He appointed Bruce Babbitt as Secretary of the Interior--the dream candidate of environmentalists for the job; so much so, that Babbitt was taken off the short list as a potential Supreme Court nominee.

And, Bill used the Antiquities Act to unilaterally designate hugh swaths of the West as national monuments forever closed to development and drilling and mining....Republican anti-environmentalists howled for a long time.   Too bad, Bill did it anyway....

Considering he had a Republican Congress to deal with, Bill's environmental record was very, very good. And needless to say, Bill avoided the unforced error of conceding that more off-shore oil drilling was necessary.  Bill held the line on more offshore drilling and ANWR.

Obama could have learned a thing or two from Bill in that regard.....

Bill did tack to the center to survive politically, e.g., welfare reform--especially after the GOP took over Congress.  Obama, however, has become a centrist offering unilateral compromises with the GOP--even though he enjoys large Democratic majorities in Congress--because he thinks it is "transformational."  

I am not anybody's Progressive Champion.

but he has  more progressive policies in his little finger than Obama has in his whole body.

Nostalgia, not to mention love...  

But for those of us who think Obama is just an opportunistic pol like everyone else in Washington, we're torn.  Really going after Obama tends to play into Republican hands and they are scarrier than ever.  Plus there is a bit of a Democratic Party war room that has been set up to besmirch the character of influential left-of-center critics of Obama -- people like Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Jane Hamsher, Glenn Grenwald.

It's not "mindreading" to look at (1) what he says and (2) what he does, is it?  Of course, on that score, he is often at odds with himself, leaving many to wonder whose side he really is on - that's been kind of a problem for many who take him at his word and then find out that - oops! - he really didn't mean it.  It's been a little too Lucy-and-the-football for a lot of people.

I don't know that many people are buying the "best he thinks he can get through" argument, mainly because there doesn't seem to have been a lot of effort to start the negotiations from the desire to get everything on the list; Obama has started almost every time from a position of concession.  For example, it may not have been realistic to think we would be able to get a single-payer bill, but wouldn't it have been helpful and instructive to have at least allowed it to be part of the discussion, especially because Obama himself said that it was probably the ideal?  But it was off the table from Day One, and that wasn't because it was impractical or too expensive, it was because the threat to the industry was not in the best interest of those politicians - including Obama - who depend on the big fat contributions that are funneled their way.

I don't disagree that the opposition party has a bit of foaming going on - but doesn't that make you wonder why Obama has been so amenable to that party's ideas, has conceded so much to them, has listened to them when he hasn't been able to find the time or interest to listen to members of his own party?  If they are that crazy, why is Obama so enamored of their ideas?  Why does he care so much what they think of him?

It saddens me no end to read comments like yours, which seem to suggest that we should all just be happy with the thin and tasteless gruel Obama deigns to slop into our bowls because, if the Republicans are allowed to be in charge, those bowls will be filled with thin and tasteless gruel...oh, wait - somehow, the gruel would be worse or the bowls would be empty?

Yes, the other guys are worse, but tell me something: do you consider it a reward for your loyal and stalwart defense that your president  sells out long-standing Democratic principles without batting an eye?  When did selling out those who support you become something worth defending?  Today, Obama is looking for "limited flexibility" on the Constitution with respect to Miranda - seriously, this is something we should support?

Whatever we have seen and been subject to for the last 18 months may be enough for you; you may be willing to settle for that, and be happy for it to continue, but those of us who are not are not likely to give up our desire for better, even if the scary Republicans are waiting in the wings.

And that's what we should expect from Elena Kagan.  I don't have much to go on, but I expect her to be pretty much in the mold of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, especially in the mold of Justice Breyer.  These two justices were corporate Democrats appointed by Bill Clinton, who, like Barack Obama, was yet another non-progressive corporate Democrat.

I can generally live with the way justices Ginsburg and Breyer vote. And I expect that on most of the important issues before the court, Justice Kagan will vote pretty much as did Justice Stevens.

The real problem with the Supreme Court is that we don't have the votes, and haven't had them for some time.  It is a horrible tragedy that Justice Marshall was replaced by Uncle Justice Thomas and that Justice O'Conner was replaced by Justice Scalito, especially that an attorney and jurist of the caliber of Justice Marshall was succeeded by a pissant like Thomas.