The two biggest factors limiting Obama are that the American worker needs immediate help and the 60 member Democratic Senate majority in the 111th Congress is and never has been a 60 vote liberal/progressive majority on any issue. The reality of the situation makes the concession Obama made in this tax deal understandable. Here is the legislative pattern under the 111th:

• Obama sets the agenda
• House under Speaker Pelosi would promptly pass the legislation
• US Senate under Majority Leader Reid would kill, vote down, water down, pork up, delay or stall the legislation
• Whatever progressive bill that got to his desk, Obama signed

Obama has compromised as much or more to get Blue Dog Democrat votes than Republican votes. That’s “pre-negotiating” as some may call it. He has to negotiate to unify his caucus by pulling legislation to the right before he can negotiate with the GOP moderates (eg stimulus) or worse yet, the GOP at large (this tax deal). The Democratic Senate caucus is a few votes to the right of the majority of the Democratic core constituency and even more votes to the right of liberal pundits and activists. One GOP Senator (typically Collins, Snowe, Brown) was the minimum needed to break filibusters repeatedly with a unified 59 Democrat to 41 Republican majority. Two is the requirement now that the lame duck Democrat to Republican ratio is 58 to 42 (with Sen. Kirk replacing Roland Burris). If any Blue Dog, principled Democrat or DLC Dem opposes Democratic legislation in the Senate, which they always do, Obama and Senate Dems get them back on board or replace their vote with Republicans with concessions towards the right.

According to this reporting in the NY Times, the existence of significant (more than two Democrats voting “No”) Democratic opposition to Obama’s tax plan was evident well prior to last Saturday’s votes on the 250K and 1mil versions.

By that session, according to administration officials, Mr. Obama had decided not to side with those in his administration and among Congressional Democrats who were spoiling to fight Republicans on the Bush-era tax cuts for those with high incomes even though the Democrats appeared to lack the votes in the Senate. Instead, he would test Republicans’ willingness to make concessions for economic stimulus measures and “the Obama tax cuts” for low- and middle-income workers. Then, if Republicans gave him the back of the hand, he would fight.

Mr. Obama was propelled to his decision in part by a Nov. 18 meeting with Democratic Congressional leaders that persuaded him the Democrats were not unified behind a realistic plan for moving forward.

via Tax Compromise Was Aided by Biden and McConnell Talks – NYTimes.com.

Obama maintained his preferred tax plan would repeal the Bush tax cuts for any income over 250K, 500K or even 1mil. Last Saturday’s vote proved he needed more than the three New England GOP senators to support any plan as the Obama Tax Cut plan failed 53 to 36 in the Senate after passing the House. So at this point, seven votes short, the choice became:

• A. Publicly protest Republican opposition to his tax proposal while lobbying Blue Dogs behind the scene while the lame duck expires and a Democratically controlled federal government takes blame for letting taxes spike for all Americans and Unemployment Insurance benefits expire for 2 million Americans
• B. Construct a deal that satisfies more Senators to the right of center (e.g. Republicans) so he could get those UI benefits and middle class tax cuts passed and let Reid and Pelosi possibly force votes of DADT repeal and DREAM act to close out the lame duck

Liberals want Obama to choose option “A”. Maybe the people who lost their unemployment in the middle of December and January would appreciate the fight Obama showed while pounding podiums from the bully pulpit with his shirt sleeves rolled up and begin to dislike Republicans even more. I highly doubt it.

That is why he is upset at liberal idealists. What the liberal bloggers and activists suggest would probably deliver the worst possible outcome for the President and the public. You can’t legislate someone back out of poverty after they have missed over a month of unemployment benefits, lost a car, defaulted on their mortgage and/or have been cutting down on food for their family. This is now or never legislation. The needs are urgent and the inclusion of a full Bush Tax Cut extension is as much for Blue Dogs as it is for GOP senators.

Liberals also are wondering: “If Obama is itching to fight from now on, why didn’t he fight for the tax cut deal of choice prior to Election day or earlier this year?”. Well, the same Senators and Representatives saying this tax deal is a travesty in December 2010 requested that this tax cut vote be pushed to December 2010 after mid term elections. There were no votes before November 2nd.

“Everything points to us not voting on it before the election, primarily because the Senate is not going to act,” one senior Democratic House aide said. “While no decisions have been made, I think the likelihood of it occurring before the election is slim to none.”

A significant group of moderate Democrats who are in swing districts have pressed Democratic leaders for a short-term extension of all the of current tax rates, including those for the wealthiest Americans.

Many of these Democrats also would prefer to delay any vote on the issue until after the election. If the House voted for just an extension of tax cuts for those making under $250,000, the aides said, it could give Republicans the ability to argue Democrats voted to hike taxes at a time when the economy remains sluggish.

Several vulnerable House Democrats would rather debate the issue at home and have more time to campaign, as opposed to remaining in Washington and giving the GOP a chance to frame the tax debate, which traditionally favors Republicans.

The message to leaders, one aide to a senior conservative House Democrat said, has been, “Let us go home. If the Senate doesn’t vote on it, we shouldn’t vote on it.”

via Pelosi won’t rule out House tax cut vote – CNN.

Any Obama’s legislation was linked to the question: “can it get 60?”

Why not Reform the filibuster you say? The Democrats couldn’t get the votes to reform the filibuster. Here is video (Courtesy TPMtv) from Morning Joe of Chris Dodd defending the filibuster:

I appreciate the frustration many have with the slow pace of the legislative progress. And I certainly share some of my colleagues’ anger with the repetitive use and abuse of the filibuster. Thus, I can understand the temptation to change the rules that make the Senate so unique—and, simultaneously, so frustrating.

But whether such a temptation is motivated by a noble desire to speed up the legislative process, or by pure political expedience, I believe such changes would be unwise.

via Dodd Delivers Farewell Address to the Senate | U.S. Senator Christopher J. Dodd.

So we get a Senate that is much harder to navigate for a progressive President.

No 60 to close Gitmo:

Democrats have answered by rejecting Obama’s request for money to start the base closure.

“Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president. We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States,” declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., at a press conference Tuesday after meeting with other Democratic senators.

Obama had requested the $80 million from the $91 billion war funding bill as part of his promise to close the Guantanamo base by January 2010.

via Democrats on Capitol Hill Rebel Against President Obama’s Guantanamo Bay Plan – ABC News.

No 60 votes for the Public Option in the Health care bill:

The Senate Finance Committee voted against proposals that would create a government-run insurance plan in the committee’s health care overhaul bill.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., proposed apublic option plan designed along the lines of Medicare, where the government would decide unilaterally how much to pay doctors and hospitals for people who choose to enroll in the public plan. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. tweaked it by mandating that the government negotiate rates with health care providers, like a private insurer does, instead of simply mandating them. Schumer had touted this as middle ground that responds to market forces.

But after five hours of debate, both amendments lost. Most Democrats supported Rockefeller’s proposal — with the exception of five — but the votes were not enough to pass either proposals out of the committee.

via Senate Finance Committee Rejects Public Option Proposal in Health Care Bill – ABC News.

No 60 for the Fin Reg bill reforms to be fully funded by fees charged to large banks:

This is where Senator Feingold’s principles come into play. Because he refused to vote for cloture on the Dodd-Frank bill without major revisions, a coalition of 60 liberal votes became impossible. So Senator 61, Scott Brown, became the dealmaker.

[…]

As it turns out, there were real consequences of Feingold forcing Brown into the pivot position. One of the provisions to come out of the House-Senate conference was a levy on large financial firms to pay for the costs of financial regulation. This provision was quickly dubbed a “bank tax”. As a result, Brown, who had supported the earlier Senate version, began to waver. The provision not only ran counter to his ideological opposition to anything resembling a tax increase, but would have been costly to large financial firms in Brown’s home state.

In the aftermath of Byrd’s death, a defection by Brown would necessitate picking up both Democrats who had opposed the original Senate bill, Feingold and Washington’s Maria Cantwell. Cantwell came around, Feingold didn’t, and the bank tax was gone. As a result, $19 billion in costs were shifted from the banks to the taxpayer. Feingold has performed the legislative equivalent of voting for Nader in Florida in the 2000 presidential election: standing on principle only to get an outcome he couldn’t possibly have wanted.

via Nolan McCarty: The Price of Principle.

No 60 votes to Trying terror suspects in civilian courts:

Opponents include Democrats such as Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who was among five lawmakers last week who urged Attorney General Eric Holder to reverse his decision to try Mohammed and other conspirators in civilian courts, and U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who said a local trial would be too disruptive, whether in Manhattan or upstate.

via 9/11 Trial Costs, Political Opposition Disrupt White House Plans.

No 60 votes for Climate Change:

Today, he very clearly and loudly said: that savior persona is not me. I am the pragmatist. And you know what, I don’t have a whole lot of patience for the idealists. I share their ideals, but I don’t share their approach and I’m not going to get bogged down in recriminations over not living up to some abstract ideal.

I don’t think this a change in the fundamental truth of who he is or of what his politics are, but with today’s press conference the pretense that he might yet be someone else was finally dropped. Not only was he announcing that this is who I am, but he was also effectively declaring, I am not that other guy.

That’s a significant change in his personal narrative and as I say a change I suspect in the public narrative of his presidency going forward.

via Seminal Moment | Talking Points Memo.

TAP’s Jamelle Bouie breaks down some of the biggest Dem Senate kick the can moments:

Indeed, this holds true for many of Obama’s big disappointments. No one forced Blue Dog Democrats to slash funding from the stimulus, and Senate Democrats weren’t required to block Obama’s plan for closing Gitmo, Max Baucus didn’t have to hold out on the “Gang of Six,” Ben Nelson could have held back on the “Cornhusker Kickback,” and Russ Feingold could have swallowed his ego and voted for financial reform. On issue after issue, Obama tried to lead, and congressional Democrats refused to follow. Granted, that’s democracy, and I don’t begrudge parochial members for holding to parochial interests. But insofar if you’re angry at Obama, you can’t attack him without also forcing these Democrats to shoulder some of the blame.

via TAPPED Archive | The American Prospect.

Feingold has legislative standards, principles, but quite often they do the taxpayer and liberal agenda more harm than good. Righteous isn’t always right. Feingold has shown repeatedly that if a bill isn’t as 100% liberal as he wants, he will vote against it and allow it to become even less liberal. His Fin Reg hold out was one such vote.

Salon’s Alex Pareene has some valid criticism of how we perceive the President’s negotiating style:

While congressional Democrats are to blame for putting Obama in this position, and Obama’s hands were basically tied, he continues to imagine that his liberal critics are upset with the idea that compromises need to be made in order to accomplish progressive policy goals. Some of them are that stupid. But lots of them are actually critics of the White House’s legislative strategy, and their apparent willingness to preemptively compromise before the negotiations have already begun.

via Obama justifies tax cut compromise, lashes out at liberals – Barack Obama News – Salon.com.

It does seem that way, but I just don’t think Obama feels the need to big foot people, like he feels Chris Christie does.

People will say the press conference is hippie punching, but he calls Republicans “hostage takers”, and he states a simple fact. he has accomplished a lot, and the reality of the votes isn’t there for these fights Dems all of a sudden want to have. They Senate Dems should be ready to fight in the summer next year. It would make their winters much better.

Quite often, a stark reality of being poor is that even if you wanted to do the right thing by your children, it’s damn near impossible to do. When The First Lady is being criticized for “anti-obesity” program, many in the media forget that it’s a political catch all that’s really a reductive way of knocking Michelle Obama’s focus on improving American childhood nutrition and food access for lower middle class and poor families. (video from whitehouse.gov)

You don’t have to be as wonky as Ezra Klein to realize that the problem that plagues the entire cities of Chester, PA and Detroit, Michigan is a horrific problem:

There are no chain grocery stores in all of Detroit.

via Ezra Klein – The scariest sentence Ive read today.

Klein found this showstopper in the Charles LeDuff article featured in Mother Jones about the death of Aiyana Stanley-Jones, a seven year old murdered in a botched SWAT raid being filmed for a reality show. “No grocery stores” as a the mark of the failure of a city is a horror story many south eastern PA residents find familiar. Many of us Philadelphians talk about how bad the problems are facing the residents and government of Chester, PA, the fact that a city with a population of 491, 489 people has no chain grocery store is a fact many of us use to drive the point home. Detroit has a population of 951, 270 people and no chain grocery stores.

Stand at the corner of Lillibridge Street and Mack Avenue and walk a mile in each direction from Alter Road to Gratiot Avenue (pronounced Gra-shit). You will count 34 churches, a dozen liquor stores, six beauty salons and barber shops, a funeral parlor, a sprawling Chrysler engine and assembly complex working at less than half-capacity, and three dollar stores—but no grocery stores. In fact, there are no chain grocery stores in all of Detroit.

via What Killed Aiyana Stanley-Jones? | Mother Jones.

Even though conditions aren’t as dire in most major cities, they still are far less than ideal. Rural and urban areas, that suffer from the lack of access (proximity, price and produce) to fresh food are called “food deserts”. Kansas City resident Sydnee Svejda, a single mom in the Budd Park neighborhood of Kansas City is profiled in the Kansas City Star:

I know this is late, but I am not the biggest fan of Russ Feingold the legislator. He is a Democrat who often chose being correct on the Senate floor over applying the correct leverage in the Senate back rooms.

More recently, he’s done plenty of things that should have earned him more scorn from progressive activists. He joined the GOP in filibustering financial reform because he thought it should’ve been tougher on banks. What eventually happened? Well, Democrats needed an additional vote to break the filibuster, so they got Scott Brown to turn against the filibuster in exchange for an $18 billion giveaway to banks, mostly in his state. The net effect of Feingold’s filibuster was giving $18 billion to banks. This is the sort of thing that anybody with more tactical sense than a popsicle would recognize and then go along with the bill.

via Donkeylicious: Russ Feingold, Good And Bad.

Bernie Sanders, who is to the left of Feingold, illustrated a way to properly legislate for a left of center politician in the majority party in their chamber of congress. Due to the fact that Health Care Reform did not have Public Option, he threatened to withhold his vote from the 60 vote majority and used that leverage to get $11B in funding for Community Health Centers to be built across the nation. Community Health Centers are key to providing primary care for the working class and poor and reducing the costs of providing primary care.

The Dodd-Frank bill — named after Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who ushered it through the House — passed by a vote of 60 to 39. Three Republican senators — Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine — joined 57 members of the Democratic caucus in support. Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin was the lone Democratic opponent, saying the measure didn’t go far enough.

via Congress passes financial reform bill.

To contrast, consider the nothing Feingold got us from opposing the Fin Reg bill. Feingold extracted no compromise. He just refused to vote for the Dodd-Frank Fin-Reg bill because it didn’t go far enough. Feingold could not bring himself to find any compromise or additional provision that would have made the bill worth supporting. Scott Brown did. For his vote, Brown negotiated a removal of the $19 billion dollar fee to be charged banks to pre-fund the financial reforms without adding any money to the deficit. Instead Brown demanded that the costs of the Dodd-Frank finreg bill be offset by “spending cuts”.

Quite late in the committee’s negotiations, the Congressional Budget Office examined the near-final version of their bill and said that the bill contained about $19 billion in likely costs to taxpayers over time, and so under pay-go laws, that cost would have to be offset. Barney Frank inserted a tax on large banks and hedge funds to cover the cost. And this is what Brown opposes: A tax on banks to pay for the cost of a bill that regulates banks.

…

Instead, Brown is insisting that the committee find $19 billion in spending cuts to support the legislation. So the banks are getting a new regulatory structure meant to prevent another round of chaotic failures, but Brown doesn’t think they should have to pay for it. Instead, other programs and services should be cut.

via Ezra Klein – Scott Brown’s problems with FinReg.

That Scott Brown vote, had to be secured instead of Feingold’s. He could have taken the opportunity to negotiate something more progressive that wasn’t in the bill. Instead, he took his ball and went home and now the reform he didn’t like, is now the unfunded reform he didn’t like. Here’s Feingold talking about the major things FinReg didn’t do.

Yes it wasn’t complete, yes it wouldn’t have stopped the crisis of 2008, but it helped to begin the roll back 40 years of supply side economics and deregulation. Our consumers are better of with the foundation laid in the Dodd-Frank bill. It was a start to reformating how our government can safely regulate the financial industry.

Feingold took a lot of stands, like voting against the Patriot Act and TARP that really didn’t amount to anything except principled protest. His primary job was to legislate. His all or nothing principles actually resulted in a less favorable bill for Democrats and the American public.