I just posed this on Hardblogger, Chris Matthews's blog

A). Michael Steele is according to all fair reckoning, the elected leader of the Republican party. Rush Limbaugh, to be fair, is mostly unquestionably the ideological head of the party.

B). According to this same standard of policy versus ideology, Barack Obama is NOT a liberal. He is absolutely an economic liberal [well he should be, liberal economics encourage prosperity while conservative economics encourage nothing but sometimes extortion (popular, criminal or otherwise)], but he is not an ideological liberal, and frankly it is offensive for a politician who will not ALLOW HIS CAMPAIGN WORKERS TO DISCUSS THE CONCEPT “UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE” (even as it is different from Universal Access or mandatory insurance), who won’t reject a White House office of Faith Based Initiatives, who won’t pull American troops out of unpopular war [I don’t approve of all liberal ideology, but I acknowledge it]. Barack Obama is clearly an ideological centrist, right down to his women’s rights and environmental policies, which are his only non-economic reversals of the status quo, rejections of clearly conservative ideals in favor of popular, relatively liberal policies.

C). I agree with Trent Lott [(R)!]. Democrats have plenty of achievable governance they can pass over vocal Republican objection, all of which will make them look good while winding the clock toward Nov. ’10 when they will have a chance to pick up filibuster-proof majority. Remember that it is rare to the point of unheard-of for a president to lose ground in congress in his first midterms, and its one of the few clear black-marks on Bill Clinton’s record outside of letting his own perjury become a sideshow that he did so. Democrats should play by the rules, sure, they ought to break a filibuster the old-fashioned parliamentary (human weakness-dependent) way when it’s strategically possible or necessary, but it’s only the senate, there’s no need to get so godawful impatient Chris, we can get plenty done; remember what happened to the Whigs when they opposed a popular but inhumane war of aggression against Mexico? I can’t think of anything I’d rather do as an ideological and as an economic liberal than find out what happens when an opposition lets the ruling party hang themselves with the rope of that inhumane war. I can gleefully wait until Jan. 2011 for ‘Democrat’ carte blanche.