In recent weeks, there's been a lot of silly noise in the MSM about how the left is supposedly frustrated with Obama. First off, I'd like to thank plenty of Kossacks for negating and eviscerating such superstition. We've had some good diaries and stories highlighting the enormous work done by the Obama administration, projects that liberals generally support enthusiastically. By and large, I think, the left is quite happy with Obama. What frustrates me significantly is how a few disconcerted individuals are transformed into representing an entire movement. Despite the MSM blather, this liberal is damn proud of Obama.
Today, the drivel continued at the Los Angeles Times, with its broad, sweeping, and glaring headline in its "news analysis": Liberals not pleased with go-slow approach by Obama. The headline betrays the timidity of the article, which begins in a slightly more subdued manner:
Slowly over the last few weeks, some of Barack Obama's most fervent supporters have come to an unhappy realization: The candidate who they thought was squarely on their side in policy fights is now a president who needs cajoling and persuading.
"A president who needs cajoling and persuading"....Really? Did he get lost on the way to the forum? It did not seem like he needed any persuading to expand children's health care by billions of dollars, and he seems fairly certain of signing a gigantic and historic spending bill that represents a monumental governmental effort at turning around the economy. My impression is that Obama has been your run-of-the-mill modern liberal. Stem cell research has emerged as an issue lately, and is cited by the author of this article as evidence of his position, but I am easily confident that the administration will eliminate those restrictions. Honestly, some media outlets just need a good story, and why not go with something that suggests internal dissension among the ranks, right?
Certainly I don't want to sound like a lackey or anything. I'd like to think that one important difference between liberals and conservatives is that we (the former) are much more self-critical and capable of launching blistering shots against our leadership. Sometimes this tenacity can be a disadvantage because it showcases our divisions, but it's also a methodology that forces us to improve our thinking and our movement. In no way do I believe that Obama has been a 'perfect' president, and I was never looking for perfection anyway. America voted for a great candidate who so far has turned out to be a great president. The future economic projects planned by the administration also seem enticing (particularly on mortgages and foreclosures), excusing the relative lack of details on the bank investments.
Your thoughts?