Has Daily Kos Become a "Hate" Site?

I still go to Daily Kos regularly, because I enjoy a good argument.  Unfortunately, you can't find a good argument on the Internet.  You can only find "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALA!!"

There are legitimate reasons to dislike the tax cut deal.  And I understand them.  I share them.  I happen to think that throwing 2 million people off unemployment, continuing tax breaks for the middle and working classes and getting some stimulative juice from the payroll tax cut are important.  And I don't think we'll get anything better after New Year's.  I think they blew this in September.  And by "they" I mean the same progressive lawmakers who are raising hell now.  So I see this as the best of a bad situation.

What I don't understand is why this has become so incredibly personal to people at Daily Kos.  They see Obama as "worse than Bush".  Really.  Obama has - since the day he announced this plan - consistently said that he does NOT like extending tax cuts for the wealthy.  But it was necessary to get what he wants.  They assume he's lying.  They also assume he's lying about everything else he says about fighting these cuts in the future.

Now, why is that so hard for people to believe?  Part of this is the projection that went into Obama during the campaign. They think he's lied to them.  I don't see it.

Obama always said he would slowly draw down troops in Iraq and end combat operations there. As far I can see he has done that.  He said he would double down in Afghanistan.  I think that's the wrong thing to do, but his decision to do so hardly makes him a liar.

Obama never committed to a public option.  In the early days of his administration, he said that the public option was part of the plan but not essential.  Now, that might be an example of his negotiating with himself, but the opposition to the public option came from Lieberman, Nelson and Lincoln.  They killed it.  And I think he realized that going in.  It was as much about lowering expectations as negotiating with himself.

The same is true with having Orzag say back in October that they would be open to extending all tax cuts in order to preserve the important ones.  They saw the drubbing coming and knew that it would make only getting extensions on the sub-$250K impossible.

This might be a messaging problem.  The administration has consistently tried to keep expectations realistic in the face of the dysfunction of the US Senate.  That makes it appear as if he doesn't care about reaching progressive goals.

The separation between pragmatists and idealists has been that pragmatists are effectively willing to concede that this will never be a process we can wholly applaud, so get what we can.  Idealists want to build a world they are proud to live in.

Fine, but so much of the problem is retroactive thinking.  Yes, if the Senate had changed the filibuster rules back in 2009, you might have gotten better results on HCR and financial reform.  Yes, if the Congress had acted earlier in the year, they might have gotten a better tax deal.

How that changes the way things are playing out now is beyond me.

I loved what Bernie Sanders said yesterday from the floor of the Senate.  I would love to hear more from Sanders and Brown and other Senate progressives.  I would love for the Sunday morning gas bag shows to invite progressives on to their shows instead of John McCain for the millionth time.  There is an important progressive message on tax cuts.

Where was it a year ago?

Another problem is that of the "Maine Sisters Dilemma".  Because of Scott Brown's victory, you now need one GOP Senator to get ANY legislation passed.  So Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins says she might be amenable to getting something done on, say, DADT repeal.  But she needs more time.  So Obama and Reid or whomever spend weeks, even months trying to win her over and then she decides not to vote for cloture in the end anyway.

Explain to me why this is Obama's fault.  Because last I heard, you still need 60 votes for cloture.  Where else are you getting that 60th vote?

Obama isn't being played for a fool.  This isn't Lucy and the football again.  It's basic math.

Try and bring that up at Daily Kos and you get a lot of "LALALA" and covering of ears and vituperative denunciations.

Finally, the idea that Democrats weren't progressive enough to hold onto the House is a persuasive one.  I'd like to believe it.  But Grayson lost.  Periello lost.  Sure, Blue Dogs went down in droves.  But we lost swing districts because the electorate changes in a midterm election and the economy sucked.

So the idea that Obama can govern right now by moving further left... Honestly, what do you say to that?

Markos was a lifeline during the Bush years.  His strategy of "more and better Democrats" was vital in taking back Congress in 2006.  But now he doesn't care about "more" and all he wants are "better".

We'll see how a "better" but smaller House caucus works out.  The tax cut deal is just the first example of what it means to only have "better" Democrats.

Get used to things being less than what you want.