One thing I was listening for and did not hear at the Democratic Convention was a reference to the Congressional elections by Obama in his speech.  Genghis asked where were the big ideas in his speech and I agree with him that there were no specific proposals, just the five broad goals. 

A different way Obama might have chosen to go on that question would have been to identify 2 or 3 proposals or initiatives that he would like to pursue in a 2nd term, should he be re-elected--provided that the voters elect a constructive Congress.

Based on nothing more than observation as to his MO and cautious nature--and also the fact that he is being lacerated for widespread perceptions he generated expectations in 2008 that he was unable to fully deliver on--my guess is that he opted not to go that route because of a perception that the chances of the House flipping are (were) very small.  So that he wouldn't want to come off, again, as over committing or promising.  

Any effort to speak about the Congressional situation would have been dicey in at least three ways: 

It might have been perceived as him passing the buck.

It might have been seen as implicitly acknowledging he will not be able to do much more than play goalie for at least the next 2 years IF, as appeared likely at the time, the House remains Republican.  Which might have left a sour note on an otherwise energizing convention, the last thing he'd want to do. 

Any specific areas he might commit to "work on" with a constructive Congress, if the voters elect one, would carry risk of blowback or alienating some whose support he believes he needs to win the election. 

It happens to be the truth that unless the voters elect a constructive Congress we are guaranteed that any positive legislation on jobs, climate change, further financial reform, etc. will be dead on arrival in the House for at least the next 2 years.  We will surely see continued harassment and obstruction from Congress of the sort we've seen these past 4 years. 

In that light, is there something to be said for treating the voters as adults and simply leveling with them about that, saying something along lines of: "There are no secrets as to what has been going on in Washington in recent years.  It's ugly and it holds us back from what we could otherwise accomplish.  If that is ok with you, then keeping the Republican party in the majority in the House of Representative may be what you decide you want to do.  But if, like me, you believe we need to do everything we can to continue to move forward in our country, then know that electing a constructive Congress--including constructive Republicans as well as Democrats--genuinely interested in addressing key issues the public says it wants addressed, such as jobs, then I ask you to consider your votes for the House and Senate races in that context." 

Of course, treating people as adults often does not work--where it does not backfire, that is.  I would think in the back of his mind, if not closer to the front of it, must be: "How far can I go before they come up with some pretext to try to impeach me?"  As it is, as we see with Holder and the appropriations bills that are stuck until the lame duck session, as just two examples, there's been no reluctance to use their considerable power to harass and obstruct. 

In response to the sure continuation of that, or worse under a GOP House, is the better decision to remain silent on the House outcome, focus solely on his own race and hope he can generate a downticket wave large enough to sweep the Democrats back in?  Or to say something explicit about the Congressional outcome aimed at communicating clearly to the voters the stakes in the Congressional as well as presidential outcomes?