I worked for the Obama campaign. If I was to have chosen a person in the primary based on proximity to my political beliefs, it would have been Dennis Kucinich.
For the record, I never disliked Edwards. There was always something offputting about him that I could never put my finger on. Was that a disaster averted!
Anyhow, I believe feelings of being misled are completely valid. And I say this as someone who worked on the campaign.
To a lesser extent, people did project their own wishes and beliefs on to Obama. However, to a greater extent, Obama did nothing to tamp down many of those expectations. Listening carefully to his opinions, I never doubted that Obama wasn't outside of mainstream in the United States, yet I can fully understand why so many believed he was a true progressive.
And this is why silly things like the public option exploded into blogosphere armageddon. The public option was one very clear example of Obama being a pragmatist instead of a progressive.
I've been let down by politicians on the left all my life. Vote Democrat and get angry, vote Republican and get f***ed, right? My expectations for Obama were never much greater.
I understand that when people become angry, over feelings of profound disappointment, they can become irrational. Ralph Nader is a classic example. I remember working on the Gore campaign in 2000 with respondants telling me, and I quote, that they "see no difference between Al Gore and George Bush". So easily we lose perspective. These days, those same people wouldchampion Al Gore as a hero of the left.
We are evaluating a President 1 year and 4 months into a 4 (and hopefully 8) year term. If Obama is one thing, he is someone who sees the long term approach. I have never seen a President held to a higher and more stringent standard by the left, despite accomplishing so much.
I think we've found the source of your profound problems. Drudgeico? secret meetings? multiple unnamed sources? You are believing all the speculation you read on the internet.
In the mean time, Obama has until the end of the year. You can't construct some fantasy where you string together nonsense to prove that Obama isn't going to do something well before he promised to do it by.
From what I heard, no justice in modern time has turned out to be more conservative than predicted. Conservatives use that as an argument to champion really conservative justices, under the assumption that they'll turn out not as bad as we think they will, so I'm not sure I buy it. Also, I don't want this person to break that mold.
I felt it was a good time for Obama to pick a fight with Republicans he's bound to win and energize his base. As noted elsewhere, there is little judicial merit to appointing a left versus a far left jurist. Obama has proven he can win that knife fight (HCR, now financial reform).
Save the safe choice for next time, or if the circumstances arise where the court could swing.
Let me try and explain this very simple concept to you one more time: if the President says he's going to do something by the end of the year, and it's not the end of the year yet (not even close), then it's not a lie -- it's an unfulfilled promise.
So why don't you calm down, double your dosage, and stop reading such invective nonsense based on hearsay, speculation, and multiple unnamed sources, and wait for, you know, the end of the year.
Then, if Obama had indeed broken his promise, come back here with all your rage.
They don't average up where each of the 9 justices fall on the liberal versus conservative spectrum to automatically render a judicial decision.
An extremist judge rewards the party base, and little more.
I concede that I am somewhat confused and disappointed by this decision, although I am withholding judgment until I learn more. But I reject the simplistic notion that this moves the court overall one way or the other. The court is far more complex than that.
The mark of an important liberal justice is not how far they are to the left, it is how effective they are at persuading the other side. A far left judge can write all the inflamatory dissenting opinions they want and we'll all clap and cheer, but at the end of the day, it changes nothing. The argument made by others for Kagan is that she possesses the power of persuasion. I don't know if I agree with that, or even if I can, but I don't agree that the court should be assessed by the weighted arithmetic distribution of political leanings.
Anyhow, I will try to explain this to you. As much as you wish Obama had lied to you, when he promisses to repeal DADT by the end of the year, and you are still 7+ months away from the end of the year, it's not a lie.
Could you please elaborate on how she is unacceptable?
I confess I have not been paying attention to this scotus nomination round. But I would like to hear your opinion on the matter, even though it is a non-sequitor to your original (and imo, excellent) post.
I have heard grumblings that she is undesirable to the progressive left, but have not studied the issue more than that.