Credit to Paul Peterson for sharing this article by Sirota from Salon.com: http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/08/05/obama_fdr_debt_ceiling/index.html
The basic argument: Obama isn't weak; he just isn't a liberal. Well sure, he's a Democrat, but his record seems awfully conservative. Bottom line: he's a powerful centrist and Democrats should stop acting surprised when he doesn't advance their liberal agenda.
I disagree.
I think Sirota simultaneously gives Obama too much credit and not enough. I do believe he is a liberal, and not only because I want to. I also believe he is a moderate - a moderate liberal, if you will. Obama might possibly be the only non-polarized person in Washington. I've read his book, and while that's hardly a window into his soul, his most popular argument is "both sides have good points." He'd never toe the Dem party line simply because it was the party line. (Kinda makes me miss the Clintons' "fuck you" style partisanship, to be honest.) If Obama thinks part of the Republican agenda is good, he will co-opt that, which (a) takes the wind out of their sales and (b) moves them farther right. And of course, most rank-and-file Dems won't complain because it's our boy who's keeping Guantanamo open, so therefore it's not fascist.
Also keep in mind that the Dems' brief super-majority was due to a lot of conservative Dems from very red districts who rode in on the "fuck the GOP" sentiment in '08. The Democratic party could have enacted public health care, but the Democratic party chose not to.
So, how does Sirota give Obama too much credit? By arguing that he wants to protect Big Business at the expense of ordinary people, or that he wants to keep Guantanamo open. It assumes that the president can do whatever he wants, all the time. I mean, sure, that's true, but some presidents do what's necessary, even if it's not what they want. Good presidents do that.
How does Sirota not give Obama enough credit? By denying his liberal credentials. Obama really wanted public health care, and did his best to make it happen. He wanted the stimulus to be a lot bigger, and he wanted a Grand Bargain to raise the debt ceiling that included increased revenue. He didn't get any of those things because of the conservatives, both within his own party and without. Sirota hints that the US president is a modern-day emperor, but no emperor in history really had absolute power; England, France and Rome all had checks and balances and all deposed their emperors multiple times.
Ultimately, Obama wants to fix problems, and that means governing, and governing means being pragmatic. Obama doesn't speak of "political capital," as if governing was something he could do at a grocery store, and when he says "compromise," he doesn't mean "you should all do what I say," the way Dubya did. He'll work with what he's got, which previously meant a right-leaning Democratic party, and now means a Republican House.
But keep in mind that our great darling, Bubba Clinton, was the one who signed don't-ask-don't-tell and the DOMA in the first place. We breathe a very rarefied air here in the Bay Area, and I suspect most Democrats would find us crazy.
That being said, it's worth pointing out that right before the Civil War, there was a very small number of liberals who actually believed that slavery should be abolished altogether. Sometimes I don't mind being on the fringe.
