I think one of the most interesting things about the fight that's been going on here since the Senate bill passed is that it reflects one of the most damaging fights that the left has been having for years.
It has played itself out as Gore v. Nader, Hillary v. Barack, etc.
Fundamentally, it comes down to one thing: the reaction to disappointment.
One group, often called the "purity trolls" or something similarly insulting, see such a situation as a betrayal. They believe that the Great Man that came to save them and deliver them totally from the status quo cannot do so so quickly.
They are understandably disappointed. The Great Man used a lot of imagery and iconography in his campaign that made us all feel very deep and strong feelings.
They can't imagine that the rise of this Great Man represented another try, not a guarantee of success.
The next step is blame. Blame for the Great Man who couldn't get them what they wanted. Never mind what actually transpired: it wasn't exactly what they believed the Great Man promised them.
From there, they take it to an extreme, lashing out at the Great Man, saying that he and his henchmen planned all along to screw them over personally. How could they do this? Surely those layabouts could have just tried harder or given a crap about progressive values. Surely they have nothing else to do....right?
Another group, however, has a very different reaction to the same "betrayal".
This group feels disappointment. They had hoped for better. But they also looked at the larger picture. They saw that all things are part of a broader whole. That the rules of Washington are not something to simply be disregarded in the name of the unicorn swooping down through the Senate chamber and giving us a public option. Reconciliation! they cry. 51 votes, they cheer.
(One thing that the first group doesn't know about the second is that the second wants single payer just as bad as they do).
However, this second group takes a step back. They look the "Great Man" in the eye, so to speak. They take the measure of him, they take a view of him in the long term. They see him for who he is: just a man.
They see him for what he must manage, for the country and its trajectory, its struggling economy and frustrated people. But he looks at a governance structure that is broken.
Yet he soldiers on.
Now, I do believe that the two groups have something to teach each other. The first can show the second the power of passion, the need for values and the power of right. The second can show the first how to temper their passion with pragmatic virtues.
In sum, I hope that we all can see that we are not far apart. We believe the same things, but we disagree about how they get done and the time scale and game board upon which it all must be played out.
Surely if we start to see it as the same game board we can take that other team on that works so well together.