What Obama Has Squandered and Why/How the Democrats (And the Rest of Us) Will Likely Lose Big Tomorrow

John Aravosis at America Blog has several good posts that enunciate what I feel is the narrative of the last two years since the Liar-in-Chief was elected president. Combined, they also lay out the case why the Democrats deserve to lose in a major way even though the likely massive losses will be harmful to a majority of Americans. Personally, I view Obama as bearing the principal responsibility for the betrayal of those who put him in office since he should have been a leader instead of a follower. The nation had a once in multiple generations opportunity and the Congressional Democrats under Obama's spineless and groveling leadership pissed it all away. For that, Obama should never be forgiven. Here are some highlights from two different posts John wrote earlier today:
*
[T]he 2008 elections were the chance of a lifetime for Democrats and they blew it, on health care (where they might have gotten much more had they simply tried) and on everything else. Even the stimulus was botched (asking for half of what was needed, then giving away another 35% in near-useless tax cuts) - thus the 9.6% 9.2% unemployment rate that's dooming Democratic control of Congress. And, if you're gay, an enviro, an immigration advocate/Latino, a civil libertarian, an AIDS activist, or a union member, to name a few categories of the Democratic base, the results of the 2008 election weren't nearly so laudable, since most of the big biggest promises made to you were broken, and now are toast.
*
It didn't have to be the reality. The President, and Democrats in Congress, chose not to push the agenda they promised, and they chose not to fight back when the Republicans repeatedly lied about the weak-tea agenda the Dems were in fact pushing. You bet that's dispiriting. But was it inevitable? Only to the extent that today's Democratic leaders have no backbone, yes. But it's not inevitable in the sense that our leaders couldn't have fought back harder. Yes, they could have. They simply chose not to.
*
It is all very disheartening and for younger voters, I can understand how many now feel that voting makes no difference in what happens based on the litany of broken and/or half kept promises of Obama and the Congressional Democrats. The GOP could have become a long term minority party. Instead, the Democrats have made sure that at least for now, that will not happen. And with the Liar-in-Chief in office for another two years, it is safe to assume that nothing positive will happen. If he couldn't get things done with the Democrats holding both houses of Congress, he assuredly will not get anything done if the GOP controls the House. Here are highlights from a Huffington Post column that says it well:
*
One of the myths of this stunted political moment is that Barack Obama "tried to do too much," and that purist, ungrateful liberals are mad at him over things like the absence of a public option in his heath bill. This is dangerous nonsense, and it matters because these widespread views among the pundit class will influence what lessons the media and Obama himself draw from what is likely to be an epic partisan defeat on Tuesday.
*
[L]iberals are dismayed with Obama not because this or that initiative was insufficiently lefty. They are mad at Obama for blowing what had to be a Roosevelt moment, and thereby ushering in a totally needless period of far-right resurgence, dominated by a lunatic right that makes Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove look like moderates.
*
Obama did not decide to be bold in his first two years in office. He decided to be timid and conciliatory. People on his own economics team, such as Christina Romer, were telling him that the stimulus was far too small, and that it was too tilted to tax cuts.
*
Politically, it fed right wing populism by putting Obama in bed with Wall Street. Economically, it led to the Japan scenario that we are now suffering, in which even zero interest rates can't pull the economy out of the ditch.
*
[I]t isn't Obama's putative boldness that alienated centrists, but that Obama let the economy slide far deeper into protracted stagnation. Boldness that put the economy on the road to recovery would have increased his support, left, right and center.

If, as widely expected, Democrats lose the House and barely hold the Senate, we will hear a lot more of this commentary. Obama supposedly governed too far to the left, liberals were insufficiently grateful, and now he needs to govern in coalition with the Republicans. How he might actually accomplish that is never quite specified, given that the Republicans' main goal is to destroy his presidency and their electoral success will only whet their appetite.
*
The stakes are even higher now, because America is on the brink of a second banking crisis about to be triggered by the revelation that much of the securities on the books of America's biggest banks can no longer be disguised as sound investments. One of the very few silver linings in a truly ugly turn of events is that some Republicans in line to assume key committee chairmanships, such as Rep. Darrell Issa who will likely chair the powerful Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, are no fans either of Wall Street or of the Federal Reserve.