Democrats are claiming a comeback-from-the-brink victory. The punditry says that Obama’s presidency is now back on track. Rank and file Obamaphiles have reason to hope again. (All this, despite a fairly lackluster and watered-down bill.)

But how does Obama’s victory sit with conservatives? Not the Tea Party madmen, but the conservative establishment — the Beltway insiders who actually strategize about this stuff. Like David Frum, the prolific neo-con pundit, AEI Fellow, and thought leader for serious conservatives. He’s penned a fascinating post-mortem, “Waterloo,” that’s been zooming around conservative circles, essentially arguing that the GOP’s Strategy of NO helped them win a few battles, but lose the war. An excerpt:

“A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster [the healthcare bill] attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.”

Will this become the conventional wisdom and push the GOP back to the negotiating table? And would that be good for progressive policy? Read the rest of the piece here.

This opinion piece from the Financial Times sums up my thoughts almost perfectly. It’s written by Edward Luce, the FT’s Washington editor, about whom I know almost nothing, except that I agree with his analysis that Obama’s failed attempt at “bipartisanship” may have cost America deeply. At the heart of it:

Mr Obama’s bipartisan instincts arguably contributed to the parlous state of healthcare reform today. The most serious blow to the bill came last summer when Mr Obama allowed a small group of centrist Democratic and Republican senators to negotiate on a compromise.

The exercise robbed Mr Obama of three valuable months and ceded the initiative to people who had no prior record of fighting for healthcare reform. It also created the space for the demagogic “townhall” meetings in which the bill was depicted as a Trojan horse for socialism, euthanasia and an all-seeing federal bureaucracy. The net result? No Republican votes.

Read the rest on the Financial Times site.

In 2008, a couple pro-Obama organizers founded TravelforChange.org, a simple website that connected Obama volunteers with airline miles donors. The idea was to get as many volunteers to swing states as possible. The PAC that I ran, Vote Today Ohio, got three or four volunteers to Ohio on Travel for Change miles.

Most of these small operations fizzled out after Obama won. Hell, even some of the biggest operations fizzled! But Travel for Change has been reborn, with a crisp new focus — defeating Maine’s anti-marriage Prop 1. Travel for Change sent out an email yesterday inviting volunteers and miles donors to get back in the game; I’ve posted the email here.

For folks who participate in the cyclical world of political organizing, the “off season” can be a boring, low-energy time. Not that important elections aren’t happening in the off season; indeed, my friend Mark Winston Griffith is barnstorming Brooklyn to win a hotly contested City Council race here in New York. But for those who only get excited by national issues, there’s very little outlet for their energy.

If it sticks around, Travel for Change may help to change that, by allowing nationally focused activists to plug into state-wide or local issue campaigns. I certainly hope it succeeds. Kudos to Alisa Whitfield, Jay Cash and all the Travel for Change donors and volunteers for keeping the momentum going!

As you’ve no doubt read, Obama wants to cap salaries for executives who get bailout money from the Feds. If you get taxpayer money, you can only pay your head honchos $500,000 a year.

When I heard that announcement, I didn’t think Wall St. CEOs and corporate capitalists would publicly object. How could they? After sinking the global economy, how could the Gilded Class even pretend to argue that they deserve, well, anything? I figured they would let the announcement go publicly unanswered, while they tried to eviscerate it behind closed doors.

Not so.

CEOs, executive compensation “experts,” and right wing commentators came out of the woodwork to publicly defend outrageous corporate paychecks. “That is pretty draconian — $500,000 is not a lot of money, particularly if there is no bonus,” said James F. Reda, founder and managing director of James F. Reda & Associates, a compensation consulting firm. In a NY Times op-ed, the CEO of Netflix called Obama’s plan a “terrible idea.”

Unsurprisingly, most Americans are appalled at that kind of hubris. NPR’s All Things Considered reported an “overwhelming response” to a similar statement made by another compensation expert. “My heart bleeds for the poor bankers,” one listener wrote in; “maybe now they’ll have to live like the rest of us, instead of spending money on gold-plated caviar and magic pony rides.” In other words, says Joe Q. Public, Don’t Be So Damn Greedy.

But if you ask me, this display of greed is a good thing. Not the greed itself, mind you. But the display of the greed. Finally, corporate capitalists are coming right out and saying it — we want more money. For ourselves. Because, well, we just want it.

Capitalism requires one of two counterweights to function. Either the capitalists themselves must have a conscience (self-regulation). Or the markets must be controlled by a higher power (government regulation). Otherwise, the capitalist will sell you the proverbial rope to hang himself.

Plenty of prominent (and ridiculously rich) capitalists have shown restraint, temperance, and even conscience. I think of Warren Buffet, who invests long-term in companies that actually create value. Or Lee Iacocca taking $1 / year salary during the Chrysler bailout. Or Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield capping their own salary at 7 times the salary of the lowest-paid Ben & Jerry’s employee. This kind of self-restraint does not lead to transformative change; but at least it tempers some of the market’s worst injustices.

What I see in these reactions to Obama’s pay cap is a complete abandonment of that restraint. Their simpleton argument — if you can’t pay your top talent top dollars, they will go elsewhere, and your business will fail — is all about personal, human greed. CEOs are not just greedy, they admit, but really really greedy; and if that greed isn’t satiated, the CEOs will walk.

That argument is, itself, an admission of guilt. If CEOs only respond to personal greed, we surely can’t let them run an unregulated economy. Greed, short-term thinking and a generous pinch of stupidity already sunk our economy. Why encourage it?

So bravo to the outspoken greedheads and corporate compensation executives who are telling it like it is. And bravo to Joe Q. Public for being pissed off about it. And bravo to Obama for proposing a sensible solution.

America is built on bigger ideals than greed. It’s built on stronger institutions than markets. Maybe this flap over Obama’s pay cap will help us all rally around our bigger selves. Otherwise, we’ll all eventually fall victim to our inner greedhead.

“[Obama must] decide whether he’ll be the first president to actually engage millions of real people, via the Internet, to govern and set the compass of the country. It’s easier to roll out webby gimmicks — everyone can submit a name for the First Puppy! — than to serve as organizer in chief. But embracing connected politics may be the only road to the kind of transformation that Obama promised and that many in the country expect.”

I’ve always found the phrase “organizer in chief” particularly compelling. It evokes a vision of grassroots, bottom-up power. Obama projected this brand during the campaign, to stunningly powerful effect. Eli’s op-ed asks, can the realities of his administration match up to that brand?

Let’s assume that Obama actually believes in bottom-up politics; or at least sees the political efficacy of embracing it. (That’s a huge assumption, but let’s go there, for argument’s sake.) If so, how would that translate into “online” governance? Would web-enable democracy actually work?

The devil, as always, is in the details. Will more technically proficient Internet users seize disproportionate power? Will the mechanisms of online democracy unfairly shape the outcomes? Where will money, raw power and lobbyists find the loopholes to exploit?

Despite the possible pitfalls, its hard to imagine an online governance system that performs worse than Washington does now. Would you rather have a couple database geeks skew an online poll, or big pharma lobbyists write our healthcare policy?

I don’t believe DC is fatally broken; but it’ll take a lot of reform to make it functional. Obama has the momentum to strike out with a bold, web-based reform. He should capitalize on that momentum and turn Change.gov into an experimenting ground for true online governance.

On Saturday night, after a great meal and perhaps a little too much wine, we started making toasts. One of those toasts turned into a semi-silly, semi-sober, semi-sonorous singing of This Land Is Your Land. The song came straight from our hearts. For a group of Gen-Xers steeped in irony and not given to public displays of patriotism, it was an unusual moment.

Right after the singing stopped, one of the singers felt an unexpected swell of emotion. The feeling was so strong, he told us later, that even though it was nearly midnight, he felt compelled to call his father. He got his Dad on the phone, and immediately thanked him. See, his Dad (and Mom) had immigrated to the U.S. from Columbia when he was three years old. They fled harsh violence, and sought opportunity. In many ways, a classic America story, reflected in the histories of so many millions of us.

For much of his life, our friend had taken his adopted country for granted. In fact, as a committed progressive, he had long felt critical of America’s shortcomings, especially under the Bush administration. But at the moment of singing This Land is Your Land, something broke through, a swell of pride and thankfulness. He couldn’t hold back from thanking his dad, for allowing him to grow up in a country where the son of a Kenyan father and Kansan mother could become president.

This story stays with me, because I feel it too — pride, mixed with thanksgiving. I feel proud of my role leading Vote Today Ohio, and helping to elect our first African American president. I feel proud of America, for choosing hope over hate. And I finally feel the words that I sung on Saturday, that I’ve sung hundreds of times before — this land is my land.

It’s called Vote Today Ohio, and its an effort to turn out 10,000 new voters in Ohio during what we call the “Golden Week.”

What’s Golden Week? Two years ago, Ohio changed its voting laws to create a 7-day span — Sept 30 to Oct 6 — where Ohio residents can walk into an early voting center, register to vote, and vote on the spot. This has never been possible before.

Why does it matter? Because it takes what is normally a two-step process (register, wait a month, THEN vote) and turns it into a one-step process (register AND vote at the same time). For progressive organizers, that creates a much more efficient way to bring new voters into the process AND lock in their votes — before those votes can be manipulated, stolen or lost.

If you really want to make a difference this political season:

1. Donate via our Act Blue page. See if you can get your friends and family to join together a sponsor a van for the week ($750).

2. Spread the word. Tell friends, especially in Ohio, to check out our Facebook page.

3. Come to Ohio! Ideally, we need folks to arrive in Columbus on Sunday night, Sept 28 and stay until Oct 6. If you can do any part of that, fill out the Online Sign-Up Sheet and we’ll get in touch.

(Note: This is going to be a super-intense campaign, without much time to blog, much less eat or sleep. Forgive me if I go radio silent for a while.)