In a sly bit of “reporting” the New York Times explains that the president is having trouble getting his own party on board because the Democrats are so darn successful:

As a party expands its ideological and geographic reach, as the Democrats have in the last two elections, it becomes harder to hold together, forcing its leaders to spend time papering over internal differences even as they confront a smaller but more unified opposition.
Faced with just such a challenge, the White House unleashed a broad offensive on Wednesday, a mix of muscle and negotiation, in an effort to contain the varying viewpoints within the Democratic Party, split the difference and move forward.

But don’t the president’s current woes have a tiny bit to do with the fact that he is governing from the far left, rather than the center — of his own party? And maybe it has something to do with the fact that, as Bill Clinton’s former OMB Director Alice Rivlin candidly offered, Obama sent up a budget which “raise[s] deficits to unsustainable levels well after the economy recovers.”

And Senate Budget Committee Chair Kent Conrad echoes those same themes, in terms very similar to Republicans’ recent criticisms:

When asked if floods during a blizzard seemed like a metaphor for the budget situation in Washington, the Democrat replied, “Yes, it’s my worst nightmare.”

As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Conrad is one of the first lawmakers to handle President Obama’s proposed $3.6 trillion budget — which carries trillions of dollars in projected deficits in the coming years. He says he wants to bring that budget under control.

“I believe very strongly that debts at the levels that are being projected now run very serious risks for this country,” he says.

.   .    .

“We know the history. Governments can inflate their way out of debt, but that has consequences, doesn’t it?” Conrad says. “What is a real threat is a precipitous decline in the value of the dollar and the threat that would pose to the economic security of the country.”

It’s hard to imagine that if the president had left out the clunkers (e.g. cap-and-trade) and had actually gone line-by-line through the budget to control spending and debt that he wouldn’t have the lion’s share of his own party’s support  — and maybe even a chunk of the Republican caucus.

You see, it’s not that the Democrats are just so diverse. It’s that the budget is just so extreme and huge. The latter is what the Red state Democrats, albeit politely, are telling the president. Perhaps he should listen. Otherwise, he might risk not having as many of them around after the 2010 election.