Even the most micromanaging president can’t control everything under his purview.  I think criticizing Obama’s selections is fair enough, though we should be careful not to criticize Obama for things he hasn’t done, while remaining aware that the history of one’s choices may shed light on one’s future choices.

All in all, I think Obama has not misled anyone in this election.  He has always been completely open about his beliefs and what he intended to do.  Whether he keeps all his campaign promises remains to be seen.  I hope he does.

First of all, I want to echo Greenwald’s point that progressives weren’t misled by Obama. If anyone can point to a specific example of Obama actually walking back any of his campaign promises, then I think those specifics should be hashed out — but the idea that Obama has somehow betrayed his progressive base by choosing center-left advisers and Cabinet secretaries strikes me as a hysterical reaction to Obama’s first few weeks as president-elect.

David Axelrod has said it over and over again: There is one person who will be setting policy in the Obama Administration — and that is Barack Obama. Obama’s advisers and secretaries work for him, and given the impressive mandate Obama earned in the recent election, his employees should feel motivated to help Obama implement Obama’s vision. I’m not saying Obama’s selections aren’t important — but it’s just wrong-headed to make the generalization that Obama’s selections broadly reflect the ideology he intends to implement. This is especially true now, when circumstances at home and abroad are causing policy makers to throw all the old assumptions out the window.

I sincerely believe Obama is choosing his staff based on his need for competance. He needs people around him who have a deeply-rooted understanding of how to get things done in Washington. This means there may not be much room for people who have never — Never — had a voice in the White House because they were too left-wing for Bill Clinton and too young for Jimmy Carter.

When people on the left give the impression that they feel betrayed by Obama at this early stage of the game, they only diminish their own credibility to express more legitimate concerns later on.

This country may not be “center-right,” but it is a country that elected George Bush twice — so the country is willing to elect right-wing presidents. (How soon we forget!) People who feel betrayed by Obama because he’s too “centrist” for them are woefully short-sighted. If Obama succeeds in his effort to “change the trajectory” of American politics toward the left — a move that will be hugely beneficial for many generations of Americans and people all over the world — Obama will succeed because his administration will be perceived as successful by a solid majority of Americans — including at least some Americans who voted once or twice for George W. Bush, and would be willing to vote for a Republican again. To succeed, Obama must be the President of the entire country — not just the fraction of America that hated the Bush administration and couldn’t imagine voting for a Republican presidential candidate. (Like me.)

I’m not saying that Obama should triangulate and sell-out the left just to make himself popular. I’m saying that Obama’s critics should wait until they are actually betrayed before they start complaining about betrayal. Otherwise, it gives the impression that these people on the left expect to be betrayed, and are going to complain no matter how hard Obama pushes in advocacy for their agenda.