I will take it as given that Obama, whatever else you might think of him, has not been as progressive as we would like. He certainly has not been as progressive as I would like.
Now, why not?
He sounded, to many of us, like a true progressive. His acts, prior to being POTUS, were those of a progressive. His votes in congress were good. What happened?
He got elected.
And not by a landslide.
And so, he is not acting like a POTUS who won a landslide.
Who was the most progressive POTUS of the last 100 years? Does anyone doubt it was FDR? Well, LBJ was also good, at least on domestic policy (civil rights act? great society?)
In 1932 FDR beat Hoover 57.4% to 39.6%, a difference of 17.4 points. He won every state outside New England, except for Pennsylvania (yeah, things change in some ways).
In 1936 FDR beat Landon 60.8% to 36.5%, a difference of 24.3 points. He won every state except for Maine and Vermont.
In 1964, LBJ beat Goldwater 61.1% to 38.5%, a difference of 22.6 points. He won every state outside the deep south, except for Goldwater's home state of Arizona.
In 2008, Obama beat McCain 52.9% to 45.6%. A difference of 7.3%. McCain won most of the south, some of the midwest, and a lot of the mountain west and southwest.
He won a modest victory; against a doddering old man and an ignorant nobody, following the worst president in history.
Now, you and I voted for change. But not enough of us did.
And now, some people want to stay home. To punish him. Or something. That is just plain stupid. If you want Obama to be more progressive in his 2nd term, we must get a bigger majority.
You may say that the Democrats had big majorities in the House and Senate. That is true. But those majorities included many who are NOT progressive and who come from districts or states that voted for McCain.
As Shakespeare said, although meaning something rather different, the fault lies not in our stars, but in our selves.