How does THIS translate to a view/strategy of governance when you ARE the chief executive...

It doesn't...and when coupled with the campaign trail rhetoric and gaffes...I think we're in for a presidency that is like a rudderless ship, taken by the currents...

"Not everyone at the house party was an Obama acolyte. Tom Russo, who is partly retired from teaching chemistry at Penn State, pointedly announced, "I'm an uncommitted Democrat who is looking for differences between the candidates, especially on abortion and gun control." Lesko, speaking for the Obama campaign, could not help him with his issues checklist. "I don't want to sound like a broken record," Lesko said, "but this campaign is about politics, not policies.""

Transparency in government, hah!

And it does strike me that Obama's refusal/inability to deal with either Rezko or Wright all these years is a possible indicator of his instinct for going along to get along.

I agree that it is wrong to use the "unity schtick" or any "act" to get elected and then do whatever you want - progressive or conservative.  That is what George Bush did!  

This is not what Obama believes imo. He believes that he can achieve a progressive agenda by playacting this Untiy Schtick

Obama's supporters' standard response to Hillary's claims of executive experience is "Well, I'm running a better campaign. That means I can run the government better." He is entirely focused on campaigning and not at all on governing.

But if that is what one cares about, the dirty little secret is that Sen. Hillary Clinton is better than Obama on that issue.

It can't be said enough, if two years ago you told me progressive bloggers would be supporting the incremental health care plan (no mandates) over the one that pushes the overton window on what should be thought of as acceptable and mainstream (mandates), I'd have.... well.... You know what, I would have actually agreed with you -- or said it won't surprise me -- because I always knew blogging was a self-serving enterprise commercializing embittered activism.

1) If you take it seriously, it sells out progressive values.  Triangulate away.
or
2) If you recognize it as a bs cover for O's true agenda, that isn't even remotely bipartisan or centrist in nature, does it make you feel at all good about yourself as a progressive that you are afraid to campaign on your own beliefs and fight for them openly?

On 1, I'm less put off by Clintonian style triangulation that says we can't always get what we most want, because the reality of politics is compromise and it is better to move forward with half a loaf, and yes perhaps having learned something, or gotten something of value from the other side to better our policies along the way, than it is to accept no loaf at all.  I prefer that to the unity schtick which suggests that compromise and triangulation is the ultimate virtue in itself rather than simply an acceptable means to an end.

I completely agree! Besides the MI/FL vote thing, what you have said (again) here is my problem with him. Yesterday, a relative who has been an active, fighting Dem for years, said to me that his hope of us retaining--and regaining--a decent society was based on Obama getting elected.

No projection there.

And he didn't mention any New Deal style plans. Does the creative class think Obama can just wing it? But Obama's already said he doesn't want to go all old hippie love-in and wants to go back to the foreign policy ideas of Reagan and Bush I--and that people must accept responsibility for the change themselves (in GOP code, this means, I ain't helping.)

• Health policy adviser David Cutler saying that Obama is open to mandates while he sends out flyers opposing them...

• Austan Goolsbee telling the Canadians that Obama doesn't mean what he says about NAFTA...

• Samantha Power saying that "of course" Obama isn't going to rely on his current Iraq position once he becomes president...

• Obama's penchant for taking every position that Hillary Clinton does, a few days later...

 What did that get the RNC?  A weak coalition  that is coming apart and the worst president ever.  

So, being wrong, the left intellectuals miss read the American people one more time.  Americans were ready for policies.  They were ready to change from the Republican way of doing things.  It is time for the Democratic  issues and agenda, but all we have is going back to the RNC playbook: Heroes vs. Cowards etc.  Dueling life stories.  

I am truly pissed cause I wanted to see Edwards pushing the edges of the left and Hillary on the more right, we would have gotten a true liberal/Democratic platform.  Now we are awash in nothing.  

People are uncovering the Obama mystique is nothing but politics.  People wanted change from that kind of politics, they are not idiots.  

I don't believe it for a minute, never mind that the Boiz and the OFB have irretrievable contaminated the  "progressive" brand with truly vile misogyny (I'll stay a "liberal," thanks very much.) Why would I believe it?

Leaders lead, as Atrios is found of saying, and if Obama wanted to lead, instead of being a meta-leader, he could have done so on at least three occasions:

1. Filibustered FISA

2. Fixed his health care plan

3. Not dropped the "national conversation about race" like a hot potato after the Wright controversy died down.

4. Held hearings on Iraq on the Senate.

So, with Obama, what we don't see is what we're not going to get.

I have problems believing this because I can't hold all of these conflicting thoughts in my head:

1. He expects and depends on a huge electoral mandate to give him a tail wind in consensus-building.

2. He is trying to build that mandate by selling himself rather than the policies. How can he then claim a mandate for the policies?

3. His policies are less progressive than many of those of his opponents in the primaries anyway.  If he tries to claim a mandate, it will be for less progressive policies.

4. His nomination depends on support from Republicans and Independents who want unity, not progressive policies.

5. He's not going to get a huge mandate anyway, because the Republicans nominated a darling of the Independents themselves.

Big crowds and more Dem voters are the basis for most SDs endorsing Obama - not his policies.

This not what Obama believes imo. He believes that he can achieve a progressive agenda by playacting this Unity Schtick.

To me, this highlights the most annoying aspect of many Obama supporters: the fill-in-the-blank for Obama's beliefs.  He supplies everyone with enough ammunition to support whatever belief they want to see in him through his (often contradictory) speeches, but if we judge him on his actions he cannot be seen as having a history of pushing progressive policies. When given the opportunity he has chosen a path of triangulation and compromise that ends up getting nothing done.  That's the unity schtick.

Universal health care in Illinois is an excellent example of this, where instead of championing the progressive cause, he bargained with the health care lobbyists and sent it to death by committee.  His ethics reform is another, where he frittered away any chance of progress while trying to compromise with McCain (getting rolled in the process).

Let's judge Obama for what he actually is and has done, and not for what we think we might like him to be.

"Triangulation" is associated first with WJC, so the politics of this argument is hard to parse.  The Rs were ascendant in the early 90s, of course, so it was arguably about policy at the time (or the politics of getting policy enacted)...

Skex wrote a post at daily kos I found enlightening. He argued that "People don't make decisions based on facts and logic they make them based on emotions," and that Obama is using this to bring in people who wouldn't normally consider themselves conservative, but actually do have liberal values.

I find it interesting. I'm the sort that likes policy wonks and politicians who stick to what's right and don't triangulate, but I've noticed I haven't ended up backing many winners as a result. For all we value reasoning and being able to argue policy details, a President also has to be able to lead and inspire; that will be especially difficult given the times that are coming.

In theory I suppose independents might think about unity, but 81% of Americans think the country is on a very wrong track, and we've been on a distinctively republican track for at least 8 years if not 28.

So where is the constituency for unity?

Obama's "unity" schtick is merely a tactic to beat Hillary Clinton - and it has done well dragging republicans into democratic primaries. It will be a colossal failure in the general election.

I am all for the politics of clarity - give the voters an unmistakable choice. Sure many won't think that they like a strong progressive agenda because GOP propaganda corporate media will lie and smear it to death...but so what? The choice will remain unmistakable: endless war, national bankruptcy, lowered living standards, international derision and disgrace under mccain, or god forbid liberal politics of community, financial security, healthcare security, equality, and opportunity. Let the people decide.