Well said.

It's the Journalist's Gambit:
"Let's you and him fight".

Grr.

I hope you're right. For types like Reid, Pelosi and Feinstein to all of a sudden grow a spine would be infuriating after all of their dithering and capitulation to Bush & Co. for so long.

I guess that the Politico isn't used to seeing Congress doing what it is supposed to do under the rules of the Constitution.

Gleeful when the Dems in Congress do what they are supposed to do and silent when the Repub Congress critters and a Repub Admin do the equivalent of a wide stance in an airport restroom. Way to go.

Some "push back" is to be expected. That is the Democratic way. I don't disagree, to a point. While Congress is often a mess, it is an equal branch of government and our long term interests are better severed if it exercises (an intelligent) independence.

As long as they don't go all Tip O'Neil on Obama.

I hope you are right. After 8 years of rolling over at every opportunity, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the Dems finally found their egos.

As the saying goes, politics is Hollywood for ugly people.

Which means that large parts of Politico are Perez Hilton for ugly people.

This is called E-Z Bake Punditry.

1.) Make note of minor disagreements between same-party policy-makers
2.) Add hot air.
3.) Ding! You're a Pundit!

I loved David Axelrod's comment: "They are not potted plants." I think its good that Congress is involved. That's part of being serious about governing. Of course, I can appreciate that it looks a little foreign given the last years of Republican control.

For types like Reid, Pelosi and Feinstein to all of a sudden grow a spine would be infuriating after all of their dithering and capitulation to Bush & Co. for so long.

(psst! hey, steve - yeah, you - Steve Benen! did you miss the memo or something? the only way to bring Obama's political capital down to where the rest of The Village has any play is for all of us - including bloggers like you - to play along. Note the rest of us have fallen into line. Get with the program. Sincerely, your friends at the RNC, Blue Dog caucus and MSM. sorry if that is a little redundant.)

the full context of Reid's quote was, "I don't work for him, I work with him," and there's nothing wrong with that

Well of course. Reid has a well established history of working with the president. The fact that he'd now be working with a democratic president is just gravy.

Have these two beltway media pols enrapt themselves so much in the cult of power personalities they have forgotten that a vibrant small "d" democracy demands debate and dialogue encompassing difference, and effective small "d" democratic leaders would welcome such intellectual tumult so better policy solutions can be sought!

VandeHei and Allen are stale! -Kevo

If I wanted a rubber-stamp congress, I would have voted for McCain and his cronies. Congressional inclusion and oversight is healthy for a government with three seperate branches.

And as far as Reid's comment: No he doesn't work for Pres-elect Obama. But he will be "working" for Senate Pres-Elect Joe Biden. So, you better get them daily luncheons scheduled, Harry, and get ready to snap to it!

I think the Congressional Dems will find it harder to "push back" after Obama is in the White House. Yes, they'll want (and get) their input but it will be clear who's in charge.

"working for Senate Pres-Elect Joe Biden"

Thanks, St Sarah for posting that Cheney canard about running the Senate. Tie breakers, Marko, tie breakers - Oh, and announcing the electoral votes and standing, silently, while the House and Nancy Pelosi, give themselves a standing ovation for his mentioning the House - Nice kind of @$#% you farewell to Dickie, eh?

"Quiet, Knucklehead, I'm broadcasting."
---[Fill in your Favorite Cable Newscaster Here]

Of course Obama will seem "embattled" by democrats after 8 years of republicans taking-it-up-the-*ss for the Bush team, no questions asked.

the full context of Reid's quote was, "I don't work for him, I work with him," and there's nothing wrong with that

If only Reid had taken the same attitude towards Bush.

"Dem on Dem" action

Uh, eww.

Congressional Democrats only passively roll over when faced with a challenge from Republicans. They are quite capable of fighting and standing up to other Democrats.

We're not Republicans. We don't think dissent is treason. Naturally, that means we will sometimes dissent from the president. That in no way means that the president is in trouble--we believe that dssent is healthy and leads to better policy.

"Thanks, St Sarah for posting that Cheney canard about running the Senate. Tie breakers, Marko, tie breakers"

Of course ;-) That's why I had "working" in quotes. I guess my sarcasm was lost.

(3) Harry Reid having said, "I don't work for" Obama

Of course not. Obama hires people capable of producing results - competent people - to work for him. So naturally, Harry Reid is not on that list.

I have asked this before - does Harry Reid do anything right? Does anybody like him? How is he still Majority Leader?

After 8 years of rolling over at every opportunity, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the Dems finally found their egos.

As I recall, the Democrats in Congress managed to grow spines, at least as it comes to dealing with the executive branch, in 1993 as well.

Oh, it's the same glee with which creationists point to "disputes" among evolutionary biologists as evidence that support for natural selection is slipping. On the issues that matter, this President and this Congress are going to find common ground. Everything else is -- shockingly -- the way democracy is supposed to look.

But rubber-stamp fascism is much tidier.

and "Dem on Dem" action

If this is what we're left with, perhaps the porn industry does need a bailout.

I think it's just that a Democratic congress which isn't acting supine confuses people.

The Democrats don't realize that they won big; the republicans don't realize that they lost big; and the MSM doesn't understand that the White House and the Congress are two separate arms of the government after 8 years of seeing them operate as a single unit.

Feinstein is a democrat in name only. Wait, hold that. She is a registered agent of the Israeli government, so I guess she's a democrat after all.

Despite the unfortunate contrast to the way Dems behaved in response to Bush, the fact is it is better for the country and for democracy for members of Congress to speak up when they have policy disagreements with the President. In fact I agree - and I think most readers of this blog agree - with Senate Dems who say there is too much emphasis on tax cuts in the stimulus package and not enough emphasis on infrastructure and other spending.
I think it's entirely possible that the Obama team wrote their initial proposal with the expectation that they would get push-back from both sides, and that perhaps the ultimate "compromise" will end up looking like the bill most of us want.

VandeHei and Allen point to five specific examples:

(1) Dianne Feinstein's skepticism about Leon Panetta as CIA director;

(2) John Conyers' skepticism about Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General;

(3) Harry Reid having said, "I don't work for" Obama;

(4) Nancy Pelosi's desire to see more tax increases in Obama's economic plan; and

(5) Senate Democrats telling the transition team about changes they'd like to see in Obama's rescue package.

1. DiFi has reason to be concerned, but I think only time will tell whether it's valid. I think he's a good choice except for lack of field experience and field experience isn't the big thing in light of what they've been doing wrt torture.

2. Conyers has reason to be concerned, but if Obama makes it clear Gupta is mostly a mouthpiece then it should be alright. If Obama wants him to be a policy maker, then there's a problem and Conyers "wins".

3. Reid is right.

4. Pelosi should want tax increases on the Rich, so it depends upon what Obama's plan is as to whether she's "right" or if increases need to be held off on for a year or two. Personally I'm with Nancy on taxing the SuperRich. Businesses not so much -- they're already under pressure.

5. Frankly Congressional-->transition team talks sounds great to me.

The media is just used to a Congress that lets the president write all the major legislation and then leaves the Congress with only the option of voting for it or against it. Any public Congressional comments then, were considered dissent. With little else to do, the Majority party for most of that time spent their time designing earmarks and nothing else of any value at all. That's when they weren't strongarming lobbyists for bribes as Duke Cunningham, and others clearly did.

It should be no surprise when reporters who grew up in this era see active disagreement on some parts of legislation that has been hurriedly assembled. So when the media sees collegial work between the Executive and the Congress, they don't recognize it. They also don't know what to expect as a result. The reporters have just never seen a legislature at real work.

The media will have to be retrained, clearly.

About Harry Reid. His position as Majority Leader has to be based either on the Majority of the Senate Democrats preferring him, or on the fact that no one else in the Senate wants the damned job.

My bet is - both.

Part of the job description:

- Lightning Rod.

This is my prediction Steve...that senate dems will give Obama more opposition in the first year alone than they gave Bush his entire term and I pray that I'm wrong and hopefully they will eventually come around once they've gotten pressure from the people.

I hope we begin to separate ourselves from the terrorist state of Israel immediately even in the midst of Reid's current circumcision. Despite his rhetoric we are not the United States of Israel or the Israeli National Guard. Just saying...Reid doesn't represent what most of us are thinking about the current Palestinian slaughter.