Transcript (first posted at TPM), and analysis (also at TPM):
With respect to the bottom line, in terms of what my core principles are, yeah look, I've got a bunch of lines in the sand. Not making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, that was a line in the sand. Making sure that the things that most impact middle-class families and low income families, that those were preserved, that is a line in the sand. I would not have agreed to a deal, which, by the way some in Congress were talking about, of just a two-year extension on the Bush tax cuts and one year of unemployment insurance, but meanwhile all the other provisions of earned income tax credit or other important breaks for middle class families, like the college tax credit, that those had gone away, just because they had Obama's name attached to them instead of Bush's name attached to them.
So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public option debate all over again. So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for, for a hundred years - but because there was a provision in there that they didn't get, that would have affected maybe a couple million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people, and the potential for lower premiums for a hundred million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise.
Now, if that's the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let's face it, we will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position, and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves, and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are. And in the meantime the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out. That can't be the measure of how we think about our public service. That can't be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat.
This is a big, diverse country. Not everybody agrees with us. I know that shocks people. You know, the New York Times editorial page does not permeate across all of America - neither does the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Most Americans, they're just trying to figure out how to go about their lives, and how can we make sure that our elected officials are looking out for us? And that means because it's a big, diverse country, and people have a lot of complicated positions, it means that in order to get stuff done we're gonna compromise.
This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans. You did not qualify. And yet now it is something that really helps a lot of people. When Medicare started it was a small program, it grew. Under the criteria that you just set out, each of those were betrayals of some abstract ideal.
This country was founded on compromise. I couldn't go through the front door of this country's founding. And you know if we were really thinking about ideal positions, we wouldn't have a Union.
And so, my job is to make sure that we have a North Star out there - what is helping the American people live out of their lives? You know what is giving them more opportunity, what is growing the economy, what is making us more competitive. And at any given juncture there're gonna be times where my preferred option, what I'm absolutely positive is right, I can't get done. And so then my question is, does it make sense for me to tack a little bit this way, or tack a little bit that way, because I'm keeping my eye on the long term, and the long fight, not my day to day news cycle, but where am I going over the long term?
And I don't think there's a single Democrat out there, who if they looked at where we started when I came into office and look at where we are now, would say that somehow we have not moved in the direction that I promised. Take a tally, look at what I promised during the campaign. There's not a single thing that I said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I have not gotten it done yet, I'm still trying to do it.
And so, to my Democratic friends, what I'd suggest is, let's make sure that we understand this is a long game, this is not a short game.
And to my Republican friends, I would suggest, I think this is a good agreement, because I know they're swallowing some things that they don't like as well, and I'm looking forward to seeing them on the field of competition over the next two years.
UPDATE 2:05pm Pacific:
Added commentary from Jonathan Bernstein:
The truth is that there are a lot of people who just don't accept that the President of the United States can want something, fight for it, fight effectively and correctly, and still not get it. If it doesn't happen, it must have been—in Obama's words—a "betrayal." Those people are wrong.
He added some more negative points. Those are here as well.
Greg Sargent:
Obama was as visibly frustrated and angry as he's perhaps ever been in public, and some folks are pointing out on Twitter that he seems more angry with the left than he is with Republicans. In fairness to Obama, though, he directed harsher rhetoric at Republicans, implicitly comparing them to hostage takers at one point, and his basic message was that he needs fellow Dems to understand the nature of the opposition and allow him the space to act accordingly.
That was by far Obama's sternest publicly rebuke yet of his liberal critics, and his frustration with them -- which seems to have built up over the past two years -- was palpable. If Obama is going to play the role of adult-in-chief going forward, his tormentors on the left clearly will not be spared the rod.
Ezra Klein (explaining my Father's position):
My conversations with various progressives over the past 24 hours have convinced me that the problem is less the specifics of the deal -- though liberals legitimately dislike the tax cuts for the rich, and rightly point out that Obama swore to let them expire -- than the way in which it was reached. Put simply, Obama and the Democrats didn't fight for them. There were no veto threats or serious effort to take the case to the public.
Instead, the White House disappeared into a closed room with the Republicans and cut a deal that they'd made no effort to sell to progressives. When the deal was cut, the president took an oblique shot at their preferences, saying "the American people didn’t send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories." And this came a mere week or two after the White House announced a federal pay freeze. The pattern, for progressives, seems clear: The White House uses them during elections, but doesn't listen to, or consult them, while governing. In fact, it insults them, and then tells them to quiet down, they got the best bargain possible, even if it wasn't the one they'd asked for, or been promised.
If you're worried about stimulus, joblessness and the working poor, this is probably a better deal than you thought you were going to get. "It’s a bigger deal than anyone expected," says Bob Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Both sides gave more expected and both sides got more than expected." The White House walked out of the negotiations with more stimulus than anyone had seen coming. But they did it in a way that made their staunchest allies feel left behind, and in many cases, utterly betrayed.
That the Obama administration has turned out to be fairly good at the inside Washington game of negotiations and legislative compromise and quite bad at communicating to the public and keeping their base excited is not what most would have predicted during the 2008 campaign. But it's true.
Chris Cillizza:
Obama, to be fair, didn't only single out Democrats for criticism. He compared negotiating with Republicans to negotiating with hostage takers and said he only did so because of the danger that the hostage -- aka the American public -- would be harmed.
Taken broadly, this press conference was a true rarity for Obama: the president as populist -- and an angry one at that.
The president repeatedly sought to frame the compromise on tax cuts as a choice between playing politics and looking out for the American people. "My number one priority is to do what's right for the American people," Obama said at the start of the press conference.
The image of a visibly irritated -- if not outright angry -- Obama was a stunning contrast to cool, calm and collected persona that he has long cultivated.
Allies of the president insisted his tone was justified and winning -- that he was channeling the frustration of the American people with a government unable to solve big problems.
But, anger is a dangerous emotion in politics.
Used tactically, it can help convey a sense of shared concern/upset with the American people. Used less skillfully, it can make a politician look small and petty.
The best -- and the worst -- of the anger equation can be found in former president Bill Clinton.
At his best, Clinton used his anger to channel the best of the best southern populist politicians -- turning an issue into an "us versus them" argument that he almost always won.
At his worst, Clinton would turn his fire onto the process itself -- the media, the rules of Congress etc. -- which almost invariably ensured political defeat either of the temporary or permanent variety.
UPDATE: 3:16pm Pacific: I put up the MSNBC Video of the brushback, since it has a little more meat on its bones.
Also, given the fact that the President ended the presser with this statement I think pretty much proves it was planned from the beginning.
UPDATE: 4:31pm Pacific. Okay, I botched that. Turns out the clip was the complete Press Conference. It deserves its own Post, so I gave it one. Now, this OFA bit has more meat on it than the TPM video, but I don't think its the complete answer. Still looking for that.
