Now that he's shown that he's an insider -- of course, he was, but he positioned himself otherwise then -- we'll see what that means for him in 2012.

I'm surprised you don't understand that, christine, and disappointed that you, like a few others here, are going out of your way to box the the left crowd into a corner with all the conservatives on the sole basis that both are unhappy with Obama.

I am not critical of Obama with the goal of ending up with more conservative policies, anymore than someone on the right is critical of him because they want what they see as more liberal policies.  

As for the incrementalism of which you are so fond, I think before you can declare that we are on our way to meeting our goals, you first have to identify whether your goals and Obama's goals were the same to begin with.  And, with health care, for example, I don't know how you can declare that they were when he wasn't willing to even discuss the best solution to the crisis - and made sure that those critical to the legislation were on board with shutting out the single-payer discussion, as well.  How do you solve problems when you don't consider all the solutions?

And then look at where it went from there.  

Let's say that I have a recipe for a particularly complicated and time-consuming and labor-intensive dish.  I know it's going to take time, but I know that the end result will be worth it.  But, let's say that for whatever reason, I can't actually make it myself - I have to leave it to a group of people I consider to have the same goal that I do.

The first thing that happens is that the person now in charge of this operation declares that one of the main ingredients will not be included in the recipe - and we aren't even going to talk about why that is a problem.

The next thing that happens is that a group of other people start picking at the ingredients list, taking a look at what the finished product is supposed to be, and start making noises like they have no intention of eating it.

So the Cook-in-Chief makes a few more changes to woo these uncooperative people into changing their minds.  But instead of cooperation, he gets more criticism - and so more changes are made.

Meanwbile, as we see this major tinkering with what was a good recipe, we try the same thing the other side did - we declare that we won't eat the finished product, either - and what happens?  Nothing.  We are ignored.  Us, the people who entrusted them with this great recipe - our input isn't considered worth listening to.

The end result is barely edible - it smells terrible, for sure, and maybe if you are starving, you would be happy to have "something" to eat, but here's the thing - whether we like it or not, the cooks have decreed that we are all going to be forced to eat it.  Not all of it, not right away...the hungriest among us are only getting crumbs, and it's not clear how long that will continue.  

Most of this abominable creation has been turned over to the same proprietor who has been making and selling really bad food for a long time, so it now appears that what was created was something these people wanted to sell, and not what we wanted to buy.

According to you, we got something to eat, even if it's not what we wanted.  We're supposed to be happy and believe that this barely-edible abomination is just the first step toward a better dish, and that the Cook-in-Chief and all his sous-chefs are going to keep working to improve the dish.

But you keep forgetting that we had a good recipe to begin with - they want you to forget that! - so what are we really to think about whether our goals and the Cook-in-Chief's were ever the same when he wasn't even willing to try the recipe that a lot of cooks agree is the best one out there?

Finally, given that so many of the elements in this execrable dish came as a result of "suggestions" from a school of cooking that none of us has any intention of signing onto, there is no chance we believe they will have a better recipe, be able to put it together better, and create a good product.