When I can't quite make it to the polling place and pull the lever for Obama, "not much else I can do".

Unfortunately, he has shown himself to be the second coming of Herbert Hoover.

Mr. Jack, sir. I absolutely agree with you. I am reminded of Jesse Jackson's run for the White House. He gave a speech in Iowa and some white farmer was interviewed afterward and said he was somewhat astonished with how much he agreed with what Jackson had said. In essense, he expected the BLACK candidate to champion BLACK people and not be a champion of REGULAR people.

I am also reminded that while the FDR and the New Deal Democrats largely ignored dealing with the problem Jim Crow Southern Democrats, the New Deal policies largely lifted the boats of all working men and women and not just white ones.

If Obama had championed "jobs, jobs, jobs", real health care reforms, etc. and not largely done the job of Corporate America he would have won the hearts and minds of not only his base but probably not a few of those who drive around with ladder racks on their pickups and Bush stickers on their bumpers.

(soto voce) You used turmoil twice in the first sentence.

"...there really isn't much of an opening for anyone to mount a primary challenge. Come 2012, we'll sink or swim with Obama."

I don't think there has ever been a successful primary replacement of a sitting president that resulted in a victory for the challenger in the general. 

My thinking is the Republicans take the Congress in 2010 and spend the next two years trying to destroy Obama and he gets the Clinton sympathy effect and squeaks by in 2012.

Only if you define Democratic as "progressive and liberal". When they're "center right" and desperate for more Republicans to vote for them, this is just the kind of fight you inevitably get.

I can't understand the "pass any HCR bill" crowd. I suspect that they are beginning to see the dilemma that progressives are in with Obama and Rahm at the helm.  This is the best we can get from this Democratic administration and Democratic Senate so we might as well capitulate, declare "victory" and move on.

We'd be much better off if all those damned liberals and progressives just realize that the House of Lords really have our best interests at heart and just accept this incredibly fine piece of legislation that they worked so long and hard to produce. All those letters and emails and calls coming from constituents to the "lower" house against the Senate bill must be due to the nefarious influence of FDL and it's evil web of health care hatred. If the Reps would just give up and sign off on the Senate bill President Glorious Shining Heart Obama can gather around him all his multi-millionaire House of Lords buddies for a beautiful and touching signing ceremony and everything will be all right and we can all believe in "Hope" again.

It's simply not "health care reform". It's another in a long line of "reform" bills that does the opposite. This thing needs to be killed now. We have next year to get it right.

Sadly, the DLC types will see this as evidence of their superiority over and independence from the Dirty Fucking Hippies and Liberals. A badge of honor for them and a sign that they're doing things right.

Maybe I'm just being a contrarian, but was there no value in having a "systemic crash" if that system is massively dysfunctional. A lot of lessons were learned (and subsequently un-learned under Reaganomics) from the systemic crash of the 30's. I think it would have been more beneficial to lance the boil of this massively corrupt financial structure than try to reform it with little baby steps. But then again, Obama is such an Establishment player, the latter won't happen either.

People always leave off the "presumed" part when they say the sentence "innocent until proven guilty". Guilt or innocence isn't a switch that suddenly get flipped. One minute you're innocent and the next you're guilty. The correct phrase is "presumed innocent" and, within the legal system, is an admonition to juries to weigh evidence presented to them in a trial against a defendant "as if he/she was an innocent person". If you see someone commit a crime, you know they are guilty. They are not innocent. Rangel is presumed innocent but you can look at the evidence and pretty much figure it out and, in politics, you don't need to fulfill the burden of proof as you would in a court room.

"At some point, presumably, the Beltway press is going to get this, no?"

No.

Obama, all talk - no walk.

Yeah, what's the point. I was a Dean Meet-up coordinator, ran for my county Democratic Central Committee, on the last ballot as a John Edwards delegate. I can prove all that but criticize Obama and I'm a hidden Repuke troll and should STFU.

Pathetic.