... I think he genuinely does not see greater than what is politically possible as being the minimum necessary.

I do think that Jerome a Paris called it right on that score.

But on the other hand, the nature of the challenge is that it is at the outset not possible to do enough. One Presidential Election victory was never going to be enough. The challenge was always going to be to continue building the coalition in the aftermath of a victory, no matter the Presidential candidate. Given the candidate, the challenge was always going to be that the Audacity of the Hope would be far greater than the Audacity of the Government.

Just as in 2007/2008, we still have to build a new political terrain in which the minimum that we have to do becomes possible to do.

Just as in 2007/2008, we have to build a progressive change coalition to accomplish that, because its the only way any such thing has ever been done in the United States.

Unlike in 2007/2008, some of the necessary members of that coalition have gone through the experience of hope for progress, thrill of electoral victory, and dashed hopes, and denying the reality of those dashed hopes on the part of some prospective members of a hoped for coalition isn't a path to forging a successful coalition.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.