I'm comfortable enough with this president

[bigtree]

First off, he's a pretty mainstream Democrat - so that's always my bottom line. The party has NEVER translated my views or concerns into law or action in the way, shape, or form that I'd prefer, but it's the ONLY effective vehicle for the advancement of those concerns of mine which comes close to representing them and carrying them through the legislative process. We're seeing all of the vestiges of the infusion of Democrats into the levels of government that come with our party in power in the Executive.

We've seen some substantial accomplishments, some successes, and some historic acts in the short span of this presidency. We haven't resolved the larger issues, but even without some of the wrong-headed policy decisions and outright betrayals from this president, it's still way early to expect resolutions anyway. That leaves a lot of work to be done; something I've expected all along. This presidency is as good as any Democratic presidency in my lifetime to work with and challenge, so I've got no interest in making another campaign-type stand against them. This is actually the point where our own responsibility to vigilance and advocacy begins or intensifies. I feel comfortable in that effort facing this president behind our legislature.

Secondly, even if I did have some wild hair and wanted to replace him with someone more inclined to represent my views in a more effective, inclusive, and directly forceful manner, I think such a challenge would only serve to undermine our party's chances for success. We elect presidents behind a coalition of votes which provides a broad and diverse collection of concerns. That effort isn't going to be served by a narrowing of our appeal which I think a challenger would ultimately need to do to draw enough of a distinction between their Democratic candidacy and the president's to be at all relevant. More importantly, such a primary battle would draw fire away from the republican nominee. I'll admit, there's much to be said for the motivating pressure of good opposition in primary season. But, I don't think the second-term election is the best place to make that stand. I'd hate to see it come to that. It would be very hard to defend our party into the White House in that atmosphere.

That leaves Congress as the primary target for our activism and reform, as many here have advocated. This president has not tried to impose his view on the legislature, preferring to wait out the battles and embrace whatever emerges as progress. That's fine if Congress actually produces something worth adopting, but many in this bunch are either too timid to stand up for their principles and promises, or too comfortable to care enough to effect beneficial change with their votes and influence. Absent transformational leadership from the president, it's up to the Congress to shape and defend our Democratic agenda in ways which satisfy and sustain our values.

Of course, the virtue of having a conciliatory president acceding to a Democratic legislature is one thing; the prospect of that level of comity with a republican-led Congress is another. So we can either wait for this president to get some backbone, or we can (continue to) press our representatives and Senators to challenge him to substantively fulfill his promises with less fluff and more of the stuff we demanded when we elected all of them. What we don't need is a reversal of our majority.

[old mark]

1. Rec. I agree. The Democrats have been letting me down for almost

50 years, but the GOP is so evil there really is no other choice.
Obama is better than a sharp stick in the eye.
(Another bumper sticker for 2012.)

mark

[mmonk]

2. If only we could get them to consider us.

Recommended by the way.

[Lint Head]

3. A Waring Blender in office would be better than any republicn.

[KharmaTrain]

4. Campaigning Vs. Governing...

I'll bet we can go through every candidate whose run for President and find promises that weren't kept or moves made that were far from being "progressive". The luxuary of being a candidate is that you can create your own little world and hope others want to live in it. We see that right now with the Palinistas. Being on the outside enables one to say many things that are said without understanding the true mechanics involved. Many like to run "against the beltway"...which sounds real good in Roast Beef, Indiana but few ever really can succede without making some kind of accomodation to the existing power structure.

Last year many people took one word "Hope" and built whatever dreams or aspirations they had. And in a contentuous election year, President Obama and his people gladly took it...it served them very well. Unfortunately it appears some didn't listen to the specifics then Candidate Obama was proposing or try to get a handle on his priorities. Also a lot went out the window the day the markets began to plunge and the economy went into near meltdown. By the time President Obama took office, the country was close to economic collapse. Right off the bat this new administration had to try to plug leaks and push their agenda down the road. They overestimated getting any cooperation from the rushpublicans as well as an energized hate media that started the meme that this President was all hat and no cattle.

What people need to consider is where we've come from. In 2005 the Democratic party was the minority like the rushpublicans are now. We began to organize and thanks to the corrpution and ineptness of the rushpublicans, the party made a rapid recovery. But in many cases these gains were despite Democratic "values"...and now the scrutiny is on the party and this administration to deliver. There's a major disconnect between the beltway and Main Street...it's been growing for a long time and while Democrats have gained power, they still haven't gained control...and now faces an opposition in both rushpublicans and the corporate media that are pushing its failures over any accomplishments. The Obama administration needs to get better messaging if they're to avoid some of the battles they encountered on healthcare...and to put light on the changes.

[bigtree]

5. I think adjusting the 'messaging' is fine

. . . as long as they direct it to the legislature. The American people are smart enough to realize that they are a long way from any direct benefit from the fumbling, grudging way that Congress and the president have managed the finances and the militarism so far. All the voters need is a sense (and reality) that these Democrats are working in their interest. That's going to take more than characterizing their mediocre acts in this term as 'historical' success. It's going to take some dissent and some house-cleaning to get us where we need to be as a party of transformational change; as our president represented in his candidacy. It's going to take (as you say) actual delivery on their promises. This Congress is not going to us get there with the load of hot air they've produced so far.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Very True And The Need To Target Certain Races...

We're seeing a regionalization of politics...the south (except for Florida) have moved further right, the east, midwest and far west to the left and the middle caught inbetween. No surprise that the swing votes in the Senate were predominately from states that were either in the south or plains...being a Democrat there is far different than it is in Boston or Seattle. Thus, as you point out, the effort of this administration to work the legislature is crucial...and some can say that's what they're doing...but in the process its sure to piss off those who seek ideology over all.

The theme for 2010 is "Better Democrats"...in targeting some of the key races that could help enhance Progressive power within the party and to negate as much of the GOOP obstructionism as possible. Right now this looks like a tall order.

Cheers...