SAD

The two areas in which Obama's progressive intentions - if he ever had any - have crumbled are in finance and national security - meaning torture, state secrets, etc. As to finance, I don't believe Obama ever had progressive intentions. He was forced into stating them, first by the Edwards campaign, and second by the developing economic crisis. I think he had very little inclination to make any significant change in the financial system. As to torture, etc., I think he did intend to make changes - and has in fact made a few. But these two areas are among those in which the most pressure is put on government by industry, the most money spent, the most revolving doors exist. Obama apparently decided the fight would be too destructive (and, I wouldn't be surprised, dangerous for his candidacy for a second term. So far the perception seems to be that Obama is focused on what's good for the nation and not what's good for him. That is a brilliant advantage which he, his team and the media have made believable, but no politician is immune to self-serving.)

The interesting thing to me is that the argument keeps being made that he doesn't want to expend political capital he will need for more important things down the road. As we move down the road, though, he keeps shifting the focus further and further into the future toward issues of which at this point we have not the vaguest idea. A while ago everyone said that he wouldn't take on the torturers because he was saving his political clout (and bipartisanship, don't you know) for the battle on health care. Now that battle is here, and he doesn't seem to be willing to spend much of that capital on this issue, either. What is he saving it for now? Who the hell knows? I'm sure he views himself as practicing the art of the possible. Constantly getting rolled is very possible. How much political capital is he going to end up with if he isn't actually willing to invest any of it?

This is the moment for progressive ideas. There is no potential presidential candidate, of either party (with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton) who is showing any progressive inclinations. This is going to be a pretty short moment.

The answer is, as always, grass roots pressure. But there isn't going to be much. Polls have showed that as much as 80% of the population wants a public option on health care - but it will never happen. Imagine the result, though, if those 80% went active. They would be irresistible.

If half of the national energy harnessed by the Michael Jackson PR team were put into health care reform, or fighting global warming, politicians would understand that they didn't need the lobbyists to get themselves re-elected - they just had to do the right thing. But that energy is not harnessed for important things. In Iran, people are fighting for democracy. In China, Uighurs are fighting for self-determination. In the US, people are fighting for free tickets to the Staples Center. Just how embarrassed ought we to be?