To illustrate my point before I get into specifics of how this question is the true question here at DKos, let me offer an anecdote.
When I was younger, I was a whiz with math; and by "whiz" I mean it was completely instinctual. This caused me a problem with some teachers, who demanded that I "show my work". I couldn't. Not only did I go from step 1 to step 5 instinctively, I had no idea what steps 2, 3, and 4 were. I got the right answer, but I couldn't show you how. My 9th and 10th grade geometry/trigonometry teacher told me, "Frank, if you don't learn how to walk through the steps, you will get absolutely annihilated in Calculus."
You know what? He was right. I never learned the steps, and I barely passed Calculus with a D. 11 years of A's in math, gone in one year.
Over the years, this has given me a great respect for people with a "method to their madness", because it's something I had to learn. It doesn't come naturally to me. (Even in my fiction writing, which I'm damn good at, I have to force myself to do an outline :)). I have great respect for people who have a natural ease with the process.
Barack Obama is one of those people.
Over the jump...
There is very, very little disagreement on most of the major issues facing this country here on DKos. Very little. With some exceptions, like I/P, the issue disagreements are on the margins. Now, some people have some issues that they emphasize more than others. However, I don't think you'd get barely anyone here (except trolls) to disagree with: a) torture is bad, b) gay folks should have the same rights as all of the rest of us, c) our economy must provide real opportunity for all, d) our health care system needs a major overhaul, and e) we can't keep pissing off the rest of the world. Those are 5 big issues just off the top of my head that have caused contention around here. You could name more, for sure, but, with a few exceptions (I/P, maybe gun control, probably one or two I'm forgetting!) there is a general consencus, here at DKos, on the "what" part.
But it's not the issues themselves that have caused contention. It's how we get there. That's the "how".
One of the absolute number one reasons why I supported Obama right from the beginning of primary season is his temperment. Problem is, his temperment is at least part of what frustrates some people. It doesn't frustrate me, one little bit. Barack Obama counts to twenty by slowly and distinctly pronouncing each individual number. He consults. He weighs his options. Yes, he promised "change"...he didn't promise quick change. That's not his deal. He probably had absolutely no problem "showing his work" and each of his books probably has a marvelously detailed outline :).
And I approve of this? Hell, I love it. After 8 years of a guy with a "L'estat, c'est moi" attitude and a propensity for running into traffic without looking either way, a slow deliberate consultative presidency is a refreshing breath of fresh air.
I understand why people would be impatient with that. I understand the calls to "push" him on this or that issue. I have no problems with that. I do, however, have two problems with the way the arguments have evolved here.
Problem one: assuming Obama disagrees, or has abandoned promises, or is somehow deficient on the "what" without taking into consideration his "how". An example: though I think he's the right president for the times, one exception to that was the stimulus. He rushed it, knew he was rushing it, didn't like rushing it...but thought it was necessary. I saw that from day one, that rushing something like that was contrary to his nature. Unfortunately, he felt like he didn't have a choice (and he probably didn't). Especially when he had to rush that, he's not inclined to rush much else. The "five months aren't enough to judge" is offered by me, here, but in the context of not enough to judge a guy who moves slowly and deliberately as a matter of temperment.
That's the less meta problem. Problem two relates to this place. The problem here is that people who disagree with the "how" are WAY WAY too quick to accuse some of us that what we're really disagreeing with is the "what". I'm a pragmatist, not a centrist. I'm an advocate for slow deliberation, not for abandoning core principles. I'm giving a slow and deliberate president more time to work his way through his agenda, not giving him an issue related "pass". Stop accusing me of things I'm not doing.
For the most part, the "what's" are not an issue here. What's an issue is the "hows".