I'm not sure where exactly I stand in this debate, but I'm gonna take the side of the Obama critics here because, right now, it is closer to where I am emotionally if not logically. I guess I have 5 points to make
1) In order to compromise your principals, you need to actually have principals in the first place. I'm not saying that President Obama does not have principals, I'm sure he does, and I'm sure they line up with mine much better than any Republican's possibly would, but, and this is one of the problems of his Presidency that even he has admitted to - he does a horrible job of communicating them. He tends to react to the political narrative more than he drives it, and he usually speaks in such general terms that you either think that he agrees with you on everything, or that he disagrees with you on everything. That, I think, more than anything, drives progressive distrust of him.
2) There are principals, and then there is policy. You can argue principals, you can't argue facts. When he came into office he was facing basically a repeat of the economic conditions that faced the country during the Great Depression. That is what the economic advisers, that he brought into his administration, were telling him. We know that now because they've gone on record talking about it. What the public really wanted, aside from accountability from Wall Street, was a return to prosperity. In response to that, he passed a stimulus bill that his advisers told him was too small, and then proceeded to defend it as if it was adequate. That tells me either he believes that lying about his policy choices is a good political idea, which I disagree with (again, how can you compromise if you don't first have a position), or that, against the advice of his advisers, he was already worried about deficit reduction.
3) I agree that this is not all Obama's fault. In 2010 the right organized into the tea party, and proceeded to mount a massive campaign to not only re-take both houses of congress, but to re-make the Republican party in their own image. The left, meanwhile, responded by either bitching about a lack of a public option in the health care reform bill and doing nothing, or, the weekend before the election, when they could have been participating in get our the vote efforts on behalf of candidates that support their positions, attending a "rally" hosted by two comedy show hosts to protest T.V. shows on a rival network.
I'm sorry, but that rally represents everything shitty not only about the politics of this generation, but the art and culture as well. It was smug, arrogant, self-satisfied, and too ironic and self aware for its own good. It was for people who wanted to take a political position without really risking anything; without risking being wrong, looking stupid, or getting into a debate or two. It was people who didn't want to take any risks, or put any effort, towards the issues they supposedly cared about. (If they cared about anything - I couldn't tell). Is a message praising compromise and criticizing the part of your base actually expressing views, a message that gives people the same outs from putting forth any real effort or taking real risks, really the message that people on the left - supposedly his base - need to hear?
They should be kicking themselves for being lazy, not being unreasonable.
4) Compromise is obviously something that legislatures in a democracy, in order to accomplish their jobs, need to do. I'm not sure why that message should be directed at me as a citizen, or especially as someone who actually cares about policy. I'm not crafting legislation, I'm advocating a position I believe in. What does he want the Huffington Post to do? Praise every decision he makes if they don't agree with him? Repeat his speeches verbatim if they disagree with the words he is saying? That's not democracy, that's totalitarianism.
5) My memory history during the Civil War is slightly fuzzy, but I think the analogy he is using is inaccurate and more than a little self serving. I could be wrong, my memory really is fuzzy, but I believe that Lincoln came into office as the head of a political party with the abolition of slavery written into its platform. True, he didn't advocate abolition at first, but when the South seceded over the issue and started firing at federal property on their "territory", he didn't offer to sit down with them and craft an assurance that he wouldn't end slavery into to bring them back into the union. Instead, he raised an army and fought the bloodiest war this continent has ever seen in order to bring them back into the union, and proceeded to free the slaves held in Confederate territories during that war. True, as the President points out, that proclamation included provisions protecting slave owners in states allied with the Union, but, by that point, the writing must have been on the wall. Was there really anyone alive who didn't believe those slaves would not eventually be freed?
Wow thats a lot of words. Got to go. No more posting from me today.