This pains me, but Roger Simon at the Politico is on to something:
Who would have thought just a matter of months ago that the Republicans would be the party of enthusiasm? The Republicans were the party of tired old white men who had just been thrashed by the magnetic and mesmerizing Obama, whose words flowed like silver from his lips.
Then, a terrible thing happened: Obama began to do things. He saved the economy from disaster. He provided new medical coverage for children. He passed historic health care reform for the entire nation.
But who turned on him? Liberal Democrats. Eric Alterman, a liberal author and columnist for The Nation, wrote recently: “Few progressives would take issue with the argument that, significant accomplishments notwithstanding, the Obama presidency has been a big disappointment.”
I admit, I did not go on to read the remaining 17,000 words of the article — I am saving it for my next coma — and that is because I had trouble grappling with the phrase “significant accomplishments notwithstanding.” If you toss significant accomplishments out the window, how would FDR or Abraham Lincoln or George Washington do by that standard?
Aren’t significant accomplishments what presidents are supposed to accomplish? And isn’t it more than a little unfair to toss those accomplishments aside and then judge those presidents?
No. Not if you judge them by the loss of their mojo. Which is how some liberals are now judging Obama.
I’m not sure how much of rank and file democrats have turned on Obama, but quite clearly some of our elites and self-annointed elites surely have, and I do find it baffling. And before the concern trolls step in, I’m not demanding that everyone love Obama and that you tattoo hope and change on your chest. I just don’t understand why the most vocal folks on the left seem to just loathe the guy and dismiss what has been done.