It's amazing to me the lack of motivation on the part of the self-important Netroots to do anything without drama prompting them.  Obama's filling out his cabinet and administration with people are already in office.  If the so-called "leaders" of the Netroots had any real leadership in them, they'd be out there with list of "progressives" they'd like to see fill these empty slots.  Is no one curious as to what kind of Democrat will be filling these Congressional, Senatorial and Gubernatorial seats?  Is the Netroots rallying behind some Representatives to get them into the Senate?  What about retired or inactive Democrats who are acceptable to the Netroots?

Two weeks and I've heard nothing.  I contact friends in other states, asking them who's up for filling a vacant seat and they want to talk procedure.  I know procedure, but do they want more Lieberman's or more Ryan's?  Seems no one really cares.  Instead we get two weeks of whining about all the former Clintonites in the administration, which is amusing and annoying to me at the same time.  

~~~THIS SPACE FOR RENT~~~

As soon as Obama defeated Hillary Clinton, he turned INTO Hillary Clinton.
At that point McCain was doomed to crash yet again.

By the way, I just heard, and this is no joke, Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal are in Iowa doing retail politics with an eye toward 2012.  
 

I don't know that there is such a thing as Netroots. There was a lot of frantic advice that he should go all-out left, stand by Wright, attack Bushist ideology, etc. There was also plenty of the usual Dem/liberal chickenshit about how he should play to the center-right, never speak of race, and generally say nothing that would make the wingnuts mad.

To my eye, he started out following the latter, then later moved more toward the former. What we out here tend not to see is the arc of a campaign -- probably because it's been so many years since a Dem campaign had one.

Given the seeming center-right (Clintonite) thrust of his current decisions, I'm hoping his administration develops in a pattern similar to his campaign. I have a feeling that it will. The overanxious gnashing of teeth by folks like Sirota seems kind of absurd at this point -- he's not even going to be in office for some time yet. I think he's earned some slack before we get hysterical about every little nuance we can detect.

Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." --Former Nixon counsel John Dean

Does this post contain any logic? I fail to see it.

.
not in a trumped-up loose complex of political activists named netroots.

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

Which is exactly why I will not criticize the Lieberman vote.

As long as Obama can count on the support of the netroots without suffering consequences, the netroots don't matter in the least.

But as Double G says, why are we surprised by that?

It's important not to generalize.  It's impossible to quantify, but I think the vast majority of Obama supporters were perfectly clear-eyed about what he is and voted for him for the standard unremarkable reasons -- that they perceived him as better than the alternatives.  But there is no question that Obama has inspired among many Democrats a type of deep and intense loyalty that is personal to Obama rather than grounded in policy issues, that many see him as much more than a politician who will make good political decisions.  That gives him far more latitude to do what he wants -- far more power -- than the average politician has.

Add to that the fact that the one thing that Republicans, establishment Democrats and Beltway pundits all share more than anything else is a contempt for what they perceive as "the Left" and a belief that it should be scorned -- see here and here -- and none of this should be the least bit surprising.  Obama pays no price, and garners many benefits, by embracing the center-right and scorning "the Left."  It's this dynamic that needs to change in order for the outcomes to change.

Meet the new boss.

Same as the old boss.

More at Zandar vs. The Stupid.