What Obama believes doesn't actually matter that much.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

It's not that important whether he pushed DADT repeal through because he believed it was the right thing, or as a sop to his base.

It's not that important whether he extended the Bush tax cuts because he didn't oppose them or because the Republicans made him.

It's not that important whether at heart he is a centrist being pulled to the left, or a leftist being pushed to the centre.

It's not that important to what extent his legislative programme has been his by choice, and to what extent it's forced on him by the senate/congress.

The reason these things are not important is that they don't impact much on the wisest course of action for left-wing campaigners: pressuring him to keep left is a good thing, whether you think that you're helping him do what he'd like to or forcing him against his will; preventing his replacement by a Republican is desirable whether you think that he's a genuine progressive who passes some centrist legislation out of political necessity, or a centrist who passes some progressive legislation out of political necessity.


Speculating as to which of his actions are forced and which are unforced is interesting, and to be fair it may well yield valuable insight as to where or how it will or won't be more productive to campaign, but ultimately what matters is what legislation gets passed, not what legislation we think he'd like to pass.

[emulatorloo]

1. That is why Congress is important

[Enrique]

2. I agree

but what does matter is what he's committed to, if anything.

[bluerum]

3. The opinion of "the leader of the free world" does not matter.

Right.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. The actions and statements of the leader of the free world matter, obviously.

Why he takes those actions matters indirectly, sure, but not directly.

It's a slightly hair-splitting distinction, I acknowledge, but the point I'm getting at from it is that "is his liberalism genuine and his centrism feigned, or vice versa" is not as important an argument as it looks.

[bluerum]

13. Yeah. He is a political animal. Those labels do seem irrelevant at times.

[treestar]

6. Always thought that one dumb

The POTUS is not the leader of the free world. How insulting to the rest of the free world. He's not the leader of Canada or Australia or France.

He's not even leader of the U.S. He's leader of the executive branch of the federal government, sharing power with two other branches and that of the states.

Projecting fantasies of endless power on the POTUS is wrong. We were not meant to have an all powerful leader.

[bluerum]

11. Note the parenthetical quotes. No offense intended.

[ProSense]

4. Don't agree

It matters what he thinks the role of government should be, and that informs his agenda. Take a look at the front page OSHA story.

Presidents have influence over legislation, including the power to veto, but they also control the executive branch, where U.S. policy is defined.

[displacedvermoter]

7. I thought Joe Lieberman ran the show in Congress?

Public Option and Medicare for all didn't meet with his approval, so that was it, right?

[ProSense]

8. Congress is not the executive branch.

The President can influence legislation, not control individual members of Congress.

If that were possible, maybe Heath Shuler would have voted for health care reform.

[displacedvermoter]

9. His ability to "influence" Congress seems to shift depending

on whether he is interested in the issue at hand, and how some folks choose to spin it.

Rahm Emmanuel recruited Shuler, maybe he could have influenced him had he chosen to.

[ProSense]

10. "His ability to 'influence' Congress seems to shift depending"

What I said: "The President can influence legislation"

His ability to influence legislation doesn't shift. Influencing legislation is not the same as exerting control over individual members of Congress. That's where negotiation comes in.

[displacedvermoter]

12. Whatever you say

[treestar]

15. No, but as the person who was the 60th vote it did

Unfortunately the Senate is set up that way. Those in the center are going to have a lot of power, wherever that center may be. In the 111th it was Lieberman, Nelson, Snowe, Collins.

There were 58 Democrats, Sanders and Lieberman. that made Lieberman number 60.

[treestar]

14. that's what matters, but there is no reason to claim he didn't want

a public option because he didn't get it. Some people treat him as if he can get anything he wants using the supposed raw powers of the Presidency. It's like it was OK to have a bully for President so long as he is presumed to be on the left.

But we don't like it when Republicans do that.

What he'd like passed should matter - as to who to campaign for. Individual Senators are even less powerful, only one vote in 100. Doesn't mean what they should not be supported if they would want a thing that can't be done.