He works with the existing operative reality, negotiates with the people who've brought power to the table, and doesn't mind losing battles. He's open to working with unconventional allies, willing to give opponents enough rope to hang themselves, confident in his abilities to charm, recruit and negotiate with allies and enemies, but not so alpha-crazy as to want to own every decision and dominate every discussion.
He's cynical about the left's effectiveness, but committed to the goal of social justice. He's much more leery of the right and the financial elite, but is more interested in leveraging his specific situation as POTUS to create long-term change than in protecting a fixed ideology. He is tactically more interested in strength than ideology, more willing to spend energy engaging a strong opponent, than supporting a weak ally.
He is at the moment much more frustrated/disappointed with the left, than the right. He considers his role as president to be more a (partly intuitive) response to the mood of the people and politicians, than a rigid ideological stance. He'd like to see large crowds protesting for jobs and infrastructure development on the Mall, and doesn't understand why they're not there now.
It's easy to imagine that Obama has the power to do everything that we'd like him to do. It's a logical next step from the 2008 campaign interpretation that he would do what we wanted him to do. What we'd do if we were president. But there's a wide gap between theory and practice, and Obama is more interested in a tactical shakeup of the existing power dynamics, moderated by his personal charm and insight, than he is in playing a status quo left/right conventional power war. He recognizes that both the left and the right are entrenched in tactically problematic situations and is working to realign the war for the benefit of what he believes will be long-term tactical advantages for the campaigns that he feels are most beneficial.
As president, he considers himself to be responsible for and to movements and opinions he personally doesn't agree with. He feels that he has a responsibility to maintain stability while opening windows of opportunity as he can. He'd like to be pushed left by a much more assertive progressive movement, but doesn't feel that he's responsible for leading that movement - as President, he feels that he's obligated to stay close to the center of political/popular opinion.
Many here on DK likely voted for Obama as the anti-Bush. They wanted to defeat W and replace him with his progressive counterpart, who would be as aggressively assertive for the left's interests, as W was for the right. That's not what happened. Whatever distaste Obama has for W's political ideology, he never had interest in emulating W's political tactics. Obama is far more committed to strengthening a culture of responsible, responsive government, than he is to imposing his personal political ideology on America.
As frustrating as the debt limit battle was, among others, and as bad as things look right now, I still respect what I understand to be Obama's core principles. An aggressive push from the left during the debt limit debate could have changed things significantly. Absent that, the outcome of a GOP now tightly branded with the obvious crazy of the Tea Party has significant mainstream resonance, and the looming threat to public programs presents a significant opportunity for the left, especially with the obvious need for job creation programs, infrastructure development, and increased tax revenues.
Sometimes, losing battles can help you win the war. Obama has calculated that the left will support him in 2012, and once the GOP primaries and releases the Dogs of Crazy, they will. Obama's angling for the center now, not because he's a sellout, but because he wants to build a broader platform of support. Establishing the narrative of a president who's committed to rational improvements and open-minded about new ideas/perspectives, who's subject to the political will of the people and (by proxy) Congress, sets up an engaging and meaningful narrative.
Allowing the Tea Party/GOP to win a few battles reinforces a weakness meme, but that triggers a call for action and political involvement. 100,000 progressives protesting the debt limit crisis and calling for jobs programs on the Mall would have seriously changed that debate. That didn't happen, but this loss improves the odds that people will stand up, and organize and fight against the next threat, will build allies and power to campaign for what they care about.
Obama's not going to make everything perfect on his own. And he's not going to blow all his political capital on defending a purely progressive campaign. But he will create opportunities for the left to take advantage of. But that requires allowing scenarios where the opposition is strong, and the threats are real. As FDR said, " I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."