>>511110331 (OP)I'm surprised no one posted this yet, but there was a significant turn in about 2005- W's admin had been publicly feuding with the dems strongly over the war on terror but there was some sort of agreement reached- as the mid-terms predictably went to the dems, suddenly all the anti-war and bringing the admin to justice for lying us into Iraq suddenly was turned to being on the same page and "moving on." Hillary was expecting to get the tap next but suddenly this very slick black guy comes out of nowhere and assures everyone that we're now past partisanship and you can worship him now.
It's clear he went to GH and told him he could do a better job smoothing things over and keeping the train moving in ways the the Bush Cabal would be happy with, and he could be the "rockstar president."
There were a lot of dems that drank the koolaid by the gallon, and there were just as many that were angry(more?) that the party had sold out and was openly telling them that it wasn't about the issues, it was about how likeable the candidates were.
The grand theft/consolidation of the "(planned) financial crisis" was a nasty backdrop to that. Many people wanted the banks that were part of the voodoo to go under but that was never in the cards.
If I had to sum it up, Obama ran on "Hope and change" but in reality the mood (for those paying attention) was that the problems were systemic, and that the people in the system saw no problem with those things- a feature, not a bug.
There were votes put up to legalize torture prior to Obama getting in, and there was enough passive support that it probably would have flown. It was weird to witness and it's even weirder now watching people either meh or excuse the Epstein stuff as part of functioning "democracy."
Was it "better" than today? I don't think so- I think the things that happened then are still with us now, just warped a bit.