Effective? Or sellouts?

Kevin Drum asks a telling question about the energy bill:

What do you think of this bill? Is it a weak-kneed sellout by spineless Dems unwilling to take a stand for real energy reform? Or a pretty good effort from a party with a slim majority and a recalcitrant president, one that that makes a modest but real difference that a future Democratic president can build on?

I'll take Door #2, please....

[C]ompare this bill to the energy industry porkfest that a Republican congress passed in 2005. It's like night and day. That one was little more than a massive handout to every energy lobbyist who ever dined at Charlie Palmer Steak. Today's bill, by contrast, actually accomplishes something. The CAFE increase to 35 mpg, all by itself, is historic, and 60% of the fuel mandate is for advanced biofuels and cellulosic ethanol, rather than the corn variety. This is real legislation that addresses a real problem, not a handout for campaign donors masquerading as "reform."

With this bill signed, the fight for an even better bill starts tomorrow. But without a Democratic congress we'd still be fighting to get even this much — and we wouldn't be any closer than we were five years ago. So, warts and all, good job, Harry and Nancy.

And, indeed, there's a lot to say for this position. Here's how David Roberts summarized the whole process:

1). The House and Senate each voted through energy bills. The Senate's had a CAFE boost and a Renewable Fuel Standard; the House's had a Renewable Energy Standard and a tax package to take subsidies from oil companies and give them to renewable energy.
2). Nancy Pelosi battled for months with John Dingell, finally securing his support for a CAFE increase.
3). The House then passed a bill that had all the provisions in it -- CAFE, RFS, RES, and tax package.
4). The White House threatened a veto. Republicans Senators whined.
5). Reid put the bill up for a vote; it failed.
6). Reid stripped out the RES but not he tax package and put it up for another vote -- it failed 59-41 to overcome a filibuster threat.
7). Reid stripped out the tax package and passed the bill more or less the way the Senate originally passed it: CAFE an RFS.

Agreed. And taken in isolation, it's hard to say anything negative about Democratic leadership here. But taken at the end of a years worth of thwarted legislation--after over 60 filibuster threats without a filibuster, after the decision by leadership not to use purse-power to stop the war, after FISA, after SCHIP, and on and on--it's hard not to be deeply critical of Reid, et al, for the broader disappointments; and for not at least picking and winning one major fight. There is a public out there! They really like clean energy, and children's health insurance, and their fourth amendment rights, and the rest of the constitution, and they generally dislike the war! Reid should pick one of these issues and genuinely fight for it, using all of the tools he's left to rust in the shed this last year.

Maybe he still loses. At least we'd have some evidence that these fights can't be won. But if he did win, it might provide momentum boosts and political will that he could parlay into other fights--and suddenly the 110th Congress might not be seen as so ineffective. So on the narrower question, I'll also take Door #2--but I think the people who would take Door #1 are projecting their full frustrations on to the narrower skirmishes they've taken a greater interest in.