NO, we're up in arms because Barry SABOTAGED his cynical Rhetorical PROMISES and delivered LESS than any Loaf (save his own, as Idle Class PRECEDENT) DEFORMS to the rest of US (and it's the grifts that keep on giving US --- the shaft; as the economy, environment and BushCObamanible empire continue their wretched COLLAPSE)! But then, he IS the fourth US President George (Chicken, that is!).

Great job of turning on your own, by the way.

Democratically controlled Congress?
C'mon William, your insights are usually more astute, but such an attribution is dangerously quaint in these dark times.

We know you know William, this is a corporate controlled Congress in a nominal democracy and Obama is not hapless, he's complicit. The "change" we got is more of Bush's agenda.

And we're just another feckless mark in this marketplace filled with neocon/neoliberal illusioneers.

We know you know this.

he isn't black he is of mixed race a man of color ,he would be loved if he had brought us the positive changes he implied during his campaign, so far he's just brought pain and disappointment,if there is hate the electorate hate themselves for allowing him to jive his way into office,so now lets all ponder the future by peering into our balls, crystal ball, basketball ,baseball ,if we have some ,not withstanding critical thought pray the gods will take pity on us ,or maybe just install Pelosi as empress

We haven't forgotten the Bush years or the wreck of the economy and the country that they caused. We're p#ssed because nothing was or is being done about it. It was Obama who wanted the country to forget by stating that he would look forward rather than at the past. Rather than the cleansing purification we needed and would have gotten with investigations, trials, and punishment we got nothing. And the look forward? A continuation of the past. A continuation with no modification of the Patriot act. No closing of the travesty that is Guantanamo. Not only no end to the wars but an expansion (endorsement) of the war in Afghanistan. And as the article itself admits, at best, half loaf legislation.
So no, our impression of Obama hasn't been skewed because we forgot. It is what it is because Mr. Obama has refused to discuss it and worse has refused to do anything about it.

Obviously, none of the commenters here were actually listening to Obamas campaign promises as he made them. Everyone was just so glad to get behind someone who wasn't Bush and was also charismatic and talked of change and hope. I knew before the election that there were going to be a lot of disappointed idealists after Obama actually took the reins and was in office this fair amount of time. I have seen presidents come and go since Ike in 1954. Ike and John Kennedy were the last presidents that had any real power. Obama is doing the best he can and you ought to get behind him because he is the best you are going to get.

http://wcg-newsandnotes.blogspot.com/2010/07/connecting-with-tar-baby-and.html

I've said this before--but elements of the left really did seem to expect Obama to be some kind of Messiah. You are victims of your own faulty expectations. Sigh.

Obama led the movement to overlook the bush crimes, he is the one who said he wanted to go forward not look back.
Obama is right where he put himself.

I'm not surprised. Why are you?

The article tells the story the so identified liberal culture refuses to grasp ... the story is found in the word "increment." I have learned that the number one reason for failure in any movement is the inability to accept success in the "increment" of the moment ... getting to the goal takes millions of baby steps ... and let's face it, the original goal is simply that: a dot on the near horizon that may very likely not be where we want to end up after all. Wouldn't it be great indeed if we as humans could accept whatever success we can achieve in the moment, learn from our falling on our faces, and get up again and look to the goal? I do not think this is too much to hope for ...

I thank "saneline" and "redline9" for their sane and honest blogs. It is indeed correct to say "Obama is doing the best he can and you ought to get behind him because he is the best you are going to get." Maybe looking at the US from a distance helps sort out what is happening. My relatives in S. Africa report that the opinion there is that he is doing a good job against great resistance. In the past I have been able to contribute to some 70 or more NPO's and I still get literature from many of them. THEY ARE REJOICING IN THE CHANGE OF THE ATTITUDE OF THIS GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE MANY GOOD OBJECTIVES WHICH THEY SUPPORT. Are they all wrong?An example which is close to my heart as a physician who has stood helplessly by the side of a woman dying of an anti biotic resistant infection from a "back alley" abortion when a better way of controlling family size was not available. While G.W.'s first action in office was to cancel $34M support for women's clinics overseas, one of Obama's first actions was to nullify the Gag Rule and increase help for women's clinics by $50M. Give President Obama support, concentrate on what he has accomplished against an opposition that blocks his every move and give him a stronger majority in the next Senate and sit back and enjoy the fun.

Bush was the deadly virus that was killing us. Obama is the removal of that virus... but we're still trying to stop the bleeding, vomiting and diarrhea caused by the Bush virus. Once those are corralled, some reasonable progress can be made.

Left Wingers Bashing Left Wingers ....

Ironic that many here seem to view the more sharply lefts disappointment with contempt?

He promised change and delivered more of the same.. what is idealistic about expecting someone to be what they say they are, especially at this crossroad? This is simply a black and white issue.. his cabinet, his comities and his policy making has been shockingly close to Bush era trajectories.

If the shoe were on the other foot, the right would have been much more true to their original platform.. they always are. They are openly corporate as it is a corporate dominated economic and social system.. Obama made the claim the he would bring "Change" away from Lobbyists and soft money?

Now we hear the old 'Don't be so idealistic"..????

If we don't have an ideal and philosophy of change that we are willing to fight with and for, then we are doomed to be trampled by a much less considerate right and we might as well give it all to them right now,,, because there will be no change.

I truly believe that Obama has delivered cynicism directly into the hearts of many Americans, and for that he should be ashamed.

Obama did not servve in the Army, The Navy, or the Marines. He served himself. His Ivy League Education served him as it did Clinton and the Bush Corporation, the group that gave us Nafta and sold out the working classes. Barry is walking in the same trail as his predecessors.
We are in a major depression, only the established order and Barry would love to call it a Recession, but, due the the nujmbers of unemployed it is a major depression and Obama has bought into it.

I worked hard for Obama, but won't again. Oh, I'll probably vote for him, since I can well imagine the class of disgust the GOP will throw up at us.
But with his very first appointment, Ram Emmanuel, it was made clear that although Obama knows what is wrong, he is not going to do anything about it. And with his subsequent appointments, that view was ratified.
Now he has put up Kagan for the Supreme Court. And though I looked carefully, all I could see that qualifies her for the job is that she is from the same moldy mold as those other objectionable types.
An example of Obama's sell-out is the health INSURANCE package. He told us his health CARE plan would be developed in the open where all could see, and each provision questioned. Not so.
And I can't see how HIS foreign policy is substantially different from the previous disaster.
There has always been differences between a candidate's promises and what he delivered when elected, but Obama has given us an exaggerated example of that tendency.He promised such CHANGE.

Obama's power has to come from us, the people. So if you want Obama to implement his program support him in public, denounce the Zionist controlled commercial press that keeps demonizing him because he does not bombard Iran.

When did the word 'balance' lose any meaning to liberals? When did the liberal movement become just as uncompromisingly stupid as the conservative movement? Both liberalism and conservatism seems to think that reality is SO simple. The enemy is corporations and capitalism! The enemy is the government. How can so many people who I consider smart who read truthout be so naive about reality! 'Corporations' have done things like make drugs which cure you and your children, which allow you to travel across the country in cars and planes (although yes, they use too much gas). In short, many of the achievements of business are why we live in a world with substantial advancements compared to the world 100 eyars ago. I am a doctor, and I see every day the wonder drugs which save lives. You think those could have been developed without someone thinking that they will make some money on the drugs. That is the reality of human nature. Why can't anyone on this list realize that the middle road is usually the correct road, and the extreme road misguided. Obama is being brought down both by consevative extremists and even by liberal extremists, upset that he is not the ultra-liberal they hoped for. Do I wish that Obama was able to combat the conservative agenda more? Of course I do. But to portray Obama, a president who has an electorate with people as crazy as the 'tea party', as somehow a failure because he can't just dominate the substantial conservative movement, is simply silly. This country isn't being brought down by either consevatism or by liberalism (though I think conservatism is far more damaging). It is being brought down because most people can't seem to see reality as anything but some black and white battle between good and bad. Guess what. It isn't. Support what you believe in, but never delude yourself into thinking your way is the way of absolute truth, and everyone elses are evil. Because, liberals, when you do this, you simply become your enemy (conservatives).

The German people were disgruntled, on both left and right, once upon a time. History has given us a pretty good lesson about the nature of the outcome. WE are headed in that direction, make no mistake about it. Those posters depicting Obama as Hitler will not be needed soon. We'll have the equivalent of the real thing. Sinclair Lewis wrote, "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." The only thing he left out is the corporate logo that will be emblazoned across the backs of all our "independent thinking" politicians, bureaucrats, judges, etc. ALL U.S. Presidents, I believe, take an oath separate from the one we all see on TV. That oath is to forgive all previous Presidents misdeeds and to expand and maintain American Empire. Obama, obviously an improvement over his predecessor, took that oath and evidently takes it seriously.

It is totally unfair to say Obama is not trying.

It was Joe Lieberman who blocked a single-payer option. The votes in the Senate simply weren't there. That's not Obama's fault.

And Obama tried to close Guantanamo, but the Senate voted 90-6 not to fund the closure, even though there were 59 Dems! Again, you cannot blame Obama.

Still, Obama has succeeded in a variety of ways, particularly when he hasn't had to depend on Congress. He overturned the Global Gag rule. He funded stem cell research. He appointed two women to the old-boys-club Supreme Court. He signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Those things clearly show where his heart is, despite all the obstructionism, not just from the GOP, but from his own party. All of these things reverse where we were under George W. Bush.

I think it is good to have this conversation, which has exposed a rift among progressives, even though we all basically want the same things. Personally, I'd like to see Obama do even better, but I am definitely on his side and very excited still about the opportunity we have with him as our president. When you contemplate the alternatives, I think you'll see what I mean.

"it is totally unfair to say Obama is not trying.

It was Joe Lieberman who blocked a single-payer option. The votes in the Senate simply weren't there. That's not Obama's fault."

Really? Obama used his bipartisan bystander act to get exactly what he wanted by MEANS of Holy Joe Lieberman, for whom he campaigned!

No excuses for the empty suit!

Some of us on the left are disappointed not because we *don't* remember the Bush year, but because we *do* remember them...eight years of slamming legislation through, of "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead" mentality. That admin crammed some of the worst legislation imaginable through congress *without* a majority a lot of the time. And god bless President Obama, he wanted to try and play nice and try for bi-partisanship, but there's a point at which you go "OK, they don't wanna play that way" and start slamming stuff through. Just like Bush did.

In short, we want our President to have the balls to push through what he knows is right despite the fact that his opponents are obstructionists.

While, yes, the media and country does suffer from revisionist Bush history, not all on the left who are disappointed in the president are disappointed because we don't remember Bush. It's because as horrible of those years were, Bush pushed stuff through. President Obama should learn to do the same instead of knee-jerk reacting to the extreme right media pundits as the administration clearly did during the Sherrod debacle.

Exactly....the trick is to marry the current GOP incumbents right to Bush.....he may be gone but they're not. They're running for re-election. They're the ones confounding and grid-locking Obama....they're the ones who empowered Bush every step of the way...though the media is certainly guilty of not telling the true story....they wrote it.

A lot of those Republicans are gone...too many remain....Mr Whoremaster family values hypocrite GOP US Senator David Vitter for example....should be gone in November....by every measure....the confessed criminal lying adulterer who btw voted to convict Bill Clinton...
The media insists he is a good bet to retain his Louisiana Senate seat for the tea-baggers....
...how can such things be?

"by MEANS of Holy Joe Lieberman, for whom he campaigned!"

Actually, Obama shifted his support to Ned Lamont before the 2006 election:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601187.html

And in case you can't recall recent history, Lieberman endorsed and actively campaigned for McCain/Palin.

Lieberman is absolutely no friend of Barack Obama.

But don't let facts get in the way of your conspiracy theories.

Excellent post by "Dave" at 19:10.

Sat, 07/31/2010 - 19:38 — Karen LaMont

"It is totally unfair to say Obama is not trying.

It was Joe Lieberman who blocked a single-payer option. The votes in the Senate simply weren't there. That's not Obama's fault."

And exactly how is it unfair? Did Obama go on TV and use the bully pulpit to tell the American people that Joe Lieberman was blocking single payer health care to put pressure on Lieberman? No he didn't. So how did he try?

"And Obama tried to close Guantanamo, but the Senate voted 90-6 not to fund the closure, even though there were 59 Dems! Again, you cannot blame Obama."

I never said Obama didn't try to close Guantanamo. But again, did Obama go to the public and tell them the Senate was blocking the closing of Guantanamo by refusing to fund it? No he didn't. The real fact is that Obama wasn't actually trying to close Guantanamo per se. He wanted to open a closed Federal penitentiary here in the U.S. and transfer the prisoners to the new facility. The transfer might have restored some of the prisoners rights under U.S. law because they would have been on U.S. soil which would have been a good thing but again Obama didn't come to the public with what he was trying to do so how did he try?
One of the most powerful weapons in a President's arsenal is the bully pulpit where he goes directly to the public when he is being thwarted by the Congress. Especially when he knows that the public supports what he is trying to do.

My statement stands. In my opinion Obama hasn't tried.

"I never said Obama didn't try to close Guantanamo. . . . In my opinion Obama hasn't tried." (Anon. at 00:18)

Bit of a contradiction there.

Also, use of the "bully pulpit" does not mean he can automatically change votes in the Senate when they aren't there. That could backfire and make him look weak.

Obama is doing tons of things (see Anon. 23:18). Some of you are clearly determined to give him zero credit, no matter what. You're either willfully blind or Republicans. It hardly matters; the effect is the same.

I started by voting (1968) for whomever I thought was best, regardless of party. I thought straight party ticket voting was wrong. I kept voting that way until George Bush.

Bush, in 2000, and the Supreme Court convinced me I had to vote for Democrats, no matter what, and no matter who, or we stood no chance of getting anything for the people (you know, us!).

In 2008 I thought Cynthia McKinney was the best person but had no chance of winning. Still believing that any vote not for a Dem was a vote for a Repub, I voted for Obama. He has turned out far, far worse than I would have imagined. A traitor in a companion's garb. A sell out from day one. Extending the Bush programs, only worse, because there is still some wool over our eyes about which side he is on.

So 40+ years after I started voting I learned that once again I should just vote for my preference, regardless of chances of winning or worry about throwing it to the GOP, ala Ralph Nader in 2000.

Basically, if my vote is going to be wasted, I want it wasted on my real choice.

We've all seen the discourse in American politics and society sink to its lowest in decades. And it's heading toward its worst since the Civil War.

If Obama were running over the top of the irrational right the way so many say he should, there would be blood getting spilled.

Obama hasn't accomplished much, and what he has has been watered down, but holding the nation together through the lies (death panels, FEMA detention camps, etc just to name a few) and the rising up of the ignorant rightwing pawns is a significant accomplishment.

Lots of comments worth reading, an instructive back-and-forth. I think Bush, for all his damage, is sort of history now. And what Obama said, which indeed was not particularly progressive, doesn't matter any more either. On many issues, Obama has done well, but the problem, to me, is the really big, planet-threatening issues: he has not even tried to live up to the Nobel Peace Prize, has escalated killing in Iraq and Pakistan, seems unable to stave off an impending Israeli (thus American) attack on Iran, has not dealt with job losses and foreclosures successfully, and seems stalled on climate change. He seems to be figuring out how to be his own person, and before that he needs to figure out who that person is. But we don't have time for that! What will probably save the Democrats on November 2 is that the Republicans don't seem to have any leadership that knows what is going on and what to do about it either. And also, some Dem candidates are genuinely progressive, and can at least go into the election with honor.

The real problem is that the U.S. Government is a criminal enterprise that lies, cheats, steals, racketeers, murders, kidnaps, and tortures anyone who gets in its way. Most governments are similar, but the U.S. Government is the rogue elephant rampaging around the world leaving a trail of destruction wherever is goes. The path that the U.S.A. travels is wholly unsustainable. Eventually, the nation will burn out once it has consumed all available resources. Cancer and the U.S.A. have much in common.

"One thing I am also sick of tired of reading on their candidate statements in the first paragraph is how many generations their families have lived in Washington State. Yes, I know. It is very, very hard for people like us to get work from people like you in our communities. So, I'm not hiring you, either."

Well said. They're not all-American enough.

On those 39 names, there is practically ZILCH INFORMATION in the media in Washington state. The Democrats just expect you to vote for these characters because they're "Democrats." That's what these political hacks are about. Arrogant and disrespectful. That's what the poor quality newspapers in this state are. Full of it. There is no information about all these names. The media doesn't do their job either, getting information out to United States citizens who can vote (not to mention, full-fledged Washingtonians, even if they haven't spent their individual life here vicariously through other generations for 150 years). Where is that campaign money going (not to mention the information)? Probably into their parties with their donors who live in their expensive homes and don't produce any jobs in their state for their fellow citizens.

I would also appreciate seeing more of the national alternative press giving publicity to those candidates around the country who deserve it, if they care so much about change. Talk about the local elections in which real progressives are trying to supplant these political chatchkas we should be throwing away.

So let Obama worry about Obama. Americans, if they're smart, should be telling their non-representatives that they're thinking about themselves TOO.

Last night Mr. Jules Siegel, tonight Mr. William Rivers Pitt...

Who's up next?

How does anything change when you're asking voters to accept the status quo? Why should our government change anything if we continue to blindly support them?

FISA, Earmarks, torture, NAFTA, bailouts, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, immigration reform, abuse of power, DADT, DOMA, ENDA, "health care." Forcing people to buy health insurance is not progressive, and neither is the elimination of all private as well as public insurance coverage for abortion.

We have one party in this country and it's here to serve the corporations.

Hate him because he's black??? No. Actually, his ethnic origin was a source of hope when he was elected. I am often - and mistakenly - called "right wing" because I am a libertarian, but racism is just as abhorrent to me as it is to any sane human being.

My objections to Obama are 1) he is shredding the Constitution of this country even more egregiously than his predecessor - who was the worst president in history in this regard. 2) He is continuing to rack up a bill (started by Bush II) that our great, great grandkids won't be able to pay off. 3) He is continuing and escalating the failed wars of his predecessor. 4) He pushed for a bill that will force me to buy medical insurance I cannot afford - and had the audacity to call this health care "reform." 5) He hasn't closed Guantanamo - the most dishonorable stain on US honor in history - and he is continuing and expanding the rendition program. 6) He campaigned on a promise of open government, but continues the legacy of secrecy. The list goes on and on.

No, my objections are to his performance in office, not to him personally on ANY basis. And said performance is so appallingly bad that he must be sent packing in 2012. MUST.

Don't put words in my mouth, please.

I consider the Republicans as traitors to this country, not Obama. When the Republicans get back in because of the "amnesia problem", the tide will shift and everyone will be angry as hell at the people in power no matter who it is. Having Obama for president is as good as it is going to get.

We USED to be a country that recognized when this was being done...and gave the Soviet Union grief about withholding info, white-washing their history, rewriting facts to suit their political needs. American democracy...where have you gone? Down the Corporate rat hole.

Cognitive dissonance is the operative term for Obama supporters. It's not much different than those who supported Bush/Cheney policies on The Clear Skies Initiative which permitted more pollution, Healthy Forests which was more about giving way to corporate clear cutting of public lands, and No Child Left Behind which eliminated teaching critical thinking in favor of memorization.

Pitts list of pitiful Obama policies are eclipsed by Obama's continuing:
domestic spying
perpetual war for oil and gas corporations
health care reform [sic] benefiting HMO and pharma not citizens
expanding US military occupations and violence into other nations
financial reform as meaningless as so-called health care reform
greater secrecy in government
million dollar bonuses for Wall Street crooks and homelessness for their victims
continuing the patriot act [sic]
escalating the US military occupation violence in Afghanistan

Hillery was right about Obama's skill at running his mouth.

Anyway, people who liked Bush/Cheney and their policies should be pleased with Obama's policies which look like more of the same.

This country is in big trouble. Yes, GW and his administration was horrible. So was Reagan's and every administration that followed.

And now we have Obama. I voted for Obama. What I am disappointed about is who surrounds him. His choice of Duncan for his secretary of education is just BAD and WRONG.

I could go on, but won't. Obama needs to do some housecleaning, and surround himself by better people rather than what he now has.

Oh please, "Mr., Mrs. and/or Ms. Former Canadian", stop whining about so-called "whining"! Part of the process of seeking to hold the psychopaths and sociopaths in control, is by ranting, complaining, debating, writing, friendly arguing, pointing out where people are wrong, trying to wake up the populace to what is really going on and where it's leading that the vast majority of them have no idea about (and think everyone who tries to tell them about is supposedly a fruitcake, "conspiracy theorist", "tinfoil-(mad)hatter", alarmist, extremist, a "Republican" and/or "right-wing" when they're not, etc.), exaggerator, and the list goes on.

It's all part of free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the state Constitution of whatever a state you live (they all pretty much have constitutions which emulate the federal Constitution, most particularly the Bill of Rights), which you were supposedly to have studied and come to truly and fully understand in order to responsibly swear the oath to the Constitution and become a U.S. citizen. Did you really understand the Constitution, because it doesn't appear like you did? Please get something straight: People can "whine" here as much as they want! God knows they have more than good reason(s) to do so!

(As long as they don't make threats of physical violence, otherwise violate the laws that are completely Constitutional, and/or break rules of TruthOut which are totally legal and Constitutional.)

What the Obama critics will not be able to supply is a viable alternative for 2012.

S. Wolf Britain - so typical... put the First Amendment in YOUR mouth to shut up other person's mouth. This "Mr., Mrs. and/or Ms. Former Canadian" is as much an American as you are.

I can't think of anything worse then of those "rightfully" armed with their "only the way I understand" amendments, bibles, guns, ignorance, arrogance, and disgusting, intentional lies.

Fool me once.......

"By 2012, Obama may
"Mon, 08/02/2010 - 15:47 — Anonymous (not verified)

"By 2012, Obama may withdraw, as LBJ did."

In yr dreams.

Romney a potential threat, yes, but also a Mormon in a country unlikely to elect one. Third-party "viable alternative" = return to la-la land (i.e., clear as mud)."

In my nightmares, actually. There is good--conservative, by the way--economic thinking from the 30's onward, that the worst thing we can do is put on the brakes, as Obama's commission and Republicans (little difference) are likely to do. Deflation may lead not just to "double dip" but to depression. Obama is indeed a clueless egotist, but conditions may send him packing.

If not Romney may defeat him. The Mormon business didn't stop him from being elected Governor of MA, an unlikely base for Mormon support.

Third party? Yes, indeed. If you want greater clarity on that, read some US history.

"Die Politik ist die Kunst des Möglichen."
("Politics is the art of the possible.")
--attributed to Bismarck

To my way of thinking, the liberal Obama supporters truly understand this statement whereas his liberal detractors don't.

"You mean they speak German?"

Still borrowing clichés from old tea parties?

The left isn't upset because he hasn't met those lofty goals but because he has abandoned them ALL & not met a SINGLE one!!!
Iraq still there
Afghanistan still there
Medicare for ALL caved in
Bush tax cuts for the wealthy not repealed
DOMA & DADT not repealed (DADT just needs HIS order as Commander In Chief!!!)
Renewable energy & industries forgotten instead we get more drilling & renewed nuclear.
What HAS he accomplished - not a DAMN thing worth celebrating!!!
Failure at every issue!!!
DO SOMETHING HE PROMISED HE'D DO!!!!
ONCE!!!
We would cheer heartily but as it stands he needs to slink back into a hole in Chicago and let a real leader lead.
Change we can believe in - none we've seen!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

I was a miserable nobody when Bush was prez!

Barack Obama is now prez, and I'm still a miserable nobody!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Or, even better:

Oh please, "Mr., Mrs. and/or Ms. Former Canadian", stop whining about so-called "whining"! Part of the process of seeking to HAVE the psychopaths and sociopaths in control HELD ACCOUNTABLE, is by ranting, complaining, debating, writing, friendly arguing, pointing out where people are wrong, trying to wake up the populace to what is really going on and where it's leading that the vast majority of them have no idea about (and think everyone who tries to tell them about is supposedly a fruitcake, "conspiracy theorist", "tinfoil-(mad)hatter", alarmist, extremist, a "Republican" and/or "right-wing" when they're not, etc.), exaggerator, and the list goes on...

Speaking of 3rd Parties: A viable 3rd Party doesn't stand a chance in USA electoral politics now. That's unfortunate because what the American People need now - desperately - is a chance at a true coalition government. As long as the Electoral College persists, 3rd Parties can't win. Abolish the monarchist Electoral College and the People can begin to participate meaningfully.