Lake post reflects a shallow understanding of Hoover and the elements in play during his administration, and does carry a certain ad hominem attack quality. But the comparison between Hoover and Obama is made with greater scholarship and more sorrow in the excellent cover piece by Kevin Baker in the July issue of Harper's. Baker's portrayal of Hoover was not the mumbling incompetent in the sack for business, as too many moderns believe, but was of a very progressive, humane, and wordly-wise man who simply couldn't push himself to be radical enough:

"The RFC’s deliberations were understood—with good reason—not as effective management but as insider dealing: common financial practice through the 1920s, but politically and morally insupportable at a time when millions of Americans were losing their jobs, their homes, and their savings, and when some were literally dying of starvation. What’s more, even the loans that were made proved less than effective. The rescued banks, much like the rescued banks today, simply hoarded the new capital and refused to venture out into the marketplace.

Neither the RFC nor any of Hoover’s other programs did anything to seriously address the other major problems then plaguing the American economy: the decades-long farm crisis that was sweeping away Dust Bowl farmers’ actual soil along with their holdings; the near annihilation of the labor movement; a wildly unequal distribution of wealth; the lack of any real safety net for the old, the indigent, and the unemployable; a corrupt, non-transparent financial system that remained largely unregulated—in short, the need for systematic, wholesale reform of a nation that had foundered on the changing circumstances of the modern world.

It would have been very difficult to make most of these changes, because by and large they were advocated only by what were then the most radical individuals on the fringes of the political system. The one thing to be said in favor of such changes was that they were absolutely necessary...

Why was Herbert Hoover so reluctant to make the radical changes that were so clearly needed? It could not have been a question of competence or compassion for this lifelong Quaker, who had rushed sustenance to starving people around the world regardless of their nationalities or beliefs. Ultimately, Hoover could not break with the prevailing beliefs of his day...

Hoover’s every decision in fighting the Great Depression mirrored the sentiments of 1920s “business progressivism,” even as he understood intellectually that something more was required. Farsighted as he was compared with almost everyone else in public life, believing as much as he did in activist government, he still could not convince himself to take the next step and accept that the basic economic tenets he had believed in all his life were discredited; that something wholly new was required.

Such a transformation would have required a mental suppleness that was simply not in the makeup of this fabulously successful scientist and self-made businessman. And it was this inability to radically alter his thinking that, ultimately, distinguished Hoover from Franklin Roosevelt."The comparison is not inflammatory, but apt and chilling. Please read it and judge for yourself.

Sorry about the blockquote..it bombed on me.

@Chaunce: Wow! defecting due to a handful of people? What a team player. Go ahead and continue to stick to candidates (Weiner, Sanders, etc.) who will never disappoint because they will never have the chance to actually prove what they would do in Obama's place.

chauncy:

>>>>>Gee, nice to know adhering to progressive social justice principles and demanding accountability of our elected representatives is viewed as "whiny" and "self-important".

There's nothing wrong with that! It's all about tone. Suggesting that Obama's stimulus numbers were low is a valid argument that I've made many times. But comparing Obama to Hoover is just over the top.

Riggsveda, nice summary. I will read it.

The way I see this is that a lot of armchair political quarter backs got into the game over the past 2 years in-part because of Obama's candidacy. But these people have no historical perspective and their opinions are not grounded in reality. They also love to complain and wallow in despair.

Bob - the Administration isn't ignoring you because of something someone wrote on FDL. They are ignoring you because they have an agenda to pass a bill at any cost, so what you, me, or anyone think doesn't matter.

Unless it's made clear to them that they won't be reelected, you're going to get a bill that sells out to the insurance industry signed into law.

yeah, it needs to be made clear to them that all those progressives are willing to support the GOP or better yet, sit home & let the GOP win by default.

Reread what Ashby wrote.

I think the facts are clear - Obama hasn't done a good job on things like regulating the financial industry and his administration set a very low (non-existent, really) bar on health care reform.

Recognizing those facts isn't wallowing.

Stranahan:

>>>>the Administration isn't ignoring you because of something someone wrote on FDL.

Thanks, Mr. Literal.

>>>>Unless it's made clear to them that they won't be reelected, you're going to get a bill that sells out to the insurance industry signed into law.

I think this plays into my larger point. Are you prepared to have your bluff called? After eight years of Bush/Cheney, are you prepared to allow another Republican regime?

I'm not.

Which is why I think we're better served by playing a dual role: ballyhooing our president while also holding him accountable in a sensible, rational way.

Comparing him to Hoover or spreading the "sell out" meme isn't helping ANYONE except the Republicans. Is there anything you know about the president that indicates that he responds to threats and name-calling from the left?

The question you need to be asking yourself is this: Is this approach worth pushing the president to the center, or worth disillusioning the base enough to help elect a Republican?

All I see right now is a growing tea bagger phenomenon on the left. And if the president determines that he'll never be able to satisfy the left, he'll move to the middle in order to save himself (and the rest of us) in 2012.

What we are seeing, point of fact, is dissatisifaction from "progressives". If you like the status quo, you LOVE Obama. Likewise, if you hate Obama - everything - you come across as a conservative. Obama is just an African-American version of Joe Lieberman.

As a progressive, I find Obama a BIG disappointment. I heard his pretty (pointless) words and chose to see the potential. Reality is, though, Obama uses fantastic words; however, he is not in it for "change". Look at who he has chosen - from Geitner down - 100% insiders who are fighting against change. They are the corporate status quo that got us into this horrible mess.

I will not vote for a man who uses inspirational words to deceive. War spending is INCREASING, Banking/financial regulation has been removed from the table, The investment-class crisis-makers are in charge at the whitehouse, Jobs programs are the lowest priority, Obama continually appeases the right-wing, Obama snubs all persons to the left of Nixon/Buchannon, gay rights are being pushed off the agenda and Obama is out golfing with the theives on wall street.

Yes, we have seven actions that are different from the Bush administration. However, we have 10,000 steps that are lockstep with the Bush Administration. From extraordinar rendition, to moving our torture agenda to plausable deniability, to ramping up CIA/Corporate conniving, Obama has been the biggest disappointment of the century.

I know it is difficult to move the ship of states; but, only action (not pretty pointless words) will change direction. Turn the wheel Mr. Obama or get out of the way so that someone with courage of conviction CAN.

@Ron-Sad to say,you just proved Bob's point. Saying the President is the black Joe Lieberman. Really? I have to ask you, if Obama fails to win the Democratic Primary in 2012, who would be the standard bearer? How would you get the minority and youth vote back,seeing that he was the one that could get these voices out? How would that stop the Republicans,who might be seen as the competent in 2012?(I write this as I gag.) Remember 1980, when people on the Democratic side thought that President Carter was too caustic and slow on their agenda? Sen.Kennedy didn't win the nomination,and Carter lost the Presidency to the one man that sent us to this abominable, inveritable hell. A B-movie actor. If we elected a B-movie actor,it is not impossible to elect a former beauty queen.

Im sorry,but I don't want to call the bluff on whether he gets stuff done or loses the next election. Hes in the history books for being the first African American President, hes gonna get a lifetime pension and an office, and will be greeted by throngs of people all over the world, and a Presidential Library. If he loses in 2012, it will not be that bad for him. If he loses in 2012, we are the ones who will take that loss with Republican policies. It will be us that pays for him losing.

Here, Here Bob! and @GovChris.....

@ceu leaving the democratic tent because of those on the extremes is silly, our tent has always been big and needs to remain that way because it makes us a better representative of the American plurality

If the left splits their vote on a 3rd party candidate in 2012 (like the Rethugs seem to be right now) and we get anyone like "I dye my hair" Reagan or "I'm a soccer mom doncha know!" Palin....we will ALL SUFFER. I have said for many years now that Reagan was one of the worst presidents we've ever had, that in the long term the consequences of his policies will actually lead to the basic break down of the social contract and thus our Democracy.