between the theorized Obama's approach and the Clintonian triangulation. I'm not an Obama apologist, but I think that what they would argue is that what is new is the substance of the policy to emerge at the end of the day. It's symbolic triangulation designed to smooth passage of marginally more progressive legislation, whereas Clinton's approach was to win conservative support through the support and passage of marginally more conservative legislation. So for Clinton, symbolic nods were followed by conservative compromise legislation and with Obama it is supposed to be symbolic nods to conservatives followed by liberal legislation. It's basically the Obama as magician theory. Or as Rush Limbaugh would say, "Barack the Magic Negro." It's all fine and good, I just don't see why it's necessary. It seems to me that he's got enough political will behind him to accomplish his policy goals without doing all of this. Perhaps he thinks otherwise. Maybe he does need 70% approval rating in order to get health care passed, but I doubt it. What he really needs is a united Democratic Congress and a couple of moderate Republicans. I don't see how slapping down the left and splitting the caucus helps him in that regard, unless he plans on ending up with a watered down, decidedly un-Progressive final legislation.

I agree. But I would like to hear from some subscribers to the theory, exactly how or why think think that the magic will work. I'm willing to entertain two possibilities. First, Obama's cult of personality/celebrity gives him a wider base of appeal than Clinton ever had - or at the minimum he's starting off without the rabid opposition that Clinton had. So perhaps his bully pulpit will be stronger, allowing him to make the big sell in a way that Clinton could not. Second, the size of Obama's victory over McCain, and the somewhat full throated embrace of straight Progressive policy positions during the campaign gives him a real mandate to enact those policies. Clinton rode into office meekly with both a small margin and small percentage of the vote placing him in much worse position than Obama. So if you just take away the symbolic triangulation all together, there are a lot of macro reasons to believe that Obama can succeed at enacting Progressive change. Which is why it almost makes it harder for him to do so when he sends mixed messages of accommodation to the other side.

With the huge array of forces expending unbelievable amounts of time, energy, and resources to get him to do the wrong thing, I will never understand why anyone would suggest that those who would like him to do the right thing should just stand on the sidelines. Trust me, the opposition is not standing idly by. Why should we?

Do they have a choice? How could they not be receptive?