This may come as a shock to some in The Village, but not everyone is smack dab on the exact same page as Obama on every single issue. I am not some raging far left Liberal and I would be hard pressed to find any issue that I am not, at least, a little bit to the left or even the right of him.  Kos got an interesting piece of junk from some wishful thinkers:

Politico reporter Daniel Libit sends me this query:

Working on a story with another reporter about the increasing
similarity between Barack Obama’s policies and Hillary Clinton’s
primary platform and whether Democrats might have viewed the primary
differently if they knew then what they know now. Would love to get
your thoughts on the state of buyer’s remorse. Might you be able to
send me something before day’s out?

My response:

My god, what a stupid premise.

Of course Obama and Clinton had similar platforms. They're both mainstream Democrats!

Certainly worth some serious and breathless reportage... Right up there with the daily traffic reports on Connecticut's I-95. "I am shocked! There is traffic again!!!" Or, as Digby put it:

Ferchristsake. Please, please spare us any more Drudgico stories about
"the left." Dredging up the primaries is nothing more than cheap link
bait, designed to create a story where none exists. The left has been
pushing Obama hard from the moment he took office, which seems to come
as a surprise to the denizens of the village who assumed that everyone
would spend the next four years sitting around playing the "I Got A
Crush on Obama" Youtube on a loop while muttering "yes we can" under
our breath. The only one who who seems to have actually done that is
Tom Hayden, and when he finally looked up he felt, like, so totally
betrayed.

Clinton and Obama are both mainstream Democrats who
occupy exactly the same political terrain in the party and always did.
That's what made the primary so bloody. It was about personal
identification, style and aspiration --- the differences between the
two camps were never about policy because there was no substantial difference in their policies.

While some of us may have hoped there might prove to be be some differences, we sure as heck are not shocked that there does not appear to be many. Why? Because, unlike the Village idiots, we do actually follow the policies and not the junk that the Village desperately wants to tell us about. And just because we don't agree with every damned thing he does? Those of us that supported him still do, those that were iffy are still iffy and those that were against him still are... For the most part. But that isn't exciting news, now, is it?

And Yes! There are some of his supporters that are seriously pissed at some of the things Obama is doing. And then there are some of us people "on the left", as Greenwald puts it, that are more pissed at what some of his "supporters" are doing:

Over the past couple of days, Andrew Sullivan has linked to and published protests from various individuals who are quite angry
that people "on the left" are being so mean to President Obama, and
several of them are so upset that they have decided they are "leaving
the left," whatever that might mean.  What's most striking about these
valiant defenses of Obama is how utterly devoid they are of any
substantive points and how, instead, suffuse with weird, even
inappropriate, emotional attachments they are.  These objections are
grounded almost exclusively in (a) a deep-seated conviction that
President Obama is a good and just man who means well; (b) their own
rather intense upset at seeing him criticized; and (c) a spitting ad
hominem fury of the type long directed by Bush followers at any critics
of their leader, and generally typical of authoritarian attacks on
out-groups critics.  Just marvel at some of this:

 

Thank
goodness people are starting to leave the left. Their abandonment of
Obama is as unconscionable as the right's refusal to work with him. . .
. This is about decency and working together to solve problems. . . .
Obama is almost solitary in his desire and ability to tackle problems
of epic proportion while realizing that we live in a very heterogeneous
society. . . . The loud-mouths on the Left are becoming nearly as
hysterical and vicious as those on the right. . . . I marvel
(unhappily) on a daily basis on how myopic and stubborn many of those
on the left have become in regards to President Obama. I wonder if any
of these people have ever truly had to make hard decisions in their
lives. Have they not ever had to weigh all consequences?. . . . These
are real choices people, not a schoolyard fantasy, in which our guy,
king of the geeks, is finally captain of the kickball team, and now he
can pick us fellow geeks and play us all in sweet revenge against the
jocks. He is not playing. He is leading. Not even one year in, I am
willing to continue to trust his instinct, his grace, his patience and
his measured hand. . . .These are the reasons I voted for him. Hope for
a leader, not hope for "everything to be completely different from the
previous guy regardless of the consequences", which is what I think
many immature democrats are upset about. What a bunch of selfish
babies. . . . The stuff coming out of "progressive" mouths is all too
often on a par with Glenn Beck's abusive rants--both sides (right and
left wingers) playing thousand-pound national football with the
President as the ball--meaning, kick kick kick, until you bust his
dick.  This truly makes me sick.

These
outbursts include everything other than arguments addressed to the only
question that matters:  are the criticisms that have been voiced about
Obama valid?  Has he appointed financial officials who have largely
served the agenda of the Wall Street and industry interests that funded
his campaign?  Has he embraced many of the Bush/Cheney executive power
and secrecy abuses which Democrats once railed against -- from state
secrets to indefinite detention to renditions and military
commissions?  Has he actively sought to protect from accountability and
disclosure a whole slew of Bush crimes?  Did he secretly a negotiate a
deal with the pharmaceutical industry after promising repeatedly that
all negotiations over health care would take place out in the open,
even on C-SPAN?  Are the criticisms of his escalation of the war in
Afghanistan valid, and are his arguments in its favor redolent of the
ones George Bush made to "surge" in Iraq or Lyndon Johnson made to
escalate in Vietnam?   Is Bob Herbert right when he condemned
Obama's detention policies as un-American and tyrannical, and
warned:  "Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less
wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House"?

Who
knows?  Who cares?  According to these defenders, it's just wrong --
morally, ethically and psychologically -- to criticize the President. 
Thus, in lieu of any substantive engagement of these critiques are a
slew of moronic Broderian cliches ("If Obama catches heat from the left
and right but maintains the middle, he is doing what I hoped he would
do (and what he said he would do) when I voted for him"),
cringe-inducing proclamations of faith in his greatness ("I am willing
to continue to trust his instinct, his grace, his patience and his
measured hand"), and emotional contempt for his critics more extreme
than one would expect from his own family members.