Falling in and out of love

The liberals are in an uproar.  President Obama is not the liberal champion they thought he was.  He is not striding through the land like a political colossus, rallying the country to new heights of progressivism. 

This was never an accurate assessment of Barack Obama.  In 2008, his positions on health care and the social safety net were arguably more conservative than Hillary Clinton's, and his much-vaunted anti-war speech of 2004 was so little-noticed at the time that no Chicago newspaper even made mention of it.  (There's the value of a good publicist for you:  Never has a state senator gotten more political mileage out of a single inconsequential speech.)

When they fall in love, liberals are no different than anyone else.  You overlook the potentially maddening little things you would ordinarily note.  Or, if you do notice them, you attribute them to the delightful quirkiness of your partner's stellar character. 

It should have given liberals pause that their candidate was, in actuality, the "establishment candidate" in 2008.  His largest single source of support was the banking and investment community.  He had the support of the establishment media and establishment money--even establishment bloggers.  He had a 19-8 vote on the Democratic Party's Rules Committee--you don't get any more "establishment" than the Rules Committee.

When liberals fall in love, as they did in 2008, the Age of Aquarius seems right around the corner.  When it proves not to be, what feels like unrequited love can be a painful thing.  Liberals have been seething for awhile, but now the pot is boiling over.  The blogosphere is awash with talk of a primary challenge to President Obama in 2012.  Said Joan Walsh today:

Still, the rush to proclaim Obama the one, true progressive in 2008 was foolish, and I'd suggest that those who wound up disappointed in Obama think more about what they can learn from that race, rather than plotting to bring him down in 2012.

She's getting flamed in the comments, but progressives should take her question seriously.  What could they learn from this experience?  First, don't fall in love with the candidate.  Second, don't believe all of your own propaganda.  Third, pining for a messiah is not a particularly progressive position to begin with.

Comments

[Hypatia]

Amazing how many people always knew that Obama was never a real progressive. Joanie among others was singing a different tune back when. My sympathies are with those who admit to feeling betrayed and less with Walsh and those who are lecturing them because they missed the fine print. Obama presented himself, based largely on his vote against the Iraq war, as a clear lefty alternative to Clintonism. They are right about that (and have every right to claim they were sold a bill of goods).

[John Petty]

Walsh has always been pretty fair to Hillary, one of the few in the blogosphere who was.

I'm griped because the scenario I predicted has indeed played itself out: The liberal activists who promoted Obama in the first place are the first to bail which leaves defending him to the traditionalist Democrats who largely supported Hillary.