ANY WAY THE WIND BLOWS:

The Rouse era won't be better than the Rahm era (Adam Serwer, 10/01/10, Washington Post)

[A]s my colleague Tim Fernholz points out, many of the things liberals disliked about Emanuel's tenure -- too deferential to Republicans, not enough partisan fist shaking, a tendency to cede key progressive priorities in order to get legislation passed -- are actually more reflections of Emanuel's boss, President Obama, than they are of Emanuel himself. They're also a reflection of real political circumstances -- while there's no question that Obama has completely reversed himself on his promises to roll back Bush-era national security policies, the choke point for most progressive legislation has been the Senate, not the House majority Emanuel helped assemble with a roster of "Conservadems." Regardless, much of the liberal frustration with Emanuel would have been more appropriately directed at the man in the Oval Office.

If anything, the coming era is going to be one of more painful compromises on liberal priorities.

It's a White House that wants to be led, not to lead.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 1, 2010 11:26 AM