I am in near-lock step with this sentiment. Watching the people around me who voted whatsisnuts in yesterday (and who luuurv to talk about it), here's what it is -- they'll vote for whoever:

1. ISN'T currently in charge, and
2. Can string together a campaign slogan about changing the current status quo


...and that's it. Dems get control, and nothing changes, so then repubs get a turn. Then when nothing changes again all the dems have to do is run on "change" and they get it. Whoever gets elected right now will see a quick high in popularity followed by a gradual, steady, irreversible decline in numbers.

While doing health care advocacy work this summer with some reps from SEIU, I met a bunch of people mostly retirees and downsized workers without comprehensive medical insurance who are politically active voters. So I'm just throwing that out there. These weren't just people showing up at rallies either, they were people you met while canvassing or seeking signatures for petitions who tended to be registered Republicans.
Most of these individuals are looking for reform when it comes to pharmaceutical pricing and preexisting conditions, and they get frightened when they hear talk about Big Government/Socialized medicine. At every rally and function I went to, I was always surprised by the utter lack of focus on the economy and how a failure to reform health care will continue to cost the nation to waste billions of dollar in supporting the status quo medicare/medicaid system.
We somehow lost the Clintonian message of "It's the economy, stupid", and now have to deal with the average American reviling against the Nancy Pelosi's of the party.

That is what YOU wanted to see from Obama and the American Government. What most change voters wanted in 06 and 08 was a core competency, with a little toughness.

I don't know that I ever saw a poll that showed healthcare at the top of people's priority lists, and I am damn sure that I what I wrote is an oversimplification -- if only everyone were just as smart as the people who post here, they could connect the dots between healthcare, COLAs, and unsustainability, but do you know what most people want? Loose shoes, tight pussy and a warm place to shit -- and the fact that many are losing that, or were sold a bill of goods on a house they can't afford, and no one in either party is looking about for them is fueling anti-incumbent fervor. So, you have to simplify your message, and that simplification is J-O-B-S. Do not talk about anything else.

Also on this, Obama and co put in place an (admittedly very expensive) solution that took a GDP that was like -3% and turned it around to what, +5 or 6%, in one year? That's so fucking incredible, and yet we're all ready to hang them for not "fixing" jobs-n-the-economy.

Healthcare will not define the Obama presidency. I am concerned that so many Americans get joy out of these types of situations/ setbacks with Obama. It's like they want him to fail just because he isn't the guy they voted for. I hope this new lack of a majority vote can at least bring about a middle of the road healthcare bill that we can build on.

I might argue with this except that you appear to agree with me.

also, this:

This sounds like exactly what I was saying - the disctontent is with both parties, but moreso with whichever one is currently in charge.

I agree with you on some things, but we disagree on the underlying dynamic.

Apparently, you haven't noticed that there IS no middle of the road, and there hasn't been for a LONG time.

seems like the big problem for obama is that nearly everything he has done has been reactive. banks about to fail, throw money at it. afghanistan about to collapse, send troops. economy failing, throw money at it. now, all of these things might have been the right things to do, but its pretty damn hard to prove that they were. it's always hard to prove that without some action you took, things would have been worse. maybe we would be in a depression now with 20% unemployment and the entire banking system in shambles...who knows, but sometimes treading water isn't so bad. just not in politics.

A good deal of that healthcare fight had nothing to do with healthcare or making peoples' lives better, it had to do with making the other side look bad.

Filter that against the set of issues he HAD to deal with... where's the spare time for forward-looking pet projects?

yeah but he did want the job and knew it was going to be brutal. gotta produce in the end.

so another Billz hit-and-run really got us going, huh

No use arguing with True Believers.

Let 'em filibuster.

Yes.

Of course, I think the intensity is heightened by the level of vitriol the libs spewed at Dubya the last several years. I'm not saying Bush didn't deserve it, but I'm guessing what we're seeing now is (oversimplification alert) basically Revenge of the Dittoheads. A real tit-for-tat, "OK, you beat up our guy, now it's our turn to kick the crap out of yours." No mistake or misstep - whether real or perceived - shall go without being magnified and overblown with the blazing intensity of a thousand suns.

That's cheap, and not even accurate. I'm asking how it's logical to criticize him for "reacting" given what he had to react to. Was he supposed to ... not do anything because he's busy workin' on hope and change and ponies and rainbows and shit? I genuinely don't get the critique. Like, that stack of work he just plowed through is more than enough to fill his year up. And most of it came off better than we could've hoped. So, he DID produce, but he didn't get to decide on what.

(And for the record, given the slides into Bushism on war, gay rights, and torture, I'm not so googly eyed)

i'm not criticizing him for reacting, I am just saying its hard to make hay with that in the eyes of voters.

i think he's done a pretty good job all things considered.

gotcha.

I've been watching Seasons 4-5 of The Wire over the past few weeks, and there are more than a few similarities between the first year of the Obama administration and the first year of the Carcetti administration.

I think that in large part it is a healthy reaction to one party control, you know the whole balance of powers bit. Normally I would think that this would be for the best, but right now I'm not so sure. It would be nice if this sparked some bi-partisanship, even if it's out of necessity, rather than one party always voting one way and the other the other way. I hope this is what starts to happen.

Maybe I am horribly out of the loop, but considering the bill already passed the Senate, if they aren't going to be able to pass something revised pretty quickly and pretty surely, the house members would have to be complete fucktards to not go ahead and pass the senate version and maybe make a deal to do a little tweaking through reconciliation later. You wanna look like a bunch of incompetent morons? Just let the biggest thing you've all been preaching about for a year fall off with no results. That fall out would have to be a bigger negative for the members of the house than some minor ideological disagreements with some of its contents.

From both a political practicality measure of not wanting to appear completely incompetent and an ideological point of view of accomplishing much more than nothing I see no way the democrats let this thing totally tank.