Haruna,

Let me take a stab at some of the points you made. I didn't say Obama strong armed congress into passing the stimulus package. In fact the man has not strong armed this congress into passing anything. The opposition seems to get their way with mere threats of a filibuster. The stimulus passed both houses of congress by the way. The president at that time has more political capital to spend and instead of going for a bigger stimulus package, he went for what is expedient. According to David Obey, treasury initially asked for 1.4 trillion dollars. Even Kent Conrad ( one of those democrats with a bipartisan fetish) went for $1.2 trillion. Instead what we end up with is a tad bit below $800 billion.

I think the size (of the stimulus) was a mistake compounded by the political calculus of the administration that they would be other chances for stimulus spending. Their thinking was ( and this is totally my own conjecture): If $800 billion end up stimulating the economy...fine. But if unemployment continues to rise and the 800 billion stimulus didn't do the trick, there will be votes for further stimulus spending. They mis-calculated the political climate and what lefties were warning them at the time; that stimulus spending is a one trick pony. If your initial intervention ( the arguement on the left goes) was too small and deemed a failure, it will empower the people attempting to do less for the economy. So rather than modestly sized stimulus leaving open the door for more stimulus if need be, its modest size and lack of stimuli as far as employment is concerned will be use to discredit the idea of stimulus. 

The cry baby "professional left" gets up every day and go to work, so they are not the problem here. What the "professional left" decry is the democrats penchant for Kumbaya rather than pushing hard and passing progressive policies. If you have a disdain for that, and want us to join in a chorus of hail to the chief, well I am sorry sireee, this "professional leftie" beg to differ.