(a thought expanded from a comment)
I think there's still a Nader virus going around among our progressive wing, that's taken too many years to burn out. Nader made idealism an enemy of pragmatism, when the point of politics is to reconcile the two. It still seems like there is a bit too much jadedness and suspicion when a politician appears willing to think out of the box, to try and find more encompassing solutions. This is illustrated by the segment of the community that insists on equating Obama with Lieberman.
I don't know the details on this bill, but I heard reference of "a plan to help U.S. automakers pay for their retiree health-care costs in exchange for increased fuel economy standards" - one of Obama's major initiatives. That shows a willingness to work with U.S. automakers, a willingness for true give-and-take, a rejection of the disciplinarian smackdown that some people want against the automakers. But it's not an abandonment of the goal of increased fuel economy standards. And the rising health care costs are a problem for US companies, this offers assistance. They're both problems that need solutions, and while it's hard to know what kind of problems the details of the plan might have, the idea shows that Obama doesn't think in terms of Liebermanesque capitulation. It's not a "consensus"-minded brainstorm.
Looking for a win-win scenario is not the same as capitulation. Agreeing on half a loaf in exchange for the opportunity of continuing to work towards the other half is not the same as compromising one's ideals. Subscribing to incremental change is not the same as abandoning one's principles. Finding an encompassing solution that works for both sides in different ways is completely different than looking for a narrow "consensus" that only targets the middle and abandons the majority on either side.
I'd like to see more attention paid to that distinction before Obama's detractors continue painting him with the same brush they'd use to illustrate Lieberman.