Associated Press photo
“[President] Obama almost seems as if he’s trying, systematically, to disappoint his once-fervent supporters, to convince the people who put him where he is that they made an embarrassing mistake,” notes New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. Um, “almost”?
The buzz within the left-leaning blogosphere and elsewhere on the ’Net is that the left is done with Barack Obama. Obama’s latest broken campaign promise — that he would not allow the unelected Bush regime’s tax cuts for the wealthy to continue — seems to be the final nail in Obama’s political coffin.
Fuck the left, I hear the chorus of Clintonistas sing, but without the left, what support does Obama have?
The Repugnican Tea Party dipshits always hated Obama and always will hate him because he’s not a wingnutty white man. (Was Obama’s talk of “bipartisanship,” which is imfuckingpossible with the fucking incorrigibly untrustworthy Repugnicans, naivete or political bullshit?)
Now that Obama has lost the left, whom does Obama have? The notoriously fickle “swing voters”? They’re not nearly enough for a presidential candidate to win an election.
Obama is sitting in the Oval Office right now because of the “swing voters” and because he bamboozled enough of us on the left. Without the left, he’s nothing.
I know, I know, I’ve heard the mantra before: Obama never promised the left a rose garden.
Except that he did.
He promised “hope.” He promised “change.”
Clintonesque centrism is not “hope” or “change.” It is more of the same.
Barack Obama has fucked over, repeatedly, those of us on the left. And we’re done with him.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is no rabid revolutionary, but even he this past week wrote:
Whatever is going on inside the White House, from the outside it looks like moral collapse — a complete failure of purpose and loss of direction.
So what are Democrats to do? The answer, increasingly, seems to be that they’ll have to strike out on their own. In particular, Democrats in Congress still have the ability to put their opponents on the spot…
It would be much easier, of course, for Democrats to draw a line if Mr. Obama would do his part. But all indications are that the party will have to look elsewhere for the leadership it needs.
Yikes. And yup!
Perhaps Obama’s biggest sin is that he punked millions of young voters who now, because of his betrayals, on one issue after another, might be turned off from progressive political activism for a long time — or even for a lifetime.
Or maybe, just maybe, Obama’s failure to be a Democratic president will spur a progressive backlash.
Maybe, as Krugman seems to indicate must happen, the left will flow around Obama the Obstacle in Chief. Maybe Team Obama will discover that the left is bigger than Barack, that when Team Obama says, “No, we can’t,” the left will reply with a resounding, “Yes, we fucking can! And we will! With or without you!”
In any event, I hope that Obama, who has demonstrated amply that he doesn’t know what the fuck he is doing, will make one wise presidential decision: not to run for re-election.
If obstructionist Obama does not step aside, I hope that he is challenged in the 2012 Democratic presidential primary, as Jimmy Carter was challenged in the 1980 presidential primary.
While I didn’t think (and still don’t think) that 2004 was the year for Howard Dean, I think that 2012 has Dean’s name written all over it. He would have my support in 2012.
In 2008 Barack Obama simply rode the wave that Howard Dean created in the 2004 presidential election campaign — and he has squandered it.
2012 is the year for Howard Dean to reap the benefits of what he began in 2004, and we can relegate the one-term Barack Obama to the sorry footnotes of U.S. history.