In his currently Rec listed diary james richardson argues the following:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
That's why Obama's capitulations sting so much - it's the way they're done. By going into these behind the scenes secret negotions with McConnell and Boehner he is denying the Democratic party the right to have their debate, to argue their positions. But no, it's only after the talks on the debt deal fell through that Obama took his case to the people - and it was a case of a Democratic President arguing for why we should cut entitlements instead of why we shouldn't.
It is a cogent point. One I do not disagree with, beyond my annoyance with his choice of the word "capitulation". But lets not get stuck there.
There is merit to the argument that having these battles fought behind closed doors has distanced many of us from the process. We have indeed been robbed of inclusion in the debate. But is this really a new thing? Have any of the major legislative debates of our time truly been conducted in public? Why do we have this expectation?
Was it because he promised transparency? Possibly, but that seems like a pretty broad promise. I personally never took it to mean that members of congress would be forced to hash out every bit of legislation in front of a camera. As I understand the way a national debate has always worked, politicians wrangle amongst themselves, count votes, identify possible converts, and try to get the public to pressure those potential converts into doing so. When we see them arguing on CSPAN, that isn't the real debate. it is them creating sound bites to influence us.
Nope - I think the reason we had this expectation of Obama was simply that he is the first President of the post-blogosphere world. We feel more involved now, and thus we feel more stung at the thought of being excluded. For many of us now, logging in every day and living and dying with every rumor floated, every rhetorical tactic employed is a part of the fabric of our lives. It is part hobby, part entertainment, and even part of our identity. We see ourselves as involved in a battle - note how often we use battle language - and expressing our approval or disapproval is central to our activism. This is most apparent when you hear someone stating that they cannot vote for anything that does not exactly conform to their beliefs, even when they know that the lack of their vote will likely bring on a worse outcome. Many of us see our vote as a form of expression rather than as a means to an end. We don't vote - we make a statement.
I think the reason that so many of us here feel so stung by the Obama administration is that what we seek most from a President is validation. I cannot count the amount of times I've noted someone telling me that they simply want to see him fight, When pressed, they will often admit that they'd rather see him fight and lose than accomplish something in a way that seems uninspiring. While I'd prefer an uninspiring victory to a loss, I don't denigrate the need to be inspired, and I don't let Obama off of the hook for failing to use the bully pulpit effectively. That is part of his job, and while I'll defend him on many fronts, he has been piss-poor on that one.
But I think perhaps we've all come to the point in which we ought to acknowledge that he is who he is. He isn't going to change except perhaps around the margins. And our choice to get so hung up on the lack of validation we get from the guy is hampering our ability to get the most out of him on a substantive level. It is time to stop making this particular critique, accept it as a given and go forward, And maybe it is time to ask ourselves if the particular groove we’ve all fallen into on the blogsphere is serving our goals. We need to ask these questions because the stakes are too high now to let a lack of personal validation deliver our country to the control of the GOP.