What matters most is what can pass through Congress.

Of course it does.  And Ezra even gave the quote that best represents the problem.  Basically what Rahmbo says is that it doesn't matter what gets passed as long as we show like we are doing something.  Basically, that they'd be happy with shit bills.  Is that really what we want?  Someone who is afraid of supposedly wasting his political capital?  It reminds me of the "keep the powder dry" comments from Democrats during the Dubya years.

Hate to say it, Booman, but I kinda suspect the South is alienated from Obama already. The South isn't going to turn around and like him any time soon - some people there who still don't like Abraham Lincoln.

So in practice, Obama can't afford to alienate a second region of the country.

You are advocating total defeat.  Your position seems to be that the Obama should pass only what he thinks he can get through the very conservative Dems and GOP.  If Obama is not willing to either:

a) Start the negotiations from the far left
b) Pressure conservatives in the same way he pressured liberals over the war funding bill in the House
c) Advocate very loudly for rule changes and progressive positions in very progressive terms in order to change the terms of debate

then how the heck is he going to do anything other than what Bush would have wanted?  Because that is who you are saying has all of the power and you are saying that Obama either cannot or should not do anything about that.

His calm and cool demeanor has gotten progressive policies precisely jack.  Putting aside Afghanistan - -because Obama was always a centrist Hawk on foreign policy -- Obama has delivered almost nothing for progressives.  his bailout was positioned as much too weak and ended up not helping enough to matter enough to most people (remember, a year ago 10% unemployment was seen as a disaster.  Today it is the new norm)  DADT has not been touched. The climate bill started from a compromised position and appears to be heading either nowhere or to nothng but a giant handout to businesses with weak, if any, impact on climate change.  The health bill appears poised to lose both the PO and the Medicare buy-in, meaning that all we get is inadequate subsidies, horribly high caps on out of pocket expenses, and a captive audience to a private industry that will still bankrupt them and kill them through increased premiums, the afor mentioned inadequate caps, and denials of claims.

Obama's current track has earned nothing from either the conservative Dems or the GOP.  If you are going to argue that Obama's decision to play the calm, cool, considerate man is somehow the right way to get progressive legislation passed, then shouldn't you be able to point to a single instance of that actually, you know, working?

The president must at least attempt to represent all the people. There will inevitably be some regional differences of opinion on policy, but a president stands to lose a lot if he becomes a divisive lightning-rod figure in large regions of the country.

The President's skin color means that he will always be a lightning rod in the South, even if he governed to the Right of Cheney. Catering to the GOP against the interests of the regions that backed him will not profit him.

Going from memory, I believe that there were five Democratic senators from the South who retired in 2002. The Democrats lost all five of those elections that November. Clearly the positions taken by the national Democratic Party had alienated the southern electorate in that time period.

Come on, Boo!!  Look at all the Blue Dogs.  They act like Republicans and try and distance themselves from that meany-fascist Speaker .. and the real Republicans don't buy that for a minute.  What positions in 1992 alienated the electorate?  Were they still pissed over the Civil Rights Act?  And speaking of 2002, that was the year of Saxby Shameless and his swift-boating of Max Cleland.  And do positions of the national party really matter?  No!  Just look at Jim Webb(as one example).

But another lesson is that you lend credibility to those attacks if you don't take pains to make them look ridiculous.

And how often do Democrats just crawl up into the fetal position and hide in a corner?  A lot!!  Why do you think Grayson is such a breath of fresh air?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Obama's public statements strike me as far more liberal at their roots than anything we've heard from "mainstream" Dems in decades. His basic outlook vs his willingness to get as far as he can with specific policy goals is kind of a new niche in the ideological ecology that confuses a lot of people -- including me much of the time.

I really don't get how it is that Obama makes stunning executive decisions that are just glossed over while the left and right sides of the commenting classes obsess over parliamentary maneuvering. For example the EPA's decision to consider greenhouse gasses as detrimental to human health and therefore under their regulatory jurisdiction seems to me incredibly bold and game-changing, yet hardly got a word on the TV or the blogs -- all we keep hearing about is the politics of cap-and-trade and how Obama is not stomping on Congress enough for it, how he's in the pockets of the coal companies, etc. What in hell am I missing here?

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

Wow, Boo! Why don't you just say sing "Amazing Grace" and get it over with?

"I once was lost but now am found
Was blind, but now I see."

You were once probably very liberal (during Woodstock), but now you've seen the error of your blind ways and you see that Obama turning into Celine Dion before our very eyes is the best that we "Change" advocates should expect. He's worse than Celine Dion! At least she stands up for her music. Obama hasn't stood up for anything or anyone except his own preening vanity.

I am beginning to really hate that Shuff- er, Dithering Coward!

Maybe Bush was more influential then people realized because both the press and the people keep expecting and then are disappointed with Obama not doing a democratic version of ;either you're with us or against us'  'wanted dead or alive' blah blah.
The press and progressives complain because Obama is too intellectual.  Too brainy. Not an action figure with plithy soundbites.
He doesn't swagger.
They complain that approaches the legislative battles in two ways:
like poker.
or wanting the congress emtionally invested and so he backs off to let them fight, argue and be involved.

I think that people want a one size fits all personality and are not sure what to think or how to act with someone who is doing things very differently and playing things close to the vest.

I just heard Obama's Nobel speech on the radio. Yes, I agree, there is genuine "evil" in the world.  So, tell me again why we're bombing the people of Afghanistan and Iraq when most of the evil sits in executive board rooms getting grotesque cash handouts?

Oh, and the American "Climate" bill is worse than a joke. It's obscene, and pretty much condemns over half of the world's population to some form of slow death by the end of this century.

But hey, we sorta got something like health care, or at least something that big pharma and the insurance companies can continue to rort.

The end of the age of oil, toxic drinking water in the US for christ's sake, the destabilization of Pakistan, the immanent collapse of the US dollar, etc., I think I'd be ramming a lot more through than these minor tweeks - which are mostly distractions that we can't afford to waste our precious time on. Rome. Fiddle. Burn.

I revived a long-dormant account here just to say how relieved I am to find another sane voice on the liberal blogosphere.  The numbers are dwindling rapidly.  Thanks...

 
 is not synonymous with "liberals gained power."

    When are Americans [apart from some notable exceptions in this thread (see the comments I've rated "excellent")] going to grasp this simple truth?

   There are some good and rather obvious (to me) reasons why you seem to have a blind-spot light-years wide on aspects of these issues, but, I can't point those out to you because you've made it very clear that to do that is dangerously taboo in this site.

for anyone in the WH to think that the SOUTH is friendly, or could be friendly, is CRAZY. absolutely crazy. Playing to those folks is insane in any way. Virgina, maybe North Carolina and Florida, but the rest of that part of the country - forget about it. I believe you can put pressure on those Dems from the South, because they more than likely, have a substantial Black population in their districts. I know that crook Cooper, 25% of his district is Black, and I believe he isn't remotely serving his constituents.