I am still seeing a lot of hits being thrown toward "the far left" for unrealistic expectations

A good bit of it is lashing out over the loss of Kennedy's senate seat. I'll let that discussion go elsewhere. This post is about "the far left". And judging by the barbs being tossed out, that would include me.

First let me say that I'm hardly a "far lefty". I'm a liberal who is generally in line with the thinking and philosophy of FDR, but modernized. I don't call myself a progressive or some new age kind of self identification. I'm an old fashioned liberal.

While I would like everything yesterday (that's a Boomer trait, not a liberal trait), I am old enough to know that won't happen. But what I *want* to happen - and what I think most "far leftys" want to see - is a definite change in direction. We want leadership. Actual leadership. We want to see clearly articulated stands on issues. And we want to be acknowledged. We want to know the people we voted for remember we exist.

Since health care reform is the issue of the moment, I will use that as but one example.

I *want* single payer. I also know that is not in the cards. But why? See, here's the thing. The job of crafting a bill was outsourced to a dysfunctional group (Congress). The administration never put out much more than platitudes and broad statements. If there was any specificity, it sure never got shared with the country. The president is no different than any other politician: he doesn't talk to us unless he wants something. So maybe there was some plan he was trying to get in place.

DU is a reasonably knowledgeable bunch of people who are pretty well tuned in. Even in view of this, there has been a lot more speculating about what was in the bill(s). If there were leadership and stated goal, we would have known what they were and been discussing that. Instead, we discussed unicorns and fairy wings and clowns dancing on the eye of the needle ..... in other words, rampant speculation that is the natural outgrowth of a knowledge vacuum.

So please, when you call out "the far left" at least have the decency to be realistic. And give us some credit for being more than "haters". For many, this is not about Obama or any other one person. The criticism being leveled aginst him right now would be leveled against anyone who was in that office and did (or did not) do what he's done. It just so happens he's the one in that particular hot seat.

by the administration and the MSM, even "our own" MSNBC. Instead of "change", we got machine Democratic party politics as usual, except for a few minor instances. And still the media is calling Obama a "leftist". It's almost a joke - the guy is about where the '70's "moderate republicans" used to be, and in some areas, not even that far left.

Obama is a real salesman, and a master pol when it comes to manipulation. He never had any real "progressive" agenda, maybe a moderately liberal stance at best, and he has not lived up to even that-at least not so far.
Rec.
mark

Admonishments to Give It Time miss the mark for me because I think things are headed along the wrong vector. "More time" helps not at all if you are headed in the wrong direction.

That's the crux of it.

(TG for recognizeable acronymns) disarmed both left and right although the right made full use of unregulated and unchallenged ownership of the media and trumpets. That seemed very clever and based on Clinton's experience with his top down strategy that got picked apart(left used with right for the ultimate demise). Like the first strategy it was likewise too total even if the WH was working behind the scenes because it dealt with method over and above substance and making reform itself submit to special interests that were THE problem not alternate points of view. Failing to treat problem people and interests as problems the WH finally gets irked enough to taking their side against the left and the solutions. This type of failure is very reminiscent of the callow Clinton WH and a failing gets pushed to become a problem in itself.

Maybe I could lecture the WH this is what you often get when people who failed come up with a better idea. It makes you look stupid if you lose again. Happily I don't know if that is even partly true or fair. What is clear that working out something with the deadly enemies of the main goal, even to their apparent advantage, is not always democracy at its best when it excludes both truth and the people's fairly clear wishes, clouded as they often are by universal lying spin. The "left" has neither slowed nor impoverished the debate nor doomed all results and has even realistically avoided being scapegoated- though they may be lied about effectively anyway. What is clear in THESE times even moreso than Clinton's
era is that real problems and real popular will must be faced and not cleverly dealt with or played off. You won't win points by doing the past a bit better and losing again with the other extreme of poor legislation leadership. Game rules apply to Dems and proper civil legislation only. Anyone up there in the stratosphere get that enough to act on that situation yet?

When has Center Left even had one say? The Far Left
exists im the GOP imagination.