Unexpectedly, at least to me, though I enthusiastically voted for him, it seems that the American president that I’ve been waiting for has, alas, come along, in the form of Barak Obama. I will put aside president Obama’s budget, which has been described as finally treating us as adults, and focus on his recent FDResque style.

On his recent Saturday address, president Obama sounded a populist message that, I believe, will give him some leverage when taking on the “selfish” interests that are so entrenched in Washington, DC. Of course, just like FDR, president Obama recognizes and reminds us that any move against these entrenched forces will be met with deeply rooted resistance, and that the fight will be arduous.

Here’s the passage from the president’s Saturday morning address, on his proposed budget, that has given me such hope:

I realize that passing this budget won’t be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. I know that the insurance industry won’t like the idea that they’ll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that’s how we’ll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families. I know that banks and big student lenders won’t like the idea that we’re ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that’s how we’ll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won’t like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that’s how we’ll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. In other words, I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:

So am I.

The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don’t. I work for the American people.

What I love about this passage is the strength that it reflects, and, also, president Obama’s acknowledgement that he works for US, the American people.

Moreover, I also hear echoes of one of my favorite FDR quotes in president Obama’s statement, which is something I’ve been wanting to hear from a Democratic president for a long time now.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace–business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

Franklin Roosevelt’s Address Announcing the Second New Deal
October 31, 1936

In my lifetime, president Obama is the closest I’ve come to hearing echoes of FDR, and his commitment to economic security for all.

Here’s president Obama’s address, it’s well worth watching:

After the mid-term elections of that year, many progressives hoped that elected Democrats would aggressively push back against Bush-republicans and their conservative allies. However, elected Democrats in Congress proved themselves to be largely ineffective on the big policy issues of the day (see: Iraq war, FISA, Guantanamo prison, republican corruption – i.e., Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, et al.).

To be fair, many elected Democrats did put up a fight, and pushed back against Bush and his conservative allies. Unfortunately, since 2006, some of Bush’s conservative allies have included so-called Blue Dog Democrats, which have allowed Bush & Co. to continue the Iraq war, to perpetuate the republican culture of corruption, and to infringe on civil liberties.

So, what’s a progressive to do against these so-called Blue Dog Democrats? Fight back, of course!

Which is where blogger, activist and lawyer Glenn Greenwald comes in, he writes:

If simply voting for more Democrats will achieve nothing in the way of meaningful change, what, if anything, will? At minimum, two steps are required to begin to influence Democratic leaders to change course: 1) Impose a real political price that they must pay when they capitulate to — or actively embrace — the right’s agenda and ignore the political values of their base, and 2) decrease the power and influence of the conservative “Blue Dog” contingent within the Democratic caucus, who have proved excessively willing to accommodate the excesses of the Bush administration, by selecting their members for defeat and removing them from office. And that means running progressive challengers against them in primaries, or targeting them with critical ads, even if doing so, in isolated cases, risks the loss of a Democratic seat in Congress.

Those goals are the basis of the recent campaign that I helped launch — along with progressive bloggers such as Jane Hamsher and the Blue America PAC — to target selected Democratic members of Congress who have been responsible for some of the worst acts of complicity and capitulation. The campaign we launched, which raised over $350,000 in a very short time largely from dissatisfied progressives, has run multimedia ads criticizing the likes of Blue Dog Rep. Chris Carney and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, despite the fact that neither has a primary challenger and despite the fact that Carney is quite vulnerable in his reelection effort this year.

Some of you may be thinking, but won’t this jeopardize Democratic control of Congress? The short answer is, No!

If you’re interested in a more elaborate answer, you’ll need to see Glenn Greenwald’s explanation:

Many progressives and other Democratic supporters are reflexively opposed to any conduct that might result in the defeat of even a single, relatively inconsequential Democratic member of Congress or the transfer of even a single district to GOP control. No matter how dissatisfied such individuals might be with the Democratic Congress, they are unwilling to do anything different to change what they claim to find so unsatisfactory. Even though uncritically cheering on any and every candidate with a “D” after his or her name has resulted in virtually nothing positive — and much that is negative — many progressives continue, rather bafflingly and stubbornly, to insist that if they just keep doing the same thing (cheering for the election of more and more Democrats), then somehow, someday, something different might occur. But, as the cliché teaches, repeatedly engaging in the same conduct and expecting different results is the very definition of foolishness.

As foolish as it is, this intense aversion to jeopardizing any Democratic incumbents might be considered rational if doing so carried the risk of restoring Republican control of Congress. But there is no such risk, and there will be none for the foreseeable future. No matter what happens, the Democrats, by all accounts, are going to control both houses of Congress after the 2008 election. Their margin in the House, which is currently 31 seats, will, by even the most conservative estimates, increase to at least 50 seats. No advertising campaign or activist group could possibly swing control of Congress to the Republicans this year, and — given the Brezhnev-era-like reelection rates for incumbents in America — it is extremely unlikely that the House will be controlled by anyone other than Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi for years to come.

The critical question, then, is not who will control Congress. The Democrats will. That is a given. The vital question is what they will do with that control — specifically, will they continue to maintain and increase their own power by accommodating the right, or will they be more responsive, accountable and attentive to the political values of their base?

If yo agree that the Democratic party should be more “accountable and attentive” to you, than accommodating to Bush & Co., then please donate $15 or more to Glenn Greenwald’s Blue America campaign.

However, after Edwards dropped his bid for the Democratic nomination, I turned my support for Sen. Obama, though I remained guarded over his caution and the conciliatory nature of his campaign (of course, I realized that during the general election the Democratic candidate would need to pivot and make necessary adjustments; but while the electorate was largely composed of Democratic party voters, I expected some meat — the bloodier the better, silly me).

All that said, I’ve come to appreciate the value of Sen. Obama’s approach, and I especially respect the decision making process that he has exhibited. Here, for example, is another illustration of Sen. Obama’s thinking and decision making approach:

Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday that he’s in no rush to pick a vice presidential candidate, telling CNN “everybody needs to settle down” and let the vetting process run its course.

Speaking with CNN’s Candy Crowley on Thursday in Bristow, Virginia, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said it’s not in his best interest — or in the interest of former rival Sen. Hillary Clinton — to make a hasty decision about whom his running mate will be.

“We just completed this arduous process,” Obama said. “It’s only been two days, and I think it’s not just in my interest and Sen. Clinton’s interest, but in the Democratic Party’s interest and the country’s interest to make sure I make this decision well.”

Calling his choice of running mate “the most important decision that I will make before I am president,” the senator from Illinois said he would “be deliberate and systematic about it, because this will be my final counselor when I am making decisions in the White House, and I want to make sure I get it right.”

Sure, that’s a great answer that skirts the question; however, it is an answer that is consistent with the approach to issues that Sen. Obama has exhibited thus far, and it is reassuring — considering the last seven years under Bush’s republican administration.

Now, if his approach to making tough decisions weren’t reason enough to feel reassured and confident about Sen. Obama, he’s gone and officially endorsed Howard Dean’s “50 State Strategy,” which is simply brilliant:

A slew of political factors will determine Obama’s success in turning red states blue. But the Senator, in no small measure, will be aided in his task by reforms that preceded his run for the presidency. For all of the hoopla surrounding the candidates, the 2008 presidential election will be the first truly national test of the viability and prescience of Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy.

Four years ago, when Dean was vaulted to the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee — following a failed presidential bid months earlier — he pledged to rewrite the rules concerning where and how Democrats would compete. In the subsequent months, resources and staff were invested into unconventional and even previously untouched locales. The idea was that the party simply couldn’t compete without a margin for error.

[…]

On Thursday, Obama symbolically endorsed the DNC’s efforts, declaring that Dean would remain party chairman heading into the general election.

As Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, told The Huffington Post: “I think that we are going to have a larger battlefield in 2008… I think we are going to stretch the Republicans. I don’t think they can take for granted nearly as many states as they have in the past. And I think we are going to add several to the Democratic column this year and so our coalition is going to be broader.”

This is huge, and it can easily translate into major gains for Democratic candidates down the ballot all across our country, marking the beginning of a new realignment. Yes, it’s a long shot, but it’s possible.

Luckily, I’m not alone in my reservations against Sen. Webb. Blogger Kathy G., guest writing in Matthew Yglesias’ blog, makes a compelling case against Sen. Webb as the VP in an Obama administration.

First, the practical argument against Sen. Webb:

Back in February, Ezra Klein made the case against Webb, and the reasons Ezra gave then still hold. For one thing, if President Obama wants to get anything done, he’ll need a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. It would not be wise for him to choose a red state senator, because who knows if another Democrat could be elected to that seat? Also, as Ezra argued, the things that make Webb valuable as a “gadfly senator,” such as his “brashness” and his “willingness to push the conversation forward,” would be a bad match for the vice presidency, which would require him to “constantly watch his mouth” and not say anything that conflicts with the president’s agenda.

Now for the more substantive case against Jim Webb:

To quote a Rolling Stone profile of the man, just a few years ago he was saying that “Liberals were ‘cultural Marxists,’ and ‘the upper crust of academia and the pampered salons of Hollywood’ were a fifth column waging war on American traditions.”

In 2000, Webb opined that affirmative action was “state-sponsored racism”; that same year he endorsed the ultra-conservative Republican George Allen for the senate. In 2004, Webb wrote an op-ed for USA Today arguing that John Kerry “deserved condemnation” for his opposition to the Vietnam War (to be fair, in the op-ed Webb is also critical of George Bush; but then again, in the same piece Webb also takes a swipe at the “liberal media”).

Kathy G. goes on to present a series of sexist statements made by Sen. Webb against women in the military; which, as she points out, in a year where many women have been inspired by a candidate with a real chance of becoming the first female president, selecting Sen. Webb as the VP nominee may be seen as an insult.

Above all, though, I am very troubled by the idea that a man who has held such sexists views, and has done so much to damage the cause of gender equality in the military, would be one heartbeat away from the presidency. I do not think Webb is at all trustworthy on women’s issues, and women’s issues are very important to me and to millions of others besides. I think it’s essential that any Democratic president or vice president have a good record on women’s, civil rights, and labor issues. It’s not just that women, African-Americans, and unions are the core constituencies of the Democratic party. It’s that advancing the causes of racial, gender, and economic equality are the among the most important moral and political issues of our time. These are core values to me and millions of other Democrats, and elevating a man who has been so awful on one of them to the second most powerful position in the party is completely unacceptable.

Stepping away from all that high-minded rhetoric, I’ll add that, in practical terms, selecting Webb would be a slap in the face to the Hillary Clinton supporters. I’m not saying that Obama has to pick Hillary as veep (and indeed, I think that would be a bad idea). I’m not even saying that he needs to pick a woman.

But Hillary was the first woman to ever have a serious shot at the presidency, and she came so close. So the Hillary supporters (of whom, to be clear, I am not one) will feel frustrated enough that their candidate didn’t win. But for Obama to choose — out of all the well-qualified candidates out there — the one person who has a really awful record on gender issues would be like rubbing salt in the wound. It would be seen as a big “screw you” to Hillary’s supporters and to feminists in general.

Read the full post, Kathy G. makes many points worth thinking about.

And now, Mr. Dean on faux, er, fox news:

Dean: Chris, the Republicans… for the last 30 years, the Republican (play)book has been to race bait and to use hate and divisiveness. In 2006, the American people said no to that; I think they’re going to say no to that in 2008. It is true that the economy, the war and healthcare are more important to the American people. They are tired of the divisiveness of what the Republicans have done to them. And that’s why the Republicans are in trouble. Deep trouble. Another four years of George Bush is not what we need…

Wallace: Governor, are you suggesting that bringing up Jeremiah Wright is “race-baiting” and hate and divisive?

Dean: Yeah, I am suggesting that kind of stuff. I think when you start bringing up candidates that have nothing to do with the issues…uh when you start bringing up things that have nothing to do with the candidate, nothing to do with the issues, that’s race-baiting. And that’s exactly what it is. Just like Willie Horton was race-baiting so many years ago. I think we’re going to take…we’re going to turn the page on this stuff. I’ll tell you, there’s a lot of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on issues, but the biggest issue of all is we don’t use this kind of stuff. We never have used this kind of stuff and we’re not going to start now. America is more important than the Republican party and that’s the lesson the voters are about to teach the Republicans.

Mr. Herbert reminds of the “gift” that Democrats have displayed at blowing their chances at winning the presidency:

Jimmy Carter managed to win the White House in 1976 by looking pious and riding a wave of anti-Watergate revulsion. After four hapless years, he dutifully handed the keys back to the G.O.P.

Bill Clinton tried hard to lose, with sex scandals and whatnot, during the 1992 campaign. But Ross Perot wouldn’t let him. Mr. Clinton won with a piddling 43 percent of the vote. For eight years, Mr. Clinton tried to throw the presidency away (with sex scandals and whatnot), but he was never able to succeed.

That’s been it for the party for the past 40 years. The Democrats have become so psychologically battered by these many decades in the leadership wilderness that they consider the Clinton years, during which the president was impeached and they lost control of both houses of Congress, to have been a period of triumph.

The only detail that’s missing from Mr. Herbert’s retelling of the Democrats “gift” is the willing role that so-called journalists have played in handing the presidency to republicans over those 40 years.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to keep the chamber in session over the Thanksgiving break to block President Bush from making any unsavory recess appointments while Senators are out of town.

[...]

Senate sources said Reid made the decision after he was unable to strike a deal with White House officials that would have allowed swift consideration of several key Democratic picks for the executive branch. In his statement, Reid points to the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Nuclear Regulatory Commission as examples where Democratic choices have not been moved along.

[...]

This isn’t the first time Reid has considered keeping the Senate working over a break to prevent recess appointments. Following the Easter recess in which Bush made three controversial installments, Reid threatened to hold pro forma sessions during the monthlong August break.

Looks like Sen. Reid finally learned his lesson.