Yeah; I've been ambivalent about Frank's writing for a while; I don't think the false consciousness argument in Kansas really holds water necessarily, for example. I think he's a good writer too...but like C.T. says, blaming Obama because there wasn't a socialist revolution is just silly (as opposed to blaming him for being awful on national secuirty, or for just basically ignoring any effort at prison reform, or for not making any effort to channel rescue funds to homeowners rather than to bit business...)// My first published essay was in the Baffler way back when, incidentally. I always feel weird talking about Frank because I kind of know him but I don't know if I know him well enough to call him "Tom" in print.

That's not Frank's view! He says Obama wanted to stop change and save the capitalist order. // Point number 2: Since when do I care about icons of the left?

There's a certain leisure in watching baseball I haven't found in any other sport. Like a vendor, I like going to games and not knowing who won or lost when I leave. It's very calming. Sold out, intense games with wild, aggressive crowds are no fun. But the grandeur of baseball parks and the affordability of cheap games makes it the best sport there is (from a non sports fan).

My younger sister is the perfect meld of your and your fathers type of baseball fandom. Appropriate since she is 35

Ray, Noah and CT: you're turning on a fellow, who until this past year, was an icon of the left! I do agree that Frank's utter despair and anger over Obama's lackluster presidency is so pitched that he gets carried away. Not so different from Krugman, who's largely shifted from economics to MSNBC-style GOP bashing. But, boiled down, Frank's view that Obama squandered an opportunity for the Democrats by his diffident, disinterested approach to politics and policy is, despite the President's steadfast cheerleaders, is sensible.

His argument made no sense. He was babbling.

Good one Booker.

Crackerjack piece Booker, well and warmly written. This old Yankee fan non-fan found much with which to empathize.

CT: I also debased myself by clicking on a Salon article, mostly because I think Frank is a wonderful writer. Don't agree with him almost ever, but in this piece he's on target. Only disappointment is that he didn't say who'd he'd like to be the Dem nominee in '16. I'm assuming Warren or Sanders.

The older I've gotten, the more ridiculous I've found Frank's perspectives, even though I respect him. I never read "Kansas" but I was mad for The Baffler back in the 1990s.

I like the point that revolutions aren't necessarily ideal for large numbers of people.//I enjoy Frank's writing, and he's a smart guy, I think, but he sometimes verges on self-caricature.

At this point, I'm more interested in the historical view of this presidency, 10 or 15 years on.