In the end, the question has to be answered: how do you hold the man accountable for his undermining so much that progressives hold dear?

I've heard all kinds of rationalizations of continued support of his candidacy, but never any authentic rational argument that comes to terms with the real issues involved in trying to force Obama to act like a genuine progressive.

One thing that's 100% obvious is that Obama is not going to be swayed by such things as this absurd, toothless and feckess letter from The Nation. Anyone with unclouded eyes can see that from the standpoint of Obama and his campaign, the support of the progressive community is something he can simply take for granted. The focus is entirely on winning the "center" -- and any shift he can make to the right that might make that happen while minimizing the perception of "flip flopping" is a very good thing.

And this goes as well for any "criticism" of Obama from the likes of Kos and any other (still quite few) "A"-list bloggers -- as well as from, say, both Jeralyn and BTD. While Jeralyn and BTD have certainly been far more forceful in their criticism, there is no reason to believe that, for Obama as a politician in particular, any of this means anything to him in altering his behavior.

Looking at Obama's behavior over the campaign, my conclusion is that he cares about one thing, and one thing alone: getting the votes he needs to win. I expect that if he enters office, he will care about only one thing: maintaining enough popularity that he can win in 2012.

If that is true -- and I rather doubt I'm wrong about it, given what I've seen -- then criticism of Obama per se is pointless. It's more about making oneself feel one has maintained one's own integrity than it is about truly expecting to change Obama, and improve the state of the country.

Now, there is of course a powerful argument that critics of Obama can make for voting for him despite his great liabilities. Namely, that voting for Obama is still brings about a lesser evil than voting for McCain.

But even that argument is never made effectively.

To make out that argument, it doesn't suffice to say that in the four years Obama might be in office, as opposed to the four years McCain might be in office, Obama will support better policies.

In the case of Obama and McCain, one must make the longer term argument: who is going to promote a political context in which, over the long haul of, say, the next 8 or 12 or 16 years, a more progressive and better nation might come about?

Given that McCain would, almost certainly and by his own declaration (as I understand), not serve beyond 4 years, does it make more sense to let McCain win now, and reconstruct the pieces of a progressive movement in 2012? If Obama is unlikely to promote progressive policies, and is, given his personal characteristics, likely to turn out to be a deeply unpopular President like Jimmy Carter, should we simply allow McCain to win, in the expectation that McCain and the Republicans will themselves become only more unpopular, allowing a powerfully progressive sentiment to rise in 2012?

I'm not claiming that these questions are easy to answer, or that the answers, when we come by them, will be attended with great certainty.

But I never see any attempt by critics of Obama who continue to support him to come to grips with them.

But it's too late to turn back, they say, and the Party apparatus is firmly his now, so we'll sit back, watch him slide a bit more, rebound with the big Olympics ad buy (assuming the Olympics aren't a disaster) and then grab the clear lead again with all the hoo-ha of the convention.  But, after that, we'll watch him slowly get eviscerated by the inevitable GOP attacks on his personal history and shabby associations -- as the worst is surely yet to come.

Voters want national security: Are they getting it with Al Queda still quite active and our neglect of Afghanistan?  Are they getting it with our airport security questionable and our port security invisible?  Are they getting it while we are dependent on oil from the mideast?

Voters want universal healthcare; no need to sell this.

Voters want an energy policy that would free them from mideast oil and rising prices.  You need a Reagan-style talk to the voters about why drilling won't work, as long as it is accompanied by what will work.  People are listening now more than ever, but no progressives are doing the talking.  Whatever happened to creating jobs by turning this country green?  

The link you provided referred to other options, such as not voting at all.  The poster insinuated that s/he'd vote for someone else.

Of course, he still has to sell no-drilling to the public, but that is a separate issue from compromise.

And this is where his lack of experience comes in, imo. He hasn't shown he has the chops to get something for the people when he's reaching across the aisle. Nor has he shown it in the campaign. Nor has he shown any desire to tackle for the Dems.

I was willing to get by his lack of experience before the primaries, but I was a bit uncomfortable with it. For me, to know him (so far) has not been getting to loving him. Or even hold your nose and vote liking him.

Sometimes gridlock is better than the alternative.  But with this it hasn't even gotten to the gridlock stage.

How did we get from the gas prices of 2000 when Clinton 42 left office to where we are today?  That's the point that the D's should be pushing.  However, we have Obama saying "bitter clinging gun religion" and "don't tell me words don't matter" against "gas tax holiday" and "stimulus checks".   Try telling Joe Schmoe that it was the Dems that pushed for the stimulus.  Many proclaim, "Bush gave me $600 and Obama wants to keep my gas tax in place!"

The tendency to talk down to constituents kills Democrats every time.

Republicans have a straightforward proposal with an existing infrastructure to support it.  Democrats have plans for research and exploration of alternatives and tax credits and whatever.

I mean, the surge worked and then it didn't work.  

Sen. Barack Obama has not been a fan of private police like Blackwater in war zones, and some news outlets even reported that they were spurned for his trip last week to Afghanistan and Iraq. But Whispers confirms that Blackwater did handle the Democratic presidential candidate's security in Afghanistan and helped out in Iraq. What's more, Obama was overheard saying: "Blackwater is getting a bad rap." Since everything appeared to go swimmingly, maybe he will take firms like Blackwater out of his sights, the company's supporters hope. U.S. News

I subscribed to that magazine for 8 years, but became slowly disenchanted with its lack of populist passion and rigidly ideological writing.

I remember seeing Katrina Vanden Heuvel on one of political shows becoming all excited when Pelosi became the House Speaker. Vanden Heuvel was so naive. Even I knew, that simply electing representatives with a d after their name would not make a difference. Sure enough, a few days later, Pelosi announces that impeachment is off the table.

The idea that someone's website should be treated as a valid source for truth (as opposed to 'truthiness') is bizarre.  

The link is to a page comparing Obama and Clinton's votes to prove which one is more 'progressive'.  There are 4 group ratings listed.  And what a coincidence, they all show BO with a better record than Clinton!  But I wonder, what are the chances that these are the only 4 ratings groups in the entire progressive world?  Or could this page owner possibly be cherry-picking the data?

Maybe they should take a clue from Keith Obermann and someone needs to take Obama into a small room and remind him WHY he is in the position he is in now.