When it comes to the "Left" there is nothing that fails like success.
New York became the largest state not only to allow marriage equality, but also to do it through the legislature rather than the courts.
This, of course, shows what a bad president Obama is.
The repeal of DADT is just so yesterday, the real issue now is DOMA. Now, Obama's Justice Department has decided not to defend DOMA in courts, because they think it's unconstitutional. But since Obama has not personally divorced Michelle and married Dan Choi, his lack of vocal support for same-sex marriage is seen as a betrayal. Also, too, no one seems to be able to add to 60. As Matt Yglesias
argues, what matters here is political institutions.
Cuomo was much more publicly aggressive in pushing for marriage equality than Obama was for most of his legislative agenda. Part of that is personality. Obama tends to avoid grandstanding, Cuomo seems to enjoy it. Obama, unlike say Clinton, does not want to be the story; he doesn't need to be "the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral." So his style lacks the combativeness that many on the Left want to see.
But Cuomo had two huge advantages over Obama on, say, ACA. One was, Cuomo didn't need a supermajority and was not facing a legislative branch bent on his destruction. Second, same-sex marriage is pretty popular in New York. ACA never enjoyed that much popularity.
At the time, I couldn't see a path clear to a public option with Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln and Landrieu all blocking the way (and then Brown and Snowe). Reconciliation would have been a temporary fix. Given that the GOP is trying to end MEDICARE, it is unlikely the public option could have survived the inevitable return to power of the GOP, unless it was written into ACA, not passed through reconciliation.
Obama's brand of leadership actually probably helped pass DADT repeal. It probably meant that ACA was not as strongly progressive as it might have been.
But ultimately, to return to Yglesias' point, institutions matter. A lot. And political culture matters a lot, too.
Right now, the institution of the Congress, especially the Senate, is broken. It does not function properly. Lyndon Johnson, whose legislative prowess is rightly celebrated on the Left by those who disparage Obama, had a super-majority in the Senate. So did FDR. Obama had 58 votes and Lieberman and Nelson.
The political culture has also changed. Political polarization is hardly new, but it strikes me as an unusual combination of toxic divisions and crisis. Usually in a crisis (1861, 1933) one side has control of the agenda. The Democrats never had complete control of the agenda. McConnell's refusal to grant unanimous consent, the holding up of trivial executive branch appointees and the filibustering of everything in sight, robbed the Administration of momentum and opportunities.
They still passed a historic health care bill and a lot of other legislation. Obama' legislative record is as good as any president since LBJ.
But it's still not enough. I actually saw a diary at DKos that hoped Obama would lose so that we could elect a "real" progressive in 2016. One look at Wisconsin, Ohio, Arizona, Georgia or Michigan SHOULD make that person a laughingstock of anyone to the left of David Brooks. But, sadly, sage heads nod along and complain about how Obama is no better than Bush/Walker/Reagan.
Ultimately, the reason Obama is struggling with parts of his base is not because he has failed to deliver progressive change, but because they are ignorant of basic math (how to count to 60) and of the political culture of the United States (a lot more conservative than they think it is). They are ignorant of the history of progressive change and how slowly it evolves. They are knowledgeable only about their own feelings and their own agenda.
The problems with Obama's base is Obama's base, not Obama.
