Well, perhaps this doesn't make you at least wonder. The need for narrative is strong. If Team Obama doesn't supply a credible narrative, others will. The identity of some of those "others" exasperates others of those "others", as does the identity of some of those Team Obama accepts into their dressing room. (The "Cat Food Commission" is the name "professional leftists" have given President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which originally was to feature Pete Peterson as the opening speaker and has Alan Simpson as a commissioner. But you cannot blame the Brits for being disgusted/alarmed, as they have had years of similar treatment at the hands of Nulabor.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

I'm asking what good your tactic of criticizing him personally is doing.

Criticizing Obama is not a TACTIC. It is an unavoidable reaction to what I and many others see as an ongoing disaster. Ask most of the US House of Representatives who are up for reelection in November just how much help they expect Obama to be to their reelection or if any one or anything, other than money, from the Obama White House would help them. Could you get a candid answer, most, including the Blue Dogs, would probably say: "Not much, but I am glad for the money". Others might go so far as to say: "Please don't make a public offer of the possibility of an Obama campaign appearance! I don't want to embarrass us both."

There is no obligation of loyalty on my part to Obama or the Democratic Party. I have been a registered Democrat since 1964 and have, I believe, always voted for Democratic candidates, not out of principle, but as a tactic. Since 1965 I have become accustomed to being in strong disagreement with the policies of Democratic Presidents. It is not my role to fall in line with the leadership. There role is to decide if my vote and the votes of people with similar views are worth accommodating. In truth, there is no party that has really represented my views. There have only been occasional candidates that came close, such as Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern.

I am becoming more and more convinced that the only way forward is via a political realignment into a Reform Party that has as its prime objective dismantling the financial capture of Washington DC by the financial elites and fundamental reform of campaign finance. There are dangers in this approach, as the paleocons, such as Paul Craig Roberts, and the libertarians, such as Ron Paul, have very different social agendas. But we are, I fear, approaching the point at which the danger of the current system is even greater.

The effectiveness of Obama's political leadership has been such that the Democrats may well loose the House in November and loose ground in the Senate. The economy will continue to deteriorate and may well experience another collapse before November 2012 that is worse than that of October '08. Blaiming all of this on Bush will not cut it by then and we could well have a new Republican President with a Republican majority in both houses. We could then be reduced to hoping that there would even be future elections.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

From my point of view, why should I remain silent?

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

It is not me that the Democrats have to worry about. I held my nose and voted for Humphry, for Mondale, for the idiot in a tank from Boston, will certainly hold my nose and vote for my local Blue Dogs and probably will vote for Obama in 2012, unless there is a more appealing alternative from a third party that seems actually to have a chance. For me voting is tactical. My opinions are my opinions and if the leaders of the Democratic Party care about them, they can try to so indicate by means other than cheap rhetoric. What they will lose is any enthusiasm from most on the left. (I didn't have much in '08 - hopes was about as far as it got.)

As far as the left withdrawing support, most will probably vote tactically for Democrats this year and for Obama in 2012 but be less willing to make small contributions. But while the Obama campaign made much of their online donors, they were not as significant as their financial sector donors. I doubt that the Obama machine gives a FF about small donations from the left. But they will be happy to blame disaffected progressives for their own failures. It won't be the progressives fault if the independents dessert the Democrats in droves, and I hope they don't...

Without trying to speak for others, I am not "trying to accomplish" anything other than letting pollsters, elected officials and candidates know what I want - more progressive policies and candidates. I am not going to change that just because "accomplishment" is improbable. Asking me "what I want to accomplish by criticizing Obama" attempts to shift responsibility for the results from their actions and policies to my attitudes. That is ridiculous.

That might not be what you intend by the question, but you are far from the first from whom I have heard that question. Booman was, in effect, asking the same question back in the summer of '08. Since then it has appeared any time the progressives complain about the direction of the Obama Administration. Probably within a few years some political guru will step forth and claim credit for coming up with that question for the Obama campaign, though it is likely as old as politics.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."