I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the focus is on bipartisanship.  Who knows, maybe it serves as a distraction from the serious crisis we have on our hands.

I'll quote from Kevin Drum:

Here, too, Obama starts on favorable ground. After eight years of Bush/Cheney, the public is increasingly ready for serious action on a raft of big issues. And Obama is, of course, a terrific public speaker. But watching him in action for the past year, one thing has become more and more clear: He doesn't seem inclined to use his oratorical skill to truly shape public opinion. He's only using it to win votes.

Franklin Roosevelt, that most subtle thermometer of public opinion, understood the difference. In a possibly apocryphal story told by I.F. Stone, FDR once met with a group of reformers who explained at length why he should support their cause. "Okay, you've convinced me," he told them. "Now go on out and bring pressure on me."

FDR--even with huge congressional majorities and a solid electoral coalition--knew he needed outside help to shift the electorate. But he knew how to do his part as well. His early fireside chats weren't just national pick-me-ups; they were designed from the first word of the first sentence to build public support for liberal ideas. Likewise, years later, when he was trying to persuade an isolationist American public to actively oppose the Nazi occupation of Europe, he gave a folksy speech comparing Lend-Lease with the loan of a garden hose to a neighbor whose house was on fire. It worked: With the public on board, Congress passed the enabling legislation and Britain survived long enough for America to join the war. Majorities may come and go, but FDR built a liberal legacy that outlasted him because, by the time he left office, the public believed in the New Deal and everything that went with it.  [emphasis supplied]

and

Maybe Obama will get there. After all, FDR himself ran a notably fuzzy campaign in 1932, becoming the master of public opinion only after he was safely elected. But one way or another, Obama needs to make the transition from inspiration to leadership. In politics, public opinion is at the root of every enduring movement. It's time for him to get working on it.  [emphasis supplied]

Youtube chats don't cut it.  Obama has been openly courting Republicans, but I don't see how he has truly been courting the American people - how he is shaping this bill through public opinion.  Public opinion from what I can see is, "holy sh*t, people are selling their homes on ebay, jobs are being lost, I don't know what will happen to me."  Not "god I am so tired of divisive politics on the Hill."

Yes, the media is inane, and will always cover these Republican - Democratic spats.  But Obama needs to realize that and go beyond that to summon public opinion.  Stop talking about "I am open to any good idea, Republican or Democrat" - and start talking about the massive suffering of people in this country to get your bill passed.

I agree the stimulus package is 800 billion short and that 800 billion should go to housing.  

Here is a great way to stimulate the economy and work toward a housing resolution.

Take 800 billion and make a gov't bank.  For people who are struggling to make their mortgage (homeowners and small businesses on their buildings) and have the new bank buy those mortgages.  Since this new bank does not have shareholders in a traditional sense and a executives fattening their wallets, your overhead will be considerably smaller.  

Allow those people who are struggling to have this entity purchase their mortgages from the bank at cost.  No profit on these deals for two reasons, 1: the banks have already looked at this as bad debt and have made a tremendous amount of profits already on the loans (nearly 90% of early loans are interest a small portion is principal) 2: bad debt is off their books allowing them breathing room to lend elsewhere.

Have the new loans established at a considerably lower amount for the first 3 years over their current payment.  Average loan at this point is most likely in a 6-7.50 apr.

In year one, payments will be 25% of their previous payments, year 2 50%, year 3 75%, year 4 they will be locked in at 6.25%.

The banks get rid of some of their "toxic assets", the homeowners maintain equity, can make their payments even if they have lost their jobs, and in the next 2 years of this recession foreclosures will not explode.  We also have the added benefit of those same homeowners spending money as they have more disposable income, banks have an infusion of cash from the buyout of the loans as well as the capacity to lend again to new home buyers without overly stringent lending policies.

The banks get another 800 billion, the mortgagees get some relief and credit is eased, not fixed by any strectch of the imagination but eased.  

This is the triumph of style over substance and it is precisely the cancer that plagues the Beltway. And the question is has it infected Obama too?

Unless one buys the "stealth progressive" theory on Obama, the answer to this question, to me at least, seems pretty obvious.

,,,it would be of some assistance if "housing crisis" meant the same to me as it seems to for others.

In one real world the housing crisis, as seen from the POV of the homeless is different from the POV of an individual who is having trouble making payments on an investment vacation villa, or a bank that is holding some bad paper on a development that just destroyed a wetland.
I don't give a crap about banks & "investors".

Obama is facing a weaker Republican Party but a much bigger set of problems, with the stakes being exponentially higher. We just don't have time for this nonsense again. At some point, the Democrats are going to have to confront their central political problem, which is that the conservatives are not appeasable and that political and media elites have either been brainwashed by conservative propaganda or are conservatives by choice and they have to convince the citizenry that their ideology is better for their personal well being and the well being of the country. Until that happens, the conservatives will remain in power even as an opposition force and their failed ideology will continue to destroy this country. This isn't a game anymore. They have to pass good policies.

Obama's millions of supporters are still out there, waiting for some direction.  They're looking to him to lead, but Congress has the real authority and we're stuck with a system rife with political corruption.  Both sides of the aisle are beholden to big business, as campaign donations show.  Corporate greed is a huge part of the problem, and our solutions should acknowledge that, not just reinforce the same old social patterns.  

We don't know if Obama's attempts at bipartisanship is a big show to expose Repubs as obstructionists, or if he'll give away the house in concessions to their demands.  Either way, of he's just a pol, progressives have the opportunity to get what we want simply by determining what that is, concisely stating it and communicating it to the millions of people who want Change Now.

We need a coordinated effort to.  We need concrete solutions, as much as possible, even if we don't know yet whether the stimulus plan will work.  We need a fast public response to things like pulling the Family Planning out of the stimulus bill (something along the lines of "OK, it might not help the economy, but here's why it was there, those reasons are still good, here's the new associated bill to cover those programs it would have funded.")  We know first half of the bailout bill failed, people are pissed that CEOs got another 18 Billion in bonuses after the bailout.  Let's use that.  Forget accountability requirements, just cancel the rest of the bailout and put the extra $350 Billion into HOME/HOLC.  Buy up those "toxic" mortgages, help the distressed homeowners, stabilize the real estate market and tell the banks that's all the help their going to get unless they fire the CEOs that got us into this mess.  When they go out of business, buy the banks as well.  It will eventually pay off, and the public will be the recipients when the economy recovers.  Most importantly, by drawing a line in the sand, we can tell Republicans in Congress that we're in charge and they're out of business.  They can show solidarity and vote 100% against the President, but if the plans and the initiatives are owned by us, we the people, as much as by elected Dems, then Repubs will be voting against their own constituents in the middle class.  I don't know what will best stimulate the economy, but I know what doesn't help.  The banks are using our tax money to foreclose on the very homeowners who are paying for their CEO bonuses!  At the very least, a huge outcry from the public (via this new mass communication organization) could at least prevent more of the same.

The beauty of this strategy is that by getting the people to lead, we not only support the new Obama Administration, we refocus on progressive action while drawing in the support of moderate Repubs.  We elicit their participation as well, so we have buy in.  We get our progressive grassroots organizations to educate Joe Plummer about why buying his mortgage helps him more than giving tax breaks to the company that just laid him off.  We focus on supporting the middle class for a change, not welfare for the poor or tax breaks/corporate welfare.  We let the auto industry go bankrupt, then we buy those companies and infuse R&D money into green car development, only the deal will eventually pay back the taxpayers, not the rich CEOs who bankrupted their companies.  We will have to scale down some of our progressive dreams for just a while.  We can look for other solutions to health care besides just giving it away free, because right now we can't afford it, and if we try, the right wing backlash will wreck the mid term elections.  We can reduce costs by modeling what single payer provides, but still require companies and individuals to pay part of the costs, and we can create a government sponsored alternative to private insurance companies.