Right now, Obama has more support from the general public than Republicans do.
Thom Hartman did a fine analysis today. I think Thom is barking up the right tree.
Truth is Obama is demonstrating that he will work to get things done, despite considerable opposition from the GOP, and to a degree Democratic party leadership.
Over longer periods of time, this may prove quite effective, because it simply CANNOT be said that Obama was the obstacle in getting reform done. That's on either party leadership, depending on the issue and their willingness to actually get something done for the people, as opposed to advancing whatever agenda is in play.
I think this is notable, and it perfectly explains how Obama has governed so far.
If Thom is correct on this, Obama will remain consistent in terms of reaching out to make things happen, and the quality of those things happening will be up to how well the parties legislate.
As President, he gets to set the agenda, and has done so.
He doesn't write the law, and that's where this strategy gets interesting.
People want health care, for example. Rather than set some unrealistic expectation, based on the severe party conflict, he sets expectations that are realistic, and expects them to get done.
Well, it did get done. In fact, quite a few things have gotten done, and those add up to ordinary people, tired of being caught between two self-serving parties.
"loosing the left" is all about whether or not progressive minded people can understand the longer term implications, and the position Obama is operating from.
For me personally, I recognize the progress, but am frustrated at the cost.
Well, that's not Obama's deal, and he's making that very clear, and again, that's notable.
The cost of progress happens to lie with both the GOP, and Coin Operated Democratic leadership, both of whom are finding it difficult to improve the state of things, and retain massive corporate support, with only the Progressives actually standing for a more left leaning reform agenda economically.
That's where the frustration is, and I think that frustration won't endure over the longer term, if Obama actually is entertaining the strategy that Thom presented this morning.
Very interesting!
When it comes time for the election, Obama will be able to sum up what happened during his term, and will be able to cite EVERY instance where he made the agenda clear, that he won the election entitling him to do that, and where he operated with both parties for the best implementations possible at this time.
So, if the folks are not generally happy with what got done, or how it got done, the referendum is on the party leadership, rank and file, not Obama.
I'll buy that.
For me, as a Democrat, this Obama approach did make clear the difference between Progressive Democrats and "third way" Democrats, which was never clear to me before. The product of that is a clear desire to insure that we get more Progressive Democrats, so that better legislation will be brought to Obama. Of course, seeing less of the GOP helps with that, as that entire party is corporate first.
IMHO, the people will learn a interesting lesson this mid-term. They didn't get more of what they wanted, and changed up the Congress, while maintaining a fairly good approval of the President.
This was confusing to me, but not any more. At a macro level, Obama is doing what he is supposed to be doing, and I've few to no issues with the agenda items on the table, thus, I approve.
That's true for a lot of the country.
So, the lesson is, simply voting one or the other party out of anger, or the need to do something, or to punish isn't going to be all that productive.
If Obama is successful in teaching that lesson, the next election could see more change ups, but toward anti-corporate congress people, so that the legislative impact will be positive for the people.
I find that general approach very difficult to argue against, and it aligns perfectly with my own position where people generally need to be more engaged in their civics, or that process simply won't work well for them.
That's proven out nicely so far.
While you all are thinking about this thread and what it means, go take a really hard look at the members of your party, and pick 10 or 20 or so, that really need to go.
That's what a whole lot of people are gonna be doing.
Then, think about those people that actually will work to legislate things for you first, instead of the usual wealthy interests.
Clearly, there is a "WE" in "Yes WE Can!", and this particular President may well prove more resolute, and considerably smarter than most of Washington currently gives him credit for. Given the approval trends, many Americans are picking up on that.
Because of these things, it is also very difficult to make the case for this being a repeat of Clinton. We are seeing some new dynamics in play here.
Good times ahead, IMHO!!!
Posted on December 15, 2010 - 11:47 AM
#
