Flashback two years ago.
Mike Gravel may have been a fringe candidate, but after recently reviewing some materials from the 2008 presidential campaign, I am surprised how prescient and remarkably accurate Mike Gravel was on Obama's presidency and Democrats (Re: failing to deliver).
The essential point of Gravel's remarks was that Obama would create a whole new generation of progressives cynical in politics since he would fail to deliver.
The full January 2008 interview and video is here.
On Congress, the president and corporate influence in Washington
GRAVEL: Oh, Congress could do a good job, theoretically, but it can't. Why? Its owned lock, stock, and barrel by corporate America. So you think you're going to become president and you're going to turn to the Congress and say, "Let's really straighten out corporate America." This is foolishness. It's fantasy. But it sounds good on the stump. I could make that kind of speech. Oh, man. Just listen to me. What am I going to do to corporate America? You can't believe. And I know a lot about corporate personhood and POCLAD and all of that. But so what?
JAY: But in a campaign like this, if someone has the potential of winning and makes some kind of promises, in theory they can mean something.
GRAVEL: In theory what it means is you're a hypocrite. That's what it means in theory, because if you're smart enough to know you can't deliver, and you tell them you can deliver, what are you doing? You're raising expectations and you're lying to the people. Or you're too dumb to know you're lying to the people.
...
JAY: Do you distinguish between the leading Democrats and the leading Republicans?
GRAVEL: Oh, the leading Republicans, in my point of view, are nutty as loons. They really are. I mean, they're warmongers. I mean, the Democrats at least—here, I'll give you this example. The Republicans and Bush. Lump them together. You've got boiling water. You take a frog, you throw him in the water, and the frog jumps out. You get the Democrats. You get tepid water. You put the frog in the water, and you turn the heat up slowly, and you cook the frog, and nobody knows the difference.
JAY: Okay, but that's an argument for saying there isn't significant differences between the Republicans and the Democrats.
GRAVEL: Where are the Democrats raising all their money right now? Wall Street.
The jist of it here is Congress is owned by corporations (and soon even more so, thanks SCOTUS!) so it's hardly a surprise why obama has been so light on Wallstreet given who Obama chose in his administration (Summers, etc).
On Obama's promise of change (also, YouTube'd)
JAY: So, then, what do you make of Obama's promise of change and all the rhetoric that's been going along with his campaign?
GRAVEL: It's foolish. Foolish. Dangerous. Dangerous, because he doesn't even recognize that he can't deliver. That's dangerous. I would rather - Hillary. At least she knows what she's talking about. He doesn't.
JAY: Edwards?
GRAVEL: Edwards? He probably knows better, what he's talking about, than Obama. Obama of the three is the most dangerous, because he raises greater expectations of the youth and can't deliver. And the worst thing a leader can do is raise expectations, and they don't happen. You create a whole new generation of cynics. And that's what he's doing. And he’s used the line [inaudible] reason out what he's saying. You know, the statement I like that I've heard from young people: there's no ‘there’ there. And listen to the words. Make a speech and use the word change ten times—what specifically are you going to change? You're going to change the health care system? Not really. You're going to change the military-industrial complex? Not really. He wants another hundred thousand more troops. Are you going to change anything about your relationship with Iran? Not really. Nukes are on the table. Are you going to change anything with respect to Israel? Not really. He's supported by AIPAC. Are you going to change anything for education? He's on the education committee. He's supported by the NEA. Where's change? I don't see any change. But he doesn't say any of those things. He lets you figure out what the change is. So it's like an actor. What does an actor do? He gives you a scene, and you read into it what the scene means to you. And that's what he's doing. It's terrible, because what you read into it isn't what's going to happen, 'cause he's going to have the reality...
Here, Mike Gravel basically says Obama created unrealistic expectations and will not deliver. Although some blame can be put on Congress (Re: a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate america) Obama failed terribly on leadership in moving the zeitgeist (eg bullypulpit on the public option).
I couldn't help post this diary given what's been happening in the blogsphere recently (and beyond, e.g. Krugman ready to give up). I myself haven't given up on Obama, given his strong support for science (but still relative weakness on the climate bill), and if I'm really beginning to wonder if I'll vote in 2010 or 2012.