OH JEEZ – AT 8:04 A.M. ET:  This is what passes for interpretive journalism these days.  Is there a sixth-grade editor in the house?  From The Politico:

For many liberals, it is the summer of their discontent.

When have they ever been happy?  They're professional sad sacks.

Already disappointed with President Barack Obama’s ability to deliver on campaign promises, they now contemplate a slowing economic recovery and a good chance of Republican gains in November. Such developments would make enacting Obama’s agenda even more difficult.

I would imagine so.

Two recent essays framed the debate raging within the progressive community over why the promise of Obama’s candidacy has not lived up to their expectations — and how liberals should proceed in what they fear will be difficult months ahead.

In a 17,000-plus word piece published in The Nation on Thursday, journalist Eric Alterman calls the Obama presidency “a big disappointment” for progressives and blamed a broken system in Washington that he says allows the minority party to rule with impunity, and special interests and big money to dictate legislative policy.

When has The Nation ever been a liberal magazine?  If it's liberal, what's The New Republic?  The Nation is a far-left magazine, but they're not supposed to say it in mainstream journalism.  "McCarthyism," you know.

But writing in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Michael Tomasky, the editor, counsels patience, arguing that American history has shown that change always takes time and continued effort against entrenched conservative opposition.

Earth to Tomasky:  The opposition isn't only conservative, it's centrist.  And it may shock you that "change" doesn't sell much any longer.  Americans would like to have the "change" spelled out.  What they've seen they don't like.

And get this:

“It’s not just really about Obama, it’s about the state of our country. Every day, you have a sense that people are wondering where this country is headed,” says Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation.

Yes, and a lot of those people don't read The Nation and don't live in a multi-million-dollar apartment in Manhattan, as you do, honey.  If you had any idea what happens outside your neighborhood, you'd realize how ridiculous you sound.

It goes on like that, including such gems as...

“It was always naive to expect a president to start a movement,” says Michael Kazin, a Georgetown University history professor and co-editor of the liberal magazine, Dissent. “It’s a little bit like expecting a chief executive to start a union.”

Really?  Then what do historians mean by "the age of Roosevelt" or "the Lincoln era"?  But you have to have a president who's a leader.  Ronald Reagan moved mountains.  Barack Obama won't try to move a mountain because it might offend environmentalists.

July 11, 2010