BooMan's been reading Plouffe's campaign memoir, The Audacity to Win*, and his post is too delicious not to quote:
[The book] helped me step back from the daily grind and remember what it was we [who?] thought we were trying to do in this presidency. Overall, I've found the experience bolstering to my optimism [no doubt]. I do feel like the Obama administration is going through one of its down phases, like many they faced during the interminable [yeah, WWTSBQ?] path to the White House [like losing all the big states and the popular vote]. But I have been reminded of how they, time and time again, were able to step back [racism smears] and reset their course [caucus fraud] when they found they had strayed [misogyny] from their strategy [RFK smear] and principles [if any. FISA; TARP] during the campaign. It's [sic] makes me feel more confident [no doubt] that they'll be able to do the same during this first term.
Well, this "little single payer advocate" has every confidence, too!
From my perspective, they've been swallowed up too much by the Washington culture that they so successfully resisted during the campaign [Oh, how? By having Rick Warren give the inaugural invocation?]. They came in hoping to change things up [Oh, how? With "entitlement reform"?], but were met with iron resistance from the Republican Party [a classic narrative of Democratic weakness**]. Obama wanted [BooMan projects onto the "blank screen"] to be pragmatic, which meant that his instinct [again with the "blank screen"] was to forge a new kind of bipartisan compromise. It wasn't triangulation exactly [because that would be like the Clintons], because triangulation was an almost wholly cynical enterprise [and FISA and TARP rule out cynicism]. Obama wanted ["blank screen"] something more authentic [of course, of course]. But that required the other side*** [and not Democrats themselves] to provide members of good will [a scenario that was always, like, totally realistic LOL!!!!!!!!!]. So far, they have been lacking.
The effort to change Washington has failed. [Nobody could have predicted...] The administration now needs to step back and realize that he may not be able to change Washington but that he can lead it.
Anybody notice the typo in the last paragraph?
BooMan writes "... he may not be able to change Washington..." but must really have meant to write "... He may not be able to change Washington...", using the reverential capital H. Why? Well, look at BooMan's last sentence again in full:
The administration  now needs to step back and realize that he  may not be able to change Washington but that he can lead it.
"He"  of course, means Obama, but refers to "the administration" . Poor BooMan has identified the entire executive branch with a single person who "leads."
Like I said: Authoritarian followership. Classic.
NOTE * What a perfectly value-free title!
NOTE ** It's the equivalent of Digby's "Conservatism can never fail; it can only be failed," except for the FKDP: "Democrats can never FAIL; they can only be weak."
NOTE *** The assumption that there are only two sides is a fine example of "Progressive" Bipolar Disorder. "Progressives" and access bloggers expect the unterbussen to stay on the side of those who threw them under the bus. Why? Strategery?