David notes:

This super-durable bungee cord must have the force of law, meaning it will be woven by Democratic legislators now exerting as much pressure on President Obama's left as congressional Republicans focused on President Bush's right.

When, for instance, Obama hedged on his promise to revoke $226 billion worth of Bush's upper-income tax cuts, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) pushed him to fulfill the pledge and put the money into programs that better guarantee job creation.

When Obama initially offered up a stimulus bill filled with discredited business tax breaks, Democratic senators forced him to back off. Reps. David Obey, D-Wisc., and Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., then argued that the president's proposed infrastructure investments were too small to boost the economy. That led House Democrats to increase Obama's spending targets.

As stimulus negotiations continued, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., tried to add provisions letting courts renegotiate banks' primary-residence mortgages so as to prevent more foreclosures. It's a commonsense proposal: Judges already have the power to renegotiate vacation-home mortgages, and the New York Federal Reserve Bank says existing bankruptcy laws are exacerbating the foreclosure crisis. While Obama opposed the initiative out of fear that banking industry opposition might slow the underlying stimulus bill, Conyers' effort ultimately made the president commit to supporting the reforms in future legislation.

 Read more…

So my job is the push the new administration "from the left," if my blogging can said to have a constructive purpose. It's always fun to read more popular bloggers when they get snarky and angry in the way I'm prone to be most of the time, as I review the proposals and behaviors of the new administration. No one here is shocked by the already numerous "disappointments" from the administration, but I do wonder how long the majority in this country is going to keep giving Obama high approval ratings. I also wonder if getting punked by Republicans is a successful strategy in the effort to keep them high.

To me, it's completely obvious: no Dem administration is ever going to get more than a handful of Republicans to go along with anything that Dems propose. Republicans oppose Democratic initiatives, always. And the rare times when they don't oppose something the Dems propose, it's because they better understand the deep strategies and gamesmanship, and how to play the 'fake' of temporary support followed by later opposition. But expecting widespread Republican support for any Democratic initiative is just plain stupid. And ignorant of recent history. And perhaps cowardly, and incompetent.

The only place that the new administration needs to focus its love of "bipartisanship" is in the Senate. And frankly, the whole "post-partisan/bi-partisan" strategy is a foolish one, even there. A smarter strategy would be to identify electorally weak Republican members of the Senate, and use executive authority to pressure them to go along with key Democratic initiatives when there is the need for the few extra votes. Really, it's quite simple.

If the new administration wants anyone intelligent to believe that they are truly members of the Democratic party, and not the "Unity" party, it's relatively straighforward, in terms of what they should do.

-ignore the media, (unless they want to bring back something like the Fairness Doctrine, which I'm all for) which at this point is a wholly-owned creature of entities completely hostile to Democratic Party platform goals and aims
-don't bother to grant all but a few of the least significant legislative compromises to Republicans in the House, perhaps a few more in the Senate
-rally and sustain liberal electoral support with progressive policies that aren't just politically smart, but good for the economy (which is true for most progressive policies)
-keep Republicans off-balance with much needed investigations and restructuring of Federal offices, which serves the health of the Constitution at the same time

I don't really expect any of this from new administration, and indeed I expect a lot of the opposite. But I just felt like expressing as simply as I can, that "it's not that hard" to be a real, liberal Democrat right now. The Administration is enjoying popularity at the polls, the party isn't doing to badly in terms of fundraising, and the nation as a whole is ready for real "change," in addition to the musical teevee kind.

One thing I'm very sure about: if the Obama administration continues to act like members of the Unity Party, it will be responsible for significant Dem losses in the House and Senate in 2010, and risk a very real chance of becoming a one-term failure by 2012. In the spirit of "it's the economy, stupid" the bi-partisan proposals that please Republicans (tax cuts, deregulation, endless military spending) are exactly what got us into the mess, and will only exacerbate our situation further if allowed to continue/be increased. Again, this isn't rocket science, it's a simple review of the recent history of economic policy and the results.

Annoyingly sloppy, David.

Look, there's one thing that the blogosphere can and should do well: provide the details. It's really great that David put up this anti-Clinton screed (and if it's not, it's a bad attempt not to be) at a site that allows comments; at least we get the chance in the comments to remind him that it's important to put his money where his mouth is. But now is the time when Hard Data is really necessary, and really useful, and he doesn't give us any.

Unlike a lot of people, I tend to enjoy much of David's work. As I said in the comments, I can understand, ahem, "both sides" of the argument. On the one hand, I don't believe that many Establishment Villagers can or want to do what it takes to solve the real, pressing problems this country is facing. Many "permanent Villagers" really are too concerned with Insider Baseballism and the pecking order in the Beltway to work hard for the policy change we desperately need. On the other hand, I think that there are *some* experienced, decent, actually liberal or progressive former Clintonians, and just because they worked for the last Democratic president doesn't mean they shouldn't work for the newest one.

Data is good. Facts are good. It's not that fucking hard to make a list, and back it up with links. As they used to say in journalism skoolz: Who? What? Where? When? Why? It would've been really great if David had answered any of those questions, rather than just making a throwaway claim about his evelope backsides, or whatever. You really should've tried harder, D. You're not living up to the High Standards of the Blogosphere, but instead acting like the very Village Insiders you claim to dislike.