I think commenter Brett Alan really nailed it in a comment from your post this morning:

This week's Tom Tomorrow cartoon doesn't show Obama, but it might as well:
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/comic…

I don't mind compromise. Really, I don't. I understand that liberals aren't going to get everything they want, even assuming Obama would want to give it to us. It's just that he doesn't seem to understand that if you compromise *unilaterally*, you not only don't get anything in return, but you also tell the other side that you're weak. How many times does Obama need this proven to him?

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

On the other hand, see The Case for Obama. The only ones who seem to appreciate the magnitude and scope of Obama's accomplishments are the teabaggers. Maybe by his so-called "not fighting back," Obama has made himself one of the most transformative presidents since LBJ, at least.

Playing nice and finding common ground would be fine if it actually got us anything. We are like the gullible girl who keeps answering the booty call.

Canuck, wait, I'm not supposed to keep answering the booty call? Why not?

Sorry, should have specified: The girl who thinks she's getting a proposal, or romance, or...you and I, Erica, are just in it for the big Os, so that's different ;)

(...or at least I was, back in my slutty days...)

The problem isn't that no one in the White House hates Republicans. The problem is that everyone in the White House believes that this:

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/rawagall…

is the best way to protect the U.S. from terrorism.

The problem is also that most Democrats are no more appalled and disgusted by the photos above than most Republicans. The problem is that most Democrats and most Republicans are willing to ignore and accept the violent deaths of innocent civilians and even support the people who cause them because of their blind partisan loyalty.

And people who think that what we're doing in Afghanistan is right have no business deciding how to fix the problems here at home. They have proven themselves dishonest, corrupt, and inept.

But still they are voted into office simply because they are either Republicans or Democrats.

But wait, we have a responsibility too! We need rallys that turn out people to slam Repugnants! We need to fight too. Show them with shoe leather on pavement.

Good point, Vince.

@5 :-)

I fail to see how the Prez' visit to overseas is such a major point here. It is a quick visit, and it has been planned for two months. It's not like Obama is going to set any records for vacation time logged while in office. (cough cough W cough cough)

#7- shoe leather on pavement?? Jesus, when was the last time a "rally" ever changed anything? The biggest rallies ever seen were held all over the world to protest the invasion of Iraq. Did we still invade Iraq? Hell, yes, we did! We need votes and money, not necessarily in that order. Although, we gave the Dems a "super-majority" not too long ago and look what that got us. Not sure what else there is to do, really.

I've been saying for years, it's like watching the Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Generals. The Harlem Globetrotters (R) are going to do anything they want, no matter how clownish, and the Washington Generals (D) are going to go through the motions to give the illusion of an opposition. This allows us to pretend we still have a viable democracy.

Am I the only one that caught the subtle (paraphrased) "10 Things I Hate About You" reference in the middle there?

On this topic, I just shake my head. Obama promised to be bipartisan, and FSM bless him, he's really trying to make good on that. But what's the point when the GOP has actually stated that their entire strategy is to refuse anything he wants?

Blind hatred of Republicans probably wouldn't help, and Obama wouldn't listen to anyone who seemed motivated by hate anyway. What probably would help is a passionate liberal with a pragmatic focus on getting results. Playing nice has gotten us very poor results and THAT is the reason why it has to go.

I'm laughing that this comes from Cole. He has spent the past two years hippie-punching and sneering at anybody who wanted a more progressive, tougher, liberal or dynamic Obama as being synonymous with being bead-wearing ninnies screaming for Magic Ponies Right Now. And now he wants to say the same thing that Obama's critics on the centre and the left have been reasonably saying for two years?

As for the Obama article in Rolling Stone, let's not forget this: if the article's view that Obama's achievements far outstrip his credit for them then this WH is responsible for perhaps the most collossal communications and PR incompetence ever. If Obama has achieved so much (and in many areas he has) then how come so many of his achievements are secrets even on the left? I follow progressive blogs like an addict and hadn't heard of nine-tenths of this stuff: it was the job of the WH to get that message out. Instead they spent two years slagging their base and their own messengers.

If Obama loses in 2012, the blame will lie with Obama, period.

Treating politics like a sporting event where one "team" has to lose for the other to win is what has gotten us here. We need people who can compromise.