From the NY Times, which I referenced on August 14 and just noticed is recited by Jonathan Chait, who, fishing for compromise, manages to get the other side of the argument wrong, too:
Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Plouffe, and his chief of staff, William M. Daley, want him to maintain a pragmatic strategy of appealing to independent voters by advocating ideas that can pass Congress, even if they may not have much economic impact.
This is almost comically inept advice. First, leaving the unemployment needle essentially pegged to "frightful" will scarcely appeal to independent voters, or anyone else. This "strategy" bolsters Obama's reelection prospects ... how? Second, nothing Obama proposes is going to pass the House. Come on, David and Bill, let's spell it together: n-o-t-h-i-n-g.
Which leads to observation Number Three. Some loyal Obamians are hustling the fallacy that a small, timid presidential proposal that can't pass the House is somehow more pragmatic than a big, bold proposal that can't the House. Here we surpass "almost" and unmistakably reach comical ineptitude's saturation point. The only political difference between the two -- the small and the big -- is that a weary, disgusted electorate would yawn at the first but greet the second with enthusiasm. Granted, the degree of public enthusiasm might be less than what's strategically anticipated, but, on any given day, any enthusiasm beats the hell out of a yawn.
Plouffe and Daley are plotting a brilliant presidential campaign all right. For 2012, that of 2008's.
My advice to Obama? Take theirs at your own peril.
Chait's error? He neglects the enormous persuasive power of a stumping Barack Obama, which should be vastly differentiated from George W. Bush's.