I thought I was, liberal when I was in college, then progressive as I saw more of the nuances in the fabric of the world that is not black or white.
I NEVER thought Obama was liberal--oh, perhaps about a few things: if being for a woman's right to choose is 'liberal' then he [and I] are liberal. I STILL believe Obama is a 'progressive', but he is a pragmatic one [which any politician who hopes to be effective must be] who is willing to take one step backwards to get two steps forward.
FDR was a pragmatist. His 'liberalism' would not be recognized today: we'd be calling him a total sellout! And yet, he had congressional majorities twice as large as Obama's, when he instituted his programs. He made awful compromises w/ conservadems--AA's not included in Social Security, no integration of the military, etc. He made these deals because he valued getting things done above ideological purity AND because he respected the unfair boundaries of his political reality.
So if I'm no liberal or progressive--even though I've been fighting for their causes for 35 years--what am I?
According to SO MANY at dailykos and Democratic Underground, I am a Quisling, like Obama, because I believe getting UI and other stimulus that helps the economy grow, are worth compromising for, considering that I have a roof over my head, food in the fridge and $ in the bank.
Two of my 'recent' diaries, one on the coming economic 'boom' [300k+ jobs/month by Spring and into 2012], and an other about why Pelosi didn't vote on tax cuts before the election [as Obama begged her to--hint: she didn't have the votes] gives you a pretty fair idea why I think Obama is on the right track and why I support him strongly--though I believe there is room for improvement!
A President is at his most powerful when he/she wins re-election [bush was an exception to this b/c 1. he barely won, if that; 2. he didn't present any program to run on besides more of the same; 3. he took his 'mandate' and tried to gin up support for SS privatization..] By the time Katrina hit he was already staggering.
Obama is in this to win. Re-election certainly, and probably also by redefining what is politically possible for a pragmatic 'progressive' to achieve, given the nature of his opposition and the weapons at their disposal with which they can fight him.
This is what got him healthcare reform--a 1st step, but a huge one, in our march forward. It's what got him financial reform, again an improvement over the regulatory destruction clinton and the repugs wreaked on the economy in 1999. By the way, what about Bill Clinton? who SO MANY here defend and hold up as a great politician..
Except for the 93 tax package, he got NOTHING for his base--unless you count NAFTA and welfare reform as something. Furthermore, we, his base, spent two years and most of our political capital, fighting to save him from his own personal stupidity. Where were the victories then, except for whatever deals he had to make [Gramm-Leach] to weasel out of his Lewinsky affair?
Clinton never won a majority of the vote, and he probably cost Gore 3-4% of the 2000 vote, so in my book he was a MAJOR FAILURE, though he talks a great game. Obama is not a chest thumper or a show-boater. He does not seem to relish all the miserable deals he's had to make with really slimy characters such as blanche lincoln, ben nelson, lieberman, not to mention the repugs.
My Democratic friends are furious that Obama doesn't pull an Achilles and camp at the gates of Troy just to show his contempt for the Greeks! No, Obama stays in the game, even when he takes a pounding from all sides. Except for a small slice of the electorate, there is no die-hard majority behind him covering his back.
We [meaning dkos and DUers] were NEVER his loyal allies; we just allowed Obama to be the one on whom we projected all our hopes.
When I SET ABOUT writing my long poem about Alexander the Great I was looking for that essential truth that eluded history books, the thing that made Alexander the immortal figure that he is and was, even in his lifetime. In the thousands of pages of history I read I came upon an odd story about a 'two-headed sea monster' that roamed the oceans asking randomly-chosen sailors 'what of the great Alexander?' even centuries after his death. If the response was 'he lives and reigns', the sailors lived. If the truth of Alexander's demise was revealed they would be destroyed.
That was how the ancient's explained why some ships never returned to port. But there was a larger message beneath the story; the truth in the 'lie', that gave me what I needed to know in order to finish my poem.
We live in a world of monsters--hurricane's, earthquakes, global warming, the occasional anti-Christ. etc. As long as Alexander lives and reigns the monsters are kept at bay. Still deadly, mind you, but there exists in the human psyche the One who will face these monsters with calm, resolve, without fear, no matter how ugly the battles become.
The ancients projected their hopes on Alexander: he represented what they WANTED to believe humanity was capable of being. Perhaps Barack Obama allowed us to project our hopes onto him even though he knew during the campaign that the ugly reality of politics would taint him once he actually took responsibility for governing.
bush governed 270 electoral votes. He never cared a fig about New York, MA, WA, CA, etc. Obama governs 404 electoral votes, perhaps more than that even. He actually cares about the lives of people who will never support him because he is a Democrat or 'liberal' or his father was African.
BECAUSE he cares about people Ed Schultz despises, he has 'lost' many here in the blogosphere. But that is his job. To care about the lives of those who agree and disagree with him. That includes the 40% who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old.
The victorious generals surrounding Alexander could not fathom why their King paid homage to the gods of those he vanquished--it was customary to force the conqueror's ways on the conquered. But Alexander believed in 'The One who lived inside The Many'.
If you ask me, Alexander lives and reigns.