Originally Posted by claymisher
It's not emotionally satisfying for a lot of us, but I think Obama's approach is probably the strategy most likely to succeed.
I think that's about right. I also think that many of the pundits who are saying that Obama should have taken a more top-down approach to pushing legislation through are just folks who legitimately don't believe that diversity and debate are ultimately strengths and not weaknesses.
It's so tempting to suspect that 'the other side' is highly organized and working perfect harmony. But unity is a kind of weakness too. I think it's important to put the legislative bodies out front, and let them do their jobs.
Allowing for debate means you're accepting the risk that the whole affair goes in a direction you might not have wanted. To me, Obama is already proving that he's a different (and better) kind of leader than George W.
Just imagine if we'd let Congress lead the way in the run-up to the Iraq war instead of the administration.