I have long wondered why the right becomes so enraged and hysterical about policies and people that are just kind of, well really "moderate" and not really progressive or liberal at all.
I think the reason is if they can paint the Clintons and Obama as far left liberals, then they can prevent any kind of change and then roll things back to those glorious days of yesteryear, when Robber Barons roamed freely over the American land scape.
So any minor change, one (like government health care) that brings the USofA into the middle 20th century and up with all modern democratic governments becomes a radical far left liberal (I don't understand it, but "far left liberal" seems to be the phrase du jour, if you define jour as decades) agenda to destroy our freedoms.
I would guess that what they are trying to do, the smarter ones at least, is to make any progressive move so painful that no politician will want to experience that sort of pain, so they will fore go it. The rest are just dumb fucks.
I watched it happen with Clinton, and at that time I wondered. He managed quite a few real conservative changes, yet he (and Hilliary) were both constantly attacked as being radical far left liberals (oh yes, and major drug dealers and murderers). WTF?
Of course they have successfully moved the discourse so far to the right that the kind of health care that was enacted by Bismark is too far to the left for us. So what happens instead of real health insurance is that we have now apparently come up with a mandatory insurance plan that includes penalties for those who don't buy private insurance. Some far left liberal plan.
I suppose that if the entire house of cards collapses again under Obama or doesn't recover then the "far left liberals" will get the blame and we will be back with another "Bush/Chaney moderate" of some sort. If it happens under the reactionary right then any change will be so moderate that we will end up with ...........................Obama and no real change after all.