The Obama result is huge grounds for celebration. Too bad Mudcat still has a few unreformed cynics (though some appear cowed)--and probably still one racist commenting.

As for the Senate, a "filibuster-proof majority" is and always was a chimera. Even if the Democrats had made it up to 60 seats 1) One of them would have been Joe Lieberman and 2) At this point the Democrats are truly a "big tent"--including people who are against abortion and against gun control. It is absurd to say "Shame about the Senate"--since each Senator will vote primarily according to the wishes of his or her constituency. Case in point: Senator Tester. And anybody who tries to enforce "party discipline" would be foolish in the extreme--since the constituents would, at the next election, take it out on the Senator who ignored the will of his own voters.


Yes, each Democratic Senator will support the party leadership when that Senator can. But when the majority of his constituents are on the other side from the Democratic party leadership on an issue, he or she must choose the interests of the constituents, as that Senator sees it. They are who elected him or her.   The party leadership did not.

And as Richard Neustadt has pointed out, perhaps the greatest power of the president is the power to persuade. This is why we are particularly fortunate that Obama is such a wonderful speaker. Under him, the presidency can again be a "bully pulpit"--as opposed to the source of scare propaganda and embarrassment it has been for 8 years.

On the issue of "party discipline", the US system may well be different than the UK system.