John might have linked to this already, but I think that Larison’s sum-up of the Taibbi/Fernholz/whoever smackdown was right-on:
Obama didn’t run on a platform of “fundamental” change of the economy. He was very careful not to scare anyone with anything as dramatic or interesting as that. He didn’t run on a platform of “fundamental” change in foreign policy, either.
This brings up a question: did you all think you were voting for a transformational change agent when you voted for Obama last November? I didn’t. I thought I was voting for a pragmatist, who would (hopefully) bring about positive, gradual change in some areas — bring in a sane economic policy, do something about health care (he’s been more ambitious than I thought he would be on this), end the excesses of Bush foreign policy (even as he continues some Bush policies I don’t agree with).
Is that more or less what you thought?
I should probably admit that I was an Edwards supporter until he dropped out.