Wednesday, Nate Silver weighed in with what purports to be a fairly comprehensive sorting of Obama's policy initiatives into their ideological positions, showing a huge overall tilt in the progressive direction. I think Nate's categorization is somewhat questionable, but I do think that the impression he has is one that is widely shared: Obama appears quite progressive to many who have supported him, and that is a major reason why they have felt little or no need to pressure him. Digby is correct in saying that there's misperception involved, but it's just not as simple as she indicates.
First off, Nate's general point that Obama's agenda is more liberal than centrist is certainly true. This is hardly surprising in light of Obama's record in the Senate, where he and Clinton had virtually identical records, both as moderate liberals. Given that both are Democrats from solid blue states, there is nothing surprising about this at all. But it's also true that America itself also tilts to the left-at least on the issues that Obama addresses. While this diary is devoted primarily to looking more closely at Nate's analysis, the upshot is to try to push us in the direction of a more precise explanation of what netroots critics find troubling. Nate seems to think that his analysis shows that progressive criticisms of Obama are misplaced. I'd argue that they're not-rather, they're mis-articulated.
STATE BLOGS
