Joan Walsh, like me, isn't disappointed in the President because her estimation of him wasn't inflated to begin with. She sees what everybody should have seen, which is that the President relied on a lot of Wall Street money to finance his campaign and none of us should be surprised when Wall Streeters have a position of influence in the administration.
I find that many progressives who jumped on the Obama bandwagon early, selling him as the progressive candidate in the race contrasted with corporate sell-out Hillary Clinton are, like (Ariana) Huffington, among the most disappointed by the president. I was an Obama admirer but a skeptic, and I find I'm less chagrined about the ways he falls short of my ideals than the folks who swooned for him early.
Yes, that would not only be "corporate sell-out" Hillary Clinton, but also the "win-at-any-cost" Hillary, and the "triangulating, DLC shill", "old machine politics" Hillary as well. That was all campaign hyperbole for most people, but, in any campaign, there are always at least some who actually believe their own propaganda.
The Democratic Party has had a potent "activist" wing at least since the "boomer generation" came of age in the 60's. They usually manage to pull about 30% in the nominating process--think Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley. They like the new, the different, the non-traditional, and absolutely loved Barack Obama. They did indeed "swoon for him early."
No president would ever meet their high standards, including our current one. It wasn't a month after the inauguration, and I was shocked to hear two activists tell me that they were only "70% supportive" of President Obama.
It was all predictable. The "boomer swooners" have consigned the President to the category of "politician," which he was all along, but, oh, there are none so blind as those who will not see. He is no longer worthy of their support, which means that traditional Democrats--Hillary supporters, by and large--are the ones left defending the President.
Comments