Disappointment in progressive quarters spreads as Obama’s proposals wend through the Washington policy and legislative mill, especially the dysfunctional Senate whose rule by minority veto too closely resembles the California legislature. Obama is certainly subject to criticism for not using public pressure more aggressively in matters such  as health care and financial regulatory reform, but  attacks on him  that arm  the Party of No to regain control of Congress in 2010 are  self-defeating.
Some of the disappointment stems from inappropriate comparison between Obama and FDR, both of whom faced eerily similar legacies from their predecessors.  But their timing was different.  FDR’s inauguration followed the collapse of the economy and the banks.  He could safely pillory “malefactors of great wealth” to mobilize  public pressure.  A frightened electorate gave him reliable majorities in both houses of Congress.  Obama came on the scene just as Wall Street collapsed.  His own campaign ranks included many Wall Streeters who, fearing that the GOP had become a sinking ship, moved money and people to Obama and conservative Democrats running in swing districts.  Obama drew unprecedented individual contributions via the internet, but Goldman Sachs was his biggest single contributor. Wall Street  cooperation in using New Deal tools such as the stimulus, FDIC, unemployment insurance, and Social Security drew oxygen away from  implementing more aggressive relief measures reminiscent of the 1930s.  Deepening distress will likely put them on the urgent action agenda again.
Like other new presidents, Obama inherited the ongoing machinery of state and swore to uphold the constitution. As he reiterated repeatedly, turning the ship of state is not like navigating a rowboat or a yacht.  It will take time, more time than many supporters may be prone to give him.  He clearly understands the necessity of mobilizing grassroots support. That was what Organizing for America was all about.  But could he win in an open confrontation with his former colleagues in the Senate and continue to get the concurrence of 60 of them in a long series of pressing matters? For better or for worse, Obama rejected that gamble, for flat out confrontation certainly risks repetition of the rout the Senate handed another Nobel Laureate in 1919 and 1920, Woodrow Wilson.  Events on the ground may yet force an all out confrontation before the election of 2010.
Then, and above all then, mobilization of mass public support will be required to produce  many of Obama’s promised changes. He has compiled significant numbers of progressive changes by executive action, but  this sphere of action is limited. If impatience prevails and progressives desert the hopes of 2008, we had better conjure up  what life will be like, what the Supreme Court would look like, in 2013.  In the meantime, pour all the heat you can muster on Congress and the president to wring everything possible out of Congress.  Just crying sour grapes is full of peril.
Al Dirrim.