From 2008 to 2010, according to Gallup, the fastest growing demographic party label was former Democrat. Obama took over the party in 2008 with 36 percent of Americans considering themselves Democrats. Within just two years, that number had dropped to 31 percent, which tied a 22-year low. link

The clear-eyed and sharp vision we had for liberal - or "progressive" - policy during the Bush years began to go out of focus when the Democratic-majority Congress simply failed to exert itself after the 2006 election - due in some part by that majority being attained by electing Democrats from red states who, by most measures, were more closely aligned with Republicans.

And then came Obama, who, by the policies he has continued and expanded, the ones he has pushed, by his clear alignment with Wall Street and the banks and corporations, has pretty much eliminated the ideological tension that was our only hope.  Whatever "partisan conflict" that exists is really about the other side not being satisfied with how much of their agenda Obama has attained for them - they want it all, and I don't see Obama being all that opposed to eventually giving it to them.

The course will continue because President Obama does not truly sense electoral danger despite circumstances. Polls and problems can be overcome, I think he analyzes,  by his  supreme confidence in his persuasive abilities as the campaign heightens,with his call to endure hardships rather than solve them,  his assumption that his base will, in the end, come through for him (e.g, the cavalier stick in the eye on Ozone regulations made worse with justification by Republican rhetoric ), his $ 1 billion campaign chest, and continued reliance on cheerleaders and rationalizers like Chait to help carry his water.  And, the best of all is his expectancy that scary Perry will be the Republican nominee.  

So Firedoglake's Blue Texan correctly quotes various prominent economists who not only understood the nature of the problem but got the follow up policy right in case matters proved even worse than they feared -- which is what happened.  All of these "didn't matter" people who got it right were ignored or worse by the Obama White House.  But Chait seems unaware that the initial size issue was not the most important liberal/left critique of the President's failed economic leadership.
...
The economists the President ignored were saying publicly what, according to Brad DeLong, some on the President's economic team were telling the President privately: you're going to need a bigger boat. ...So you'd best be preparing the public for what might be needed, given the depth of the recession.  Instead, as DeLong notes, we got one "unforced error" after another.

The President and his incompetent political advisers insisted that all was well and that we just needed patience.  And they continued to say that long after the data showed the Administration had badly underestimated the seriousness of what we now call the "lesser depression." They are still doing that.

But the story gets worse.  Soon after Congress passed the first stimulus, the President resurrected the notion, partly ignored from his campaign, that what the economy needed was substantial budget reductions, including "reforms" -- benefit cuts -- to make Social Security and Medicare sustainable.  Obama strongly pivoted to budget cutting even though the recovery was not assured and unemployment was persistent, and even though his economic advisers knew, as Krugman et al were saying, that we could face a long and uncertain recovery with lingering and unacceptable levels of unemployment.

So it wasn't just the not really mindboggling size of the first stimulus that was problematic; it was the deliberate policy of ignoring evidence and credible advice that much more would be needed and for an extended period, probably years.  Even worse was the rhetoric about budget cuts that would undermine any effort to achieve further fiscal stimulus. Again, highly credible voices warned this was a serious problem, but Obama ignored them. link

Aravosis-

I hope the White House has a plan to replace those environmental voters next November (and I'm sure they do, this is all part of the "win the middle" strategy that has so far lost the White House the middle in poll after poll), because enviro votes are clearly not desired by a White House that finds environmentalists "left-wing," "ridiculous," "silly," and not "serious."

You can keep hoping and praying that the President will take you seriously, or you can get in his face like gay activists did when we found that our groups' strategy of playing nice was getting us nowhere.  This White House does not respect the Democratic base or core Democratic issues.  They only respect people who challenge them -- people who "take hostages," to quote the President.

Food for thought. Does anyone honestly think the President is going to be more helpful on any of our issues once he has the re-election under his belt and truly doesn't have to worry about how we'll vote ever again?

More food for thought, for those who might suggest we just let this slide.  If we let the White House keep criticizing Democrats in Congress and Democratic interest groups with impunity, if we let their ongoing criticism depress the Democratic vote and hurt the image of Democrats who are up for re-election (thus hurting their chances for re-election), our silence could ensure that Democrats lose next November.

It's not disloyal speaking up.  It's disloyal watching an electoral train wreck coming your way, and doing nothing about it.

We bought it: CHANGE and post-partisanship ..

Now that we have a taste of what it's like, it's a bitter pill.

We're balking each time he dosn't act like the other side.

Intransigent.

And no one is talking much about THIS. Not the media, not the right pundits, not many Democrats.

They're mostly into his CAVING mentality...

while he's actually bucking the TIDE, under the most difficult circumstances, to break free of partisanship.

It's PROGRESS, baby steps, yet repugnant to his own party, the party that voted him in instead of Hillary (who was not selling post-partisanship) because most thought he would actually be something quite different.

And now there are some who want a refund/exchange, they would rather have her.

We have no idea what it's like to function as a post-partisan nation, not to have a CLEAR LINE drawn in the sand.

"Your either with us or against us..) but you all know that Bushism.

Both.

Health reform, Wall Street reform, the improvements to the new G.I. Bill, the most expansive food SAFETY BILL SINCE THE 1930s.   Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, START,signed in 2010 in the Prague..

happy labor day - for what little pittance is left, politically, of labor.

My question is, which outcome, in the long run, would be better for our children/grandchildren?

Personally, I think it would be #2. The reason? The current Democratic Party is so totally corrupted by the Corporate forces at work here that hoping for incremental improvement in our condition is death by a thousand cuts. The masses only react to catastrophes, and after a few years of Government by the crazed, ideological Right, they may be ready to swing, and swing hard, towards the Progressive Left. (Having tossed out the current Crop of so-called democrats)

this is ridiculous. there is NO question. obama will be where he has been for 2.5 years: completely lost and deluded by his fantasy of republican reasonableness.