If you're going to fire people up, you do it by speechifying the right policy at the right time.  People take this policy to their reps and fire them up with it.

None of us are fired up and ready to go and support a policy that feeds the rich while ensuring that the economy continues to tank in middle America.

And since it would still be true that a liberal bill - whether a little liberal, somewhat liberal or flamingly liberal - wouldn't be likely to pass, one once again has to wonder why, then, can't the liberal side of the policy be the starting point, providing tons of opportunity to shape the narrative around something that could actually get people fired up?

I'll tell you why.  Because when those more liberal policies became part of the conversation, and the people rallied around them, overwhelmingly demonstrated in poll after poll that they supported them, Democrats and their special interest pals killed them.

We're seeing this right now on the safety-net issues, and all Obama and way too many Dems for my liking can see or think about or demagogue is: DEFICITS!!!  WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!!

The truth of the matter is that Obama is out selling this bill for one reason and one reason only: he wants to be re-elected.  Do I blame him for wanting four more years?  No.  But I do blame him for neglecting this issue for so long.  And because he waited until campaign season was heating up, when the other side is determined to not give him one thing he wants, it's unlikely that the bill will pass - so there goes any chance of whatever was good about the bill ever benefiting anyone.

I blame him for playing politics in pursuit of his own interests at the expense of the people who so desperately need help.

I don't presume to speak for anyone else, but I don't rally around anyone just because he or she is a Democrat.  In fact, it makes me a little ill thinking about getting behind someone I know is not working in my best interests - I get that there is something in it for the object of the rallying, but what's in it for me - for the country as a whole?

And how does rallying around someone who is pushing bad policy increase the chances that we will ever get better policy?

I believe that the Atrios/BTD position (let's call it for convenience) on the one hand and the THC/Yglesias/ABG position on the other hand are each reasonable and I do not think it is fair to assume that personal beliefs are interfering with the logical foundations of those positions.

Particularly with THC, who has gained a fair amount of respect in the liberal blogosphere for being surprisingly tough on Obama in the past 6 months.  I referenced him specifically so that we could discuss without it being assumed that the comments were not logically thought out.  Is there anyone making this point that you would respect? You have deemed Chait, THC, and Yglesias to be hacks?

How about John Dickerson or David Plotz at Slate? Or a number of folks posting at huffpo? They can't all be inferior in their ability to analyze the situation.

The point I would make is that three prominent dem senators have come out on record and stated that they have real issues with the bill, and they would like to make it more conservative.  in that environment, what is realistic?  Should Obama give a big speech? He did that.  Should he travel the country demanding that we pass the bill? He's doing that.

In essence he is now doing everything that the Atrios/BTD folks would like him to do.

And he's not getting the support from the Atrios's and BTD's of the world.  That's really the Yglesias and THC (and my) point.

How on earth do we expect him to take the complaints of the left seriously when he is in essence doing what they've asked and he's still not getting their help.

We can quibble over whether the jobs bill will have an impact, but it seems crystal clear that any more liberal bill would have even less chance of passing.

If the situation was reversed, the GOP would have their sites set squarely on rallying around the POTUS.

They know how to prioritize their enemies and battles.  Liberals, frustratingly, do not.

That's the real THC/Yglesias point. he says as much:

"The other day Tavis Smiley made the point that president's job plan didn't go far enough. I'd bet a lot of progressives concur and I think pushing the point is healthy, legitimate, essential and fair. But it's also healthy, legitimate, essential and fair to then ask, "What would make more progressive legislation possible?" That line of thinking has to confront the kind of statements and action by Democratic Senators who evidently feel little or no pressure from their progressive base."