I didn't say leadership was the end all be all.

Honestly the most I can get from your previous replies is that leadership does it, accomplishes it, etc And I'm explaining to you that it's control of Congress.

The context in which you used lame duck was in the context of lack of leadership. Not a lack of party control of Congress.

FDR: the topic of the post,

You replied to my comment which was about recent history. I'm explaining why you/the post can't just say "but FDR did it and was popular, so why can't anyone else".

president. Obama was not, at least not for progressives or leftist

Because he did not have congress. That's what matters. Because the GOP became incredibly obstructionist.

Honestly I have no idea what your position is anymore. You seem to briefly admit it's Congress, then (from what I can gather) you're right back to leadership with the bully pulpit. I think I've explained well enough that leadership does not matter (in that way). It's Congress. If you the voter want progress, then you vote in Dem congresses, because a Dem president with all the leadership in the world is not enough.

Btw I'm not responding your repeated attacks on me. I may be a bit exasperated and to the point, but that's because there's way bad information out there and honestly that's pretty much what I see from you with this stuff about leadership, and why Obama had to reach across the aisle later in his presidency.

Obama had leadership (if ~~you~~ someone wants to say that).

Ok I'll clarify that to someone, didn't mean you specifically, someone in the general population.