Because, you know, they lie.

Just like Bu$hCo. In fact, one can't help but wonder if they're related somehow.

Sadie Baker, via Avedon:

Obama's central dilemma is that he ran, if not as an outright progressive, at least by making enough progressive noises now and then to win the support of progressives. He would not be in office without them.

But his intent is to govern as an anti-progressive. For reasons I cannot fathom, his team has decided to try to use the frame of "fragility" to thread this needle.

To wit: he can't end the wars because the Republicans will call him names if he does. He had to cut a backroom deal with Big Pharma on healthcare reform because otherwise they would run mean commercials. He had to give Wall Street a blank check, with no strings attached, because otherwise they might hurt him.

You see the problem? When your stated agenda conflicts with your real agenda, you need to come up with a plausible reason for why you keep things that are the opposite of what you said you wanted. That's understandable, you want to keep the rubes on the reservation.

But why weakness? Why do they think it's a good idea to tell everyone the reason he doesn't do what needs to be done is because he's weak? That's a huge mistake that is going to catch up with them...

Why? Because you don't ask why weak people lose.

You accept what Beck and Rush had been saying all along, if you're not inclined to think too much, and the next bankster shill wins the $election.