Something the Professional Left, #OWS and other "disappointed" Liberals need to remember..

From Andrew Sullivan's cover story on Newsweek/Daily Beast:

But the right isn’t alone in getting Obama wrong. While the left is less unhinged in its critique, it is just as likely to miss the screen for the pixels. From the start, liberals projected onto Obama absurd notions of what a president can actually do in a polarized country, where anything requires 60 Senate votes even to stand a chance of making it into law. They have described him as a hapless tool of Wall Street, a continuation of Bush in civil liberties, a cloistered elitist unable to grasp the populist moment that is his historic opportunity. They rail against his attempts to reach a Grand Bargain on entitlement reform. They decry his too-small stimulus, his too-weak financial reform, and his too-cautious approach to gay civil rights. They despair that he reacts to rabid Republican assaults with lofty appeals to unity and compromise.

They miss, it seems to me, two vital things. The first is the simple scale of what has been accomplished on issues liberals say they care about. A depression was averted. The bail-out of the auto industry was—amazingly—successful. Even the bank bailouts have been repaid to a great extent by a recovering banking sector. The Iraq War—the issue that made Obama the nominee—has been ended on time and, vitally, with no troops left behind. Defense is being cut steadily, even as Obama has moved his own party away from a Pelosi-style reflexive defense of all federal entitlements. Under Obama, support for marriage equality and marijuana legalization has crested to record levels. Under Obama, a crucial state, New York, made marriage equality for gays an irreversible fact of American life. Gays now openly serve in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act is dying in the courts, undefended by the Obama Justice Department. Vast government money has been poured into noncarbon energy investments, via the stimulus. Fuel-emission standards have been drastically increased. Torture was ended. Two moderately liberal women replaced men on the Supreme Court. Oh, yes, and the liberal holy grail that eluded Johnson and Carter and Clinton, nearly universal health care, has been set into law. Politifact recently noted that of 508 specific promises, a third had been fulfilled and only two have not had some action taken on them. To have done all this while simultaneously battling an economic hurricane makes Obama about as honest a follow-through artist as anyone can expect from a politician.

What liberals have never understood about Obama is that he practices a show-don’t-tell, long-game form of domestic politics. What matters to him is what he can get done, not what he can immediately take credit for. And so I railed against him for the better part of two years for dragging his feet on gay issues. But what he was doing was getting his Republican defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to move before he did. The man who made the case for repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was, in the end, Adm. Mike Mullen. This took time—as did his painstaking change in the rule barring HIV-positive immigrants and tourists—but the slow and deliberate and unprovocative manner in which it was accomplished made the changes more durable. Not for the first time, I realized that to understand Obama, you have to take the long view. Because he does.

Or take the issue of the banks. Liberals have derided him as a captive of Wall Street, of being railroaded by Larry Summers and Tim Geithner into a too-passive response to the recklessness of the major U.S. banks. But it’s worth recalling that at the start of 2009, any responsible president’s priority would have been stabilization of the financial system, not the exacting of revenge. Obama was not elected, despite liberal fantasies, to be a left-wing crusader. He was elected as a pragmatic, unifying reformist who would be more responsible than Bush.

And what have we seen? A recurring pattern. To use the terms Obama first employed in his inaugural address: the president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider. This kind of strategy takes time. And it means there are long stretches when Obama seems incapable of defending himself, or willing to let others to define him, or simply weak. I remember those stretches during the campaign against Hillary Clinton. I also remember whose strategy won out in the end.

At the heart of #OWS is a Civil War between Main St. and Wall St. with both sides shooting at Obama...

Ezra Klein recently went to he Cleveland Clinic’s annual innovation summit where Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric and chairman of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, delivered the keynote and sat for a Q&A.

It was a Q & A that if you were inclined to dislike or distrust Immelt, what he said there was hardly going to change your mind about him. (My own view got dramatically worse):

Business types really hate Barack Obama. Everybody sort of knows that, but it’s hard to get a sense of it if you’re not in the room listening to them laugh bitterly at questions like, “Does Obama understand the damage regulations are doing to business?”

In fact, this audience is so down on Obama that Immelt, who you have to assume is one of the more pro-Obama CEOs out there, is not willing to defend him or his policies before this audience. At all. Even a little. His only comment is that people need to roll up their sleeves and help rather than complain. And his answers to Maria Bartiromo’s questioning slyly suggest sympathy with the audience. Asked by Bartiromo how he’ll make the White House listen to him and the business community, his answer, with a smile, is “repetition.” Everyone laughs. “Our job is to make our ideas his ideas,” Immelt says.

This is the sort of audience that makes you think the White House is going to have a lot of trouble meeting its fundraising goals next year.

“When you criticize Wall Street, they don’t care. You’re hurting the guy in Illinois who wants to build a factory.”

I should say that this is more a comment on the conference and some of the other panels than on Immelt himself, but these folks really, really feel persecuted and unappreciated. The common response to this, of course, is that corporate profits have hit record levels in recent years and the top 1 percent has never been richer. But if you need more evidence that money doesn’t buy happiness, you should sit with some CEOs for an hour.

The President has reached out to these people, and this is the thanks he gets from them.

My own first reaction is say "@#$^ you" to Wall Street.  (You can now see what side I'm on).

The President steps up, defends the Wall Street Protesters, telling the world he understands why they're pissed, and a lot of reaction from the Professional Left, as well as from some of the Wall Street Protesters has been to say "@#$% you, Mr. President.  You've sold us out to the Banks."

I'm left wondering why the hell President Obama wants to bother.  Why not just let the Professional Left run their dream candidate; let the Wall Streeters run Mitt Romney, and watch America pay the price.

Meanwhile, this second part from Ezra highlights what's really going on here, a Civil War between Wall Street and Main Street, with both sides feeling they're the most important thing in America, and both sides pissed off that the other side doesn't get it.

The Council on Jobs and Competitiveness is the Obama administration’s answer to the charge that it doesn’t listen to the business community. It includes not just Immelt but executives from Xerox, DuPont, American Express, Kleiner Perkins Caufield &; Byers, TIAA-CREF, Southwest Airlines, Procter & Gamble, Boeing, Intel, Citigroup, Eastman Kodak, Facebook, Comcast, BNSF Railway and UBS Investment Bank. And today it released its interim report (PDF).

This is, in other words, the big moment: This is the business community trying to make its ideas President Obama’s ideas. But here’s the thing: Its ideas don’t seem to differ much from Obama’s ideas.

The report proposes “five common-sense initiatives to boost jobs and competitiveness.” Initiative No. 1 is more infrastructure and energy investment. The White House would happily check that box. Initiative No. 2 is a grab bag of proposals to help “high-growth enterprises,” ranging from more visas for skilled immigrants to patent reform, to amending Sarbanes-Oxley to make it easier to go public, to tax changes to make it more appealing to invest in start-ups. Then there’s the “National Investment Initiative,” which might as well be called “winning the future.” Fourth on the list is streamlining regulations. And then there’s worker retraining, educating more engineers and a second high-five for high-skills immigration.

I’m sure if you dug into the details of the policies on this list, you would find items the administration doesn’t support. Perhaps the business community would deregulate beyond White House regulatory chief Cass Sunstein’s comfort level, for instance. But all in all, you could lift most of these items out of Obama’s speeches. Judging from this report, business leaders’ thinking is substantially his thinking already. Which makes sense: Like many of them, Obama is an Ivy-educated datahead who likes reading boring reports. But sitting with a group of CEOs, you would never know that. In those gatherings, he’s often presented as a naive Marxist who is one bad day away from trying to throw everyone with a corner office into jail.

Perhaps the distance is greater than this report suggests. Perhaps the CEOs have a much more dramatic agenda than they were willing to put on paper. But I haven’t seen much evidence for that view. Most business leaders I talk to would love to see something along the lines of the Simpson-Bowles deficit plan pass, and at this point, so too would the White House.

Another possibility is that the gulf between the business community and the White House is more cultural and personal than it is substantive. Matt Yglesias had an interesting take on this last week. “A lot of what you have is . . . a kind of bitter feud between businessmen and the kids they went to college with who didn’t go on to become businessmen. What did they do instead? They became teachers or doctors or nurses or professors or lawyers or scientists or nonprofit workers. . . . The business coalition sees the service coalition as composed of useless moochers, and the service coalition sees the business coalition as greedy bastards.”

“If it were merely a clash of objective interests, it really wouldn’t be much of a clash,” Yglesias wrote. “A healthy business environment needs schools and hospitals and public infrastructure to backstop it, and nobody is made happy by a business cycle downturn. There’s tension at the margin, but it’s not a zero-sum world. Layered on top is, I think, a raw level of gut-level dislike — both kinds of people think the other kind of people are clueless about what really matters in life.”

Increasingly, I’m coming to agree with that analysis.

New York Observer: How Jesse LaGreca kicked Fox's ass, even though they didn't show it on-air (VIDEO)

From the New York Observer:

Even if Geraldo Rivera was at the Zuccotti Park yesterday, Fox News has generally been a tad dismissive of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Foxnews.com (as of this writing) has no coverage of this national event on their front page stories. (Hard to imagine for a network that was so gung-ho about the Tea Party!) Red Eye‘s Bill Schulz went out to try to “prank” the protesters. Bill O’Reilly sent a producer minion out with the same mission: to belittle OWS’s cause by cutting up interviews to make people sound stupid.

Well, here is an interview that Fox News filmed, but doesn’t want you to see. The segment was shot on Wednesday for Greta van Susteren‘s show, (though it looks like the same producer from this O’Reilly segment questioning Michael Moore‘s anti-capitalist agenda) though the decision was made to leave it on the cutting room floor. The reason should be obvious pretty quickly.

The speaker giving Fox News the buisness is Jesse LaGreca, a vocal member of the Occupy Wall Street protests. This video comes courtesy of Kyle Christopher from OccupyWallSt.org‘s media team.

Now, no news organization is under obligation to air every interview they’ve filmed, especially when it makes them look bad. But you’d think that a “Fair and Balanced” network (that tells an interviewee that they are here to give them fair coverage to get any message they’d like to get out) would try to include at least a couple of opposing viewpoints to Mr. Shulz’s smarmy jokes or O’Reilly’s “infiltration” of the camp.

The ball is in your court, Fox.

Somebody book this guy on Lawrence tonight, or at least Olbermann or Rachel.

There was a time when James Carville was considered smart, right?

More from the same, epic Bob Shrum piece (shudder!).

I never thought I'd live to see the day when I thought James Carville was a useless sack of crap, but here we are:

My friend James Carville [argues] in a pyrotechnic CNN piece that yes, the White House should "panic." There is no more time for "explanations" — although it usually helps to think things through before making what Carville calls "a complete change [in] direction." And what does that change consist of? "Fire a lot of people" — which Obama won't and shouldn't do. So thus, the "geniuses" of 2008 become the scapegoats of 2011. Playing a hasty game of musical chairs would turn Obama's ship of state into the Titanic. It's a reflex, a gimmick — and it's ahistorical. As Bill Clinton's campaign chief in 1992, Carville didn't panic — he certainly didn't fire himself — in the early summer of that year, when Clinton was in last place, at 22 percent, in a three-way race with Ross Perot and the first George Bush.

Carville also wants Attorney General Eric Holder fired — boy, that will set off a popular pro-Obama groundswell. And the Ragin' Cajun recommends that the Justice Department "indict people," presumably a host of people and presumably on Wall Street — a white hot populist gesture that could cripple or crash financial markets. In any case, Obama wouldn't debase the law to score political points; we had enough of that in the last administration. In this one, indictments have been made and will be — but on the merits.

Carville is on target about one thing: Obama has to "make a case like a Democrat." But that's what this president is doing now. Day after day, he is drawing the dividing lines. He does have to keep at it — and show as well as say that he's the one fighting for ordinary, hard-working, and out-of-work Americans. That's been the right course for some time — and with Obama on course, he doesn't need to be told, "Fire. Indict. Fight." It's a catchy aphorism, but it's only one-third right.

Memo to Liberals: Being taken seriously involves actual work

From Ta-Neishi Coates' piece: Liberal Sorcery:

The other day Tavis Smiley made the point that president's job plan didn't go far enough. I'd bet a lot of progressives concur and I think pushing the point is healthy, legitimate, essential and fair. But it's also healthy, legitimate, essential and fair to then ask, "What would make more progressive legislation possible?" That line of thinking has to confront the kind of statements and action by Democratic Senators who evidently feel little or no pressure from their progressive base.

One of the reasons why I've harped on the "flying while brownish" series is because I think liberals are much more comfortable attacking whoever seems to hold the most power, and much less comfortable examining the power of the "weak," as well as the power that they, themselves, wield. Power confers responsibility. In evading the notion that citizenship in a democracy confers power, you also evade the notion that it confers responsibility. It's comforting to believe in a narrative of liberal "betrayal," to argue that the game is rigged in such a way that the Hippie-punchers always win.

It's also pretty cynical.

Tom Carper [mouthing off that the best Jobs bill is a bill that reduces the Long-term deficit] from the comfortable environs of blue Delaware is a failure of Team Commie to be regarded as serious political force. People who talk of primarying Obama need to pick smaller targets--and thus elicit bigger results.

But being taken seriously involves actual work. It means a poverty tour that doesn't just bark (Obama the black mascot) but bites (voter registration in swing districts.) If you don't like the current iteration of America, you need to remember that you are America. The failure to build a more progressive America isn't merely a testimony to dastardly evil, it's a testimony to the failure of progressives.

Matt again:

If you're a progressive and you feel that the political system isn't doing what you want, it's misguided to look at this as a personal failure of elected officials. It's, if anything, a personal failure of you and people like you. Justice and equality doesn't just happen because it's nice, people need to make it happen. If it's not happening, then its advocates are failing.

Somehow we got in our head that the Civil Rights movement happened because Martin Luther King was a really nice guy. We don't really talk about the movement as an actual force, as applying force. We don't think about what SNCC was really trying to do when they were risking their lives to register voters in the delta. When we think about people trying to kill them we think about evil, but we should think about power and fear.

Let me make my stance clear, in case it isn't already. I love Liberalism. I love its ideals.

Liberals, on the other hand...

Jonathan Chait: What the left doesn't understand about Obama (and by extension Poltiics)

I'm a little mad at myself for not having read this sooner, but this was a fantastic piece to be found in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine:

The most common hallmark of the left’s magical thinking is a failure to recognize that Congress is a separate, coequal branch of government consisting of members whose goals may differ from the president’s. Congressional Republicans pursued a strategy of denying Obama support for any major element of his agenda, on the correct assumption that this would make it less popular and help the party win the 2010 elections. Only for roughly four months during Obama’s term did Democrats have the 60 Senate votes they needed to overcome a filibuster. Moreover, Republican opposition has proved immune even to persistent and successful attempts by Obama to mobilize public opinion. Americans overwhelmingly favor deficit reduction that includes both spending and taxes and favor higher taxes on the rich in particular. Obama even made a series of crusading speeches on this theme. The result? Nada.

That kind of analysis, however, just feels wrong to liberals, who remember Bush steamrolling his agenda through Congress with no such complaints about obstructionism. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald recently invoked “the panoply of domestic legislation — including Bush tax cuts, No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Part D prescription drug entitlement — that Bush pushed through Congress in his first term.”

Yes, Bush passed his tax cuts — by using a method called reconciliation, which can avoid a filibuster but can be used only on budget issues. On No Child Left Behind and Medicare, he cut deals expanding government, which the right-wing equivalents of Greenwald denounced as a massive sellout. Bush did have one episode where he tried to force through a major domestic reform against a Senate filibuster: his crusade to privatize Social Security. Just as liberals urge Obama to do today, Bush barnstormed the country, pounding his message and pressuring Democrats, whom he cast as obstructionists. The result? Nada, beyond the collapse of Bush’s popularity.

Perhaps the oddest feature of the liberal indictment of Obama is its conclusion that Obama should have focused all his political capital on economic recovery. “He could likely have passed many small follow-up stimulative laws in 2009,” Jon Walker of the popular blog Firedoglake wrote last month. “Instead, he pivoted away from the economic crisis because he wrongly ignored those who warned the crisis was going to get worse.”

It’s worth recalling that several weeks before Obama proposed an $800 billion stimulus, House Democrats had floated a $500 billion stimulus. (Oddly, this never resulted in liberals portraying Nancy Pelosi as a congenitally timid right-wing enabler.) At the time, Obama’s $800 billion stimulus was seen by Congress, pundits and business leaders — that is to say, just about everybody who mattered — as mind-bogglingly large. News reports invariably described it as “huge,” “massive” or other terms suggesting it was unrealistically large, even kind of pornographic. The favored cliché used to describe the reaction in Congress was “sticker shock.”

Compounding the problem, Obama proposed his stimulus shortly after the Congressional Budget Office predicted deficits topping a trillion dollars. Even before Obama took office, and for months afterward, “everybody who mattered” insisted that the crisis required Obama to scale back the domestic initiatives he campaigned on, especially health care reform, but also cap-and-trade, financial regulation and so on. Colin Powell, a reliable barometer of elite opinion, warned in July of 2009: “I think one of the cautions that has to be given to the president — and I’ve talked to some of his people about this — is that you can’t have so many things on the table that you can’t absorb it all. And we can’t pay for it all.”

Rather than deploy every ounce of his leverage to force moderate Republicans, whose votes he needed, to swallow a larger stimulus than they wanted, Obama clearly husbanded some of his political capital. Why? Because in the position of choosing between the agenda he came into office hoping to enact and the short-term imperative of economic rescue, he picked the former. At the time, this was the course liberals wanted and centrists opposed.

On two subsequent occasions, Obama faced this same choice. Last December, he could have refused to extend any of the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000. Republicans vowed to let all the tax cuts expire if he did so. If Obama let this happen, it would have almost fully solved the long-term deficit problem, while at the same time setting back the recovery by raising taxes on middle-class and low-income workers. Obama decided to make a deal, extending all the Bush tax cuts and also securing a progressive payroll tax cut and an extension of unemployment benefits, both forms of stimulus that Republicans would never have allowed without an extension of upper-bracket tax cuts in return.

There is a decent argument that the president should have refused this deal. But if you make that argument, you have to accept the likelihood that nearly a million fewer jobs would have been created and that we would have been at risk of a double-dip recession back then. Yet the liberal critics most exercised about Obama’s failure to secure more stimulus were, for the most part, enraged when he did exactly that. Take Robert Reich, the former secretary of labor under President Clinton. Last November, Reich pleaded for an extension of unemployment benefits, calling the plight of the jobless our “single newest and biggest social problem.” When Obama made his bargain, Reich called it “an abomination,” complaining that “the bits and pieces the president got in return” — including the unemployment benefits previously deemed vital — amounted to “peanuts.”

And then, this summer, Obama let the G.O.P. hold the debt-ceiling vote hostage to extract spending cuts. I think he should have called the Republicans’ bluff and let them accept the risk of a financial meltdown. But the reason Obama chose to cut a deal is that calling their bluff might have resulted in catastrophe. And Obama made a point of back-loading the G.O.P.’s budget cuts so as not to contract the economy. He may have chosen wrongly, but he chose exactly the priorities liberals now insist he ignored — favoring economic recovery over long-term goals.

Liberal critics of Obama, just like conservative critics of Republican presidents, generally want both maximal partisan conflict and maximal legislative achievement. In the real world, those two things are often at odds. Hence the allure of magical thinking.

The highest compliment I can give political writing is when I can't find easy places to cut an article, and Jonathan Chait, you did not make easy.

Fareed Zakaria: "I think that Liberals need to grow up..." (VIDEO)

Over the last week, liberal politicians and commentators took to the airwaves and op-ed pages to criticize the debt deal that Congress reached. But their ire was directed not at the Tea Party or even the Republicans but rather at Barack Obama, who they concluded had failed as a President because of his persistent tendency to compromise. This has been a running theme ever since Obama took office.

I think that liberals need to grow up.

As the New Republic's Jonathan Chait brilliantly points out, there is a recurring liberal fantasy that if only the President would give a stirring speech, he would sweep the country along with the sheer power of his poetry. In this view, writes Chait, "Every known impediment to the legislative process - special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macroeconomic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public opinion-are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech."


This does happen - if you're watching the American president - but not if you're actually watching what goes in in Washington.

The disappointment over the debt deal is just the latest episode of liberal bewilderment about Obama. "I have no idea what Barack Obama ... believes on virtually any issue," Drew Westen writes in the New York Times, confused over Obama's tendency to take "balanced" positions. Westen hints that his professional experience - he is a psychologist - suggests deep, traumatic causes for Obama's disease.

Let me offer a simpler explanation: Obama is a centrist and a pragmatist who understands that in a country divided over core issues, you cannot make the best the enemy of the good.

Obama passed a large stimulus package within weeks of taking office. Perhaps it should have been bigger, but despite a Democratic House and Senate, it passed by just one vote. He signed into law an unprecedented expansion of regulations in the financial-services industry, though one that did not break up the large banks. He enacted universal health care, through a complex program modeled after Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts. And he has advocated a balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines tax increases with spending cuts.

Maybe he believes in all these things. Maybe he understands that with a budget deficit of 10% of GDP, the second highest in the industrialized world, and a debt that will rise to almost 100% of GDP in a few years, we cannot cavalierly spend another few trillion dollars hoping that will jump-start the economy.

Perhaps he believes that while banks need better regulations, America also needs a vibrant banking system, and that in a globalized economy, constraining American banks will only ensure that the world's largest global financial institutions will be British, German, Swiss and Chinese.

He might understand that Larry Summers and Tim Geithner are smart people who, in long careers in public service, got some things wrong but also got many things right. Perhaps he understands that getting entitlement costs under control is in fact a crucial part of stabilizing our fiscal situation, and that you do need both tax increases and spending cuts-cuts that are smaller than they appear because they all start with the 2010 budget, which was boosted by the stimulus.

Is all this dangerous weakness, incoherence and appeasement, or is it common sense?

Should Obama go Truman? Is Obama going Truman?

Norm Ornstein lays out the history of Truman and the fight against the 80th "Do Nothing" Congress:

[T]he sweeping GOP victories in 1946 convinced many Republicans that they had achieved a lasting ideological victory—that the American public had finished with the liberalism under FDR and Truman, and embraced their brand of conservatism. They were wrong. Voters had reacted to short-term economic conditions, and to a post-war mood for change, but not for a new right-wing ideology.

But it was Truman’s triumph to realize that the hyper-partisan Congress was as much a political boon as it was a political liability. Truman seized upon the conservative over-reaching and openly fought against what he dubbed the “Do-Nothing Eightieth Congress.” That rhetorical strategy paid dividends, as voters rebelled against the ideologues and the Democratic base was energized to elect a president they had long disparaged and opposed. Not only was Truman reelected—pulling off the upset of the century in a four-way race with a popular Republican nominee, Tom Dewey, and Democrats running to his left (former Vice President Henry Wallace) and right (states’ rights advocate Strom Thurmond)—but Democrats picked up nine seats in the Senate and a full 75 in the House to recapture both bodies. “The luckiest thing that ever happened to me,” Truman remarked years later, “was the Eightieth Congress.”

Barack Obama ought to be able to leverage his own recalcitrant Congress for political gain. The sitting 112th Congress, like Truman’s 80th, is dominated by a Republican House that believes that its sweeping victory reflected a huge public mandate to dismantle government as we know it. The overreaching in this case does not involve passing laws that get enacted over a presidential veto, but in precipitating artificial crises—over appropriations that are set to expire in a new fiscal year, over a debt limit that has always been raised without preconditions—to create hostages and force extreme actions. Far more than the 80th, the 112th is a true “Do-Nothing” Congress, producing little progress, and showing little interest, on key national policy areas from education to energy.

E.J. Dionne reminds us about how things looked about this time back in 2007:

For Obama’s lieutenants, his comeback from the ’07 summer doldrums provided an overlearned lesson that encouraged them to ignore external criticism and cruise along with complete confidence in their man’s almost magical powers of restoration.

The president’s loyalists still have faith in him and still love to criticize media narratives they think underestimate him. But this time, both he and they are expressing a level of frustration that may be the healthiest thing happening to Obama in what is an otherwise dismal moment in his presidency. A White House crowd often too sure of itself is fully aware of the ferocious fight Obama faces and the seriousness of the problems he confronts. Their mood and past experience suggests that a new Obama — or, in many ways, the old Obama of 2008 — is about to reappear.

...but, as Greg Sargent reminds us, maybe he's not about to re-appear, as the New York Times suggests:

Over the weekend the Times published a much-discussed piece reporting that Obama and his advisers are persuaded that the way to win back independents and moderates is to opt for something approximating the latter approach. The Times claimed that advisers think emphasizing plans that have no chance of passage won’t appeal to moderates, who want “tangible results rather than speeches.”

I don’t know how much stock to put in the Times story, but if there’s something to it, I feel compelled to point out that this is a false choice. It’s not merely giving “speeches” for Obama to propose ambitious job creation measures, even if they don’t have a chance of passage. It’s laying out a stark contrast of visions and challenging the opposing party to defend its position.

Either way, this is the key dynamic to watch: What Obama’s post-debt ceiling rhetorical feistiness will translate into in terms of actual job-creation policy, and how aggressive Obama will be in using concrete policy proposals to challenge Republicans and to reveal them as unwilling partners in fixing the economy.

But E.J. Dionne believes the time for bipartianship is over, if only because the President has no other choice:

{On the Presiden't character] he is both conflict-averse and highly competitive. On the one hand, he believes his old speech declaring there is neither a red America nor a blue America, and he trusted his capacity to bring left and right together — an imprudent presumption, given the nature of the current GOP.

Allowing this side of himself a much longer run than seems reasonable is what unleashed all the recent commentary describing him as weak and indecisive. But no sane human being (and sanity is still an Obama hallmark) can pretend anymore that today’s Republicans remain the party of Bob Dole or Howard Baker. The proof came in last week’s Republican presidential debate, when every candidate on stage raised a hand to declare unacceptable even a deficit deal involving 10 times as many spending cuts as revenue increases. This provides a handy new definition of extremism: When 90.9091 percent purity is not good enough.

Obama knows he’s reaching the end of the line on negotiating. Now he has to win. This brings out his competitive side. The rules of an election are similar to those of the sporting contests Obama so enjoys. Candidates are expected to be tough, to go after their opponents, to push and shove and throw them off balance. If you doubt Obama can do this, ask Hillary Clinton or John McCain.

The president’s speech last Thursday in Holland, Mich., was the first sign that the competitive Obama is reemerging. His target, like Harry Truman’s in 1948, was an obstructionist Republican Congress. He condemned “the refusal of some folks in Congress to put the country ahead of party” and urged that it “start passing some bills that we all know will help our economy right now.”

With Obama, there is always the danger of a relapse into the passive, we’re-all-reasonable-people style. The fighting Obama has briefly appeared before, only to go back into hibernation. This time, the evidence suggests he’ll stick with it — and, in truth, he has no other choice.

Steve Benen says "Great, but what about the policy?" What happens when the rubber meets the road...and the road isn't there?

[What Steve read from E.J.'s piece] sounds pretty heartening to me, at least insofar as we’re likely to see a feisty president ready to take his case to the public and the fight to his rivals. This strikes me as a very good idea.

What I’m less sure about is what, precisely, this will mean in policy terms. The economy still stinks, the public is still feeling a lot of anxiety, Congress is still dysfunctional, and Republicans are still being ridiculous. It’d be nice if millions of engaged citizens started demanding the GOP start taking governing seriously, but Republicans are well aware of their deteriorating public support and don’t seem to care.

My point is, I’d welcome a fired-up president ready to throw a few punches. But then what? What happens after he smacks Republicans around for a while and they still won’t extend the payroll tax cut, won’t extend unemployment benefits, won’t invest in infrastructure, and generally won’t lift a finger to improve the economy at all?

So ultimately, what's going to happen? Is the President going to be fired up and ready to go? Is he going to go milquetoast as the New York Times suggests? Steve Benen went for clarification and came away both happy...and confused:

For what it’s worth, I’ve asked for some clarification from the White House, and a senior administration official shed a bit more light on what Plouffe and Daley actually believe.

According to the official, who wanted anonymity because officials don’t want to be quoted on record discussing internal messaging deliberations, Plouffe and Daley both favor a confrontational rhetorical approach that will blame Republicans for opposing any and all job creation efforts for purely political reasons; both are leading internal boosters of a message that accuses Republicans of putting party before country.

“Plouffe and Daley have been big proponents of the sort of messaging that you saw from the President’s Country before Party speech in Michigan,” the official says.

In that speech, Obama implicitly accused Republicans of opposing an array of job-creation proposals because of their refusal “to put the country ahead of party,” adding that they would “rather see their opponents lose than see America win.” Some liberals worry that by directing his fire at Congress in general, Obama isn’t calling out Republicans directly enough, but it seems clear the White House is banking on media coverage making the target of Obama’s ire clear.

If this speech’s message is what Plouffe and Daley favor, this is a bit at odds with the public picture that’s emerged. The Times story suggested that the Plouffe/Daley camp worries that any ambitious proposals that seem designed only reveal the GOP as obstructionist will be seen as mere “speeches” by independents. The story also suggests Plouffe and Daley think continuing to reach deficit-reduction compromises with Republicans will prove more politically effective than drawing a sharp contrast with the GOP on the economy. But if Plouffe and Daley favor a continued effort to cast the GOP as blocking economic improvements for political reasons, that complicates the picture somewhat and suggests that the latter, too, will be central to the reelection campaign.

To be sure, this still doesn’t tell us how ambitious Obama is willing to be in terms of proposing genuinely ambitious and bold job creation policies in order to draw that contrast with the GOP. And liberals are right to worry that the current range of options being entertained is far too limited. But if the Obama team is serious about drawing a sharp contrast — as the senior official insists is the case — we can at least hope that the policies will follow the rhetoric.

Okay, this last bit was weird, if only because Greg said in an earlier piece that he didn't put much stock in the New York Times article...only to turn around and start putting stock in the New York Times article.

If you want to look it from a narrative standpoint, the choice between of cutting deficit reduction deals with the GOP and blasting them for their intransigence is a false choice itself. If Obama is truly going to get more in their face, why not do it Obama style? Why not sit down with the GOP in good faith, and make sure everyone knows who's to blame when they walk out?

Steve Benen and Kevin Drum team up to give a good Brut Slap to the Professional Left.

I didn't bother to read Matt Miller's screed in the Washington Post blasting the Prseident.  Wasn't worth my time, but Steve Benen and Kevin Drum did...and ripped the hell of out of him for it, along with all the other Professional Lefties.

Wow. Kevin Drum started off with the same line I did:

Feel free to click the link if you want to read more. I didn't much feel like bothering myself.

Honest to God, Republicans must all be sitting in their back rooms and just cackling like hell right now. Think about it. They developed a strategy to hamstring the president completely — a strategy that's bulletproof thanks to our country's Constitution — knowing that it would rally their base but also hoping that it would cause moderates and lefties alike to become disgusted with Obama's weakness even though we all know who's really responsible for what's going on. And it worked! In fact, it's worked better than they could possibly have imagined. They can probably barely keep from spitting up their beers right now.

We are such chumps.

Steve Benen:

A couple of weeks ago, the day after the debt-ceiling agreement was announced — a deal I repeatedly condemned, by the way — I asked, “Am I supposed to be angrier with the radicals who held a gun to our heads, or those who prevented them from pulling the trigger?”

Even among those who know “who the real villains are,” there’s apparently still some ambiguity about the answer.

Based on nothing but my own perceptions and recent experiences, I’m often surprised at how common this is. I’m on a number of email lists, for example, with fellow lefties in various circles, and I’d say the criticisms of Obama on a daily basis, particularly over the last month or so, outnumber criticisms of Republicans by at least 50 to 1. These are folks who know full well who’s chiefly responsible for the nation’s self-inflicted wounds, but like Miller, emphasize the fact they’re “mad at Barack Obama” anyway.

The unstated message seems to be, “Sure, Republicans have become an American nightmare. That’s obvious. In fact, it’s such a given, it’s not worth talking about. Instead, let’s denounce the White House….”

But as Kevin noted, if we all know who’s actually responsible for what’s going on, maybe it is worth talking about, rather than playing the game the way the right prefers?

More perspective from Rick Ungar on Wisconsin...

Rick Ungar lays out the good news and the (mostly) bad (by a slight margin) news:

The loss was both hard and significant on a number of levels.

Had the election been influenced by a low voter turnout – something that typically bodes ill for Democrats – that would have been put a different face on the story.

But the turnout was spectacular. And, based on the results, Republicans were every bit as energized as Democrats.

GOP supporters had the backs of their sitting Senators, coming to the polls in big numbers to deliver the message that they too are as engaged and energized in the battle taking place in Wisconsin as the progressives and that is precisely what should have those who oppose the conservative agenda – in Wisconsin and throughout the nation – shaking in their boots.

The GOP was not just sending the message that they too know how to show up at the polls. They had a deeper message to send, one that was addressed to the unions. It was a message that came through loud and clear.

We’re (the voters) just not that into you.

The unions poured some $20 million dollars in the Wisconsin effort. For their money, they improved their minority in the State Senate by two votes but failed to come away with the majority required to put the breaks on Governor Scott Walker’s agenda.

That’s a lot of cash to spend for the return achieved.

While the other side also poured serious cash into the state, organizations like Club For Growth can, at the least, come away from the battle knowing that their agenda has not been stymied and, for as long as Governor Walker sits in the state house, they remain free and unfettered in their efforts to move their mission forward while pushing the state of Wisconsin – and the country – backward.

Now, the Wisconsin Democrats are left to determine their plans for the future, particularly with respect to the proposed recall effort against Governor Scott Walker.

The good news is that last night’s battles were fought on enemy territory while a statewide recall will bring the Democratic faithful throughout the state into play.

The bad news is that we’ve now learned that those who support the Walker agenda – and we’d best acknowledge that there are far more of them than Badger State Democrats might have wanted to realize- will not be sitting idly by when it comes to supporting an agenda of wiping out collective bargaining rights, cutting education and healthcare to the bone and disenfranchising those who are more likely to cast their vote for Democrats.

In the end, besides my issue that this was necessary in the first place, there was a level of complacency among the Wisconsin Unions/Democrats, in thinking that their cause was so just that everyone would naturally gravitate to them.

Well, that didn't happen, and if you assume that in 2012, for either a Scott Walker recall or a Barack Obama re-elect, we're in trouble.

Of course, it would have helped Wisconsin if y'all had bothered to show up in 2010...

No two ways about it.  Wisconsin?  You let me down.  You let the bastards win, and take away your Collective Bargaining rights.  Of course, if you have bothered to show up in 2010, all of this wouldn't have been necessary, so frankly...you have only yourselves to blame.

For the record, this is not Wednesday morning Quarterbacking, this is nothing I haven't said before.

So consider this a warning for 2012.  If you think you're going to be able to hold your nose and wind up with a Democrat in the White House, you're kidding yourself.  As you saw from this Recall battle, the opposition is well funded, and now given cover by the Supreme Court.

That's not to say that Scott Walker shouldn't be scared as well.  Those were primarily red districts that went for Obama in 2008, and the ones you won last night you barely held onto.  They were also rural.  Once bigger cities like Madison get involved, your ass could be smoked...

...but that's only if you show up.

In the meantime, I find it interesting how much the Wisconsin story isn't getting covered in the press today.  Not only is there not a lot of hand-wringing or nazel gazing, there's just not much of anything...period.  Andrew Sullivan didn't mention it.  Neither did Ezra Klein.  I'm just waiting for the first Professional Lefter to come out and blame the White House for "not doing enough"...when it was y'alls fault in the first place.

Josh Marshall provided this in response to a reader today, and I thought it beared repeating.

There are different ways to see what happened last night. Legislative recalls are extremely, extremely uncommon in the United States. Winning two of them last night was a big victory. Both senators won in 2010 and in the big Obama year of 2008. And the Democrats came very close to knocking off two more. Still, let's be honest: they wanted to steal away the GOP's unitary hold on the state government. And they didn't. They came up short. And there's a lot of very real and merited disappointment over that.

But it's wrong to see political energy and resources as finite and something to be marshaled. It's not a zero sum game. This kind of effort doesn't take away from something else. It adds to it. It builds organizational muscle. In fact, it's like muscle. You build it by exercising it. I don't lose part of my allotment of muscle by doing some bench presses. I build it up. And the exercise itself demonstrates that a political movement can bite back.

In the recent budget and debt battle I saw numerous readers write in to say, Hey, how'd this Norquist guy get all this power? Or, Why is it that every time they can get every last member of their caucus to toe the line? Yes, Norquist's got tons of cash from various moneyed interests. But his power is based on working this issue for literally decades in out of the way races across the country. Again, building muscle through the exercise of muscle. How do Republicans enforce such crazy amounts of party discipline? Because they have a record of primarying people. And over time people get that message. So yes, the Dems and the unions in Wisconsin came up short. But two Republican senators already lost their jobs over this. And people will remember that.

Politics ain't bean bag and it also ain't easy. It takes time. It would be a mistake to see this as a distraction, a big mistake.

Wisconsin is voting...and looking goooood!

From the Wisconsin Politics Blog (first caught by TPM):

In the 10th SD in western Wisconsin, River Falls City Clerk Lu Ann Hecht said today’s numbers could be as high as the 2008 Presidential election.

The city issued 1,003 absentee ballots, twice as many as a regular election. The municipality is home to both GOP Sen. Sheila Harsdorf and Dem challenger Shelly Moore.

“We expect the turnout to remain steady throughout the day,” Hecht said. Hudson City Clerk Nancy Korson said voter turnout in Hudson, also part of the 10th, would likely not reach the levels of a presidential election. 

But they were comparable to the spring Supreme Court election, with over 500 absentee ballots received. 

In Baraboo, Deputy Clerk Donna Munz said turnout was much higher than normal. She also said she'd received voter complaints over people at some polling places contacting them as they went into the polling places. At one, about nine people were outside and some voters said they were angry that they felt intimidated.

“We have received angry calls from voters regarding how persistent the people outside the polling places are,” Munz said. In the 8th SD, one of the top races with GOP Sen. Alberta Darling and Dem Rep. Sandy Pasch, Whitefish Bay officials reported a steady stream during the morning, but said it was too early to say how turnout would end up in Pasch’s hometown.

In River Hills, where Darling lives, Village Clerk Barb Goeckner reported steady turnout through the morning. By 9:45 a.m., about 200 of the municipality’s 1,300 registered voters had cast ballots. “It’s just been steady,” she said. “It’s not been a mad rush. We don’t have any lines, but it’s definitely been a steady turnout so far.”

I bold the good and the bad, so GO BADGERS!!!

How to feel about the Debt Ceiling deal, and more detail about what's in it... (VIDEO)

Announcing the deal:


Spinning the deal:


My biggest problem with the deal is that there’s a deal in the first place. The details of the deal don’t matter to me so much as the philosophy behind it. I don’t believe we are in a position to start cutting stuff right now. Virtually the entirety of the Stimulus’s impact (and I thought it was positive) has been blunted by equally heavy budget cuts at the state level

So now, we’ve decided to spread Austerity to the Federal level as well.

And yes, I'm referring to Austerity like a disease...because it is.

So look at what we got, and tell me, does it really matter in the scheme of things? What’s the point when we start to cut at the worst possible time to start cutting?

As for the deal, here’s what we (Democrats) got:

• A debt-limit increase large enough to provide the government borrowing power to pay bills through 2012.
• A special congressional committee to consider broad deficit reduction can consider tax reform along with entitlement changes.
• If the committee's recommendations are not adopted, half of the automatic spending cuts to follow would come from defense.
• If the committee's recommendations are not adopted, programs for the poor, including Medicaid and Social Security, would be shielded from the automatic spending cuts to follow.

Here’s what we (Democrats) gave:

• The deal includes immediate spending cuts of about $1 trillion but no tax increases.
• If the special congressional committee's recommendations are not adopted, consequences include spending cuts but no tax increases.
• If the special committee's recommendations are not adopted, Medicare provider payments are not shielded from the automatic spending cuts to follow.

This came via the Washington Post. I like the fact that it highlights the Debt Ceiling increase as a Democratic get, even though its supposed to be (and would normally be) an American “get”. Clearly, the Republicans did not give a shit about whether we defaulted or not, just like they don't give a shit about the deficit.

Here’s what they (Republicans) got (also, they produced the slide above):

• No tax increases.
• $1 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending over the next 10 years.
• A special congressional committee to consider broader deficit reduction can consider entitlement changes along with tax reform.
• The debt-ceiling increase will be matched dollar for dollar in deficit reduction, through adoption of the work of a new congressional fiscal committee or through automatic spending cuts that will occur if the committee's recommendations are not adopted.
• If the committee's recommendations are not adopted, half of the automatic spending cuts to follow would come from domestic programs.

Here’s what they (Republicans) gave:

• The immediate deal includes no entitlement reform.
• The immediate spending are cuts less than the GOP had sought.
• The special congressional committee could consider tax reform.
• If the special congressional committee's recommendations are not adopted, half of the automatic spending cuts to follow would come from defense.

I mentioned this last night as a question, but I’ve had a change of heart. I’m starting to feel one of the benefits of this deal might be that it lays the groundwork and terms for the next Budget Fight. What I want to see is if this is voted on, will the Tea Party renege on the deal, and demand even more cuts?  My bet is that they will, and how will America see them then?

Jonathan Bernstein: Addressing Liberal Ire...

To answer that question, Bernstein goes back into our recent history:

[Matthew] Dickinson ends [an earlier referenced piece by] asking a great question:

[M]aybe some of you can tell me why so many very smart people have, since the day Obama was inaugurated, deluded themselves into thinking that this admittedly very smart man, albeit one with limited political experience at the national level, was somehow going to step into office and proceed to rewrite the political laws that have governed presidential politics for the last two centuries?

I have a two part answer.

Part one covers 2009-2010, and is pretty basic: lots of people just don't understand the limitations of the presidency within the political system. There's some of that now, too.

Part two covers this past few weeks, and is much more speculative, but perhaps therefore more interesting.

Here's what I think happened -- and I'm really mainly talking about elite-level Democrats, here.

In 1994, elite-level Democrats were absolutely stunned by the GOP landslide. They believed that it ushered in an era in which conservatives would dominate government for years, reversing most of the gains of the past sixty years. Bill Clinton was certainly toast, and Newt Gingrich was a genius. And then it didn't quite work out that way; Newt imploded, Clinton was re-elected and was very popular for the last five years of his presidency, and Clinton "won" the 1995-1996 showdown. Of course, there's an awful lot of fine print to that, including the GOP holding Congress for another decade, and very real policy gains by the Republicans in the settlement of that showdown.

But then, when history repeated itself in 2008-2010, I think a lot of liberals were a lot less stunned. Instead of expecting huge policy losses, they remembered the Clinton "win" and expected the Tea Partiers to be just as inept as Newt had been. In the event, I think the Tea Partiers were in fact pretty inept, while John Boehner could govern circles around Newt Gingrich...but that's not really what's important. What's important is that liberals in 1995 had unrealistically low expectations and were pleasantly surprised -- which produced liberals in 2011 who had unrealistically high expectations, and were bitterly disappointed.

Or, to put it another way: I think a lot of what's hitting liberals over the last couple of weeks is a delayed reaction to the severity of the Republican landslide of 2010. And I'm not at all convinced that the policy changes so far this year are any worse for Democrats than the policy changes in 1995-1996.

Of course, there's a long way to go with the 112th Congress, beginning with the uncertain votes to actually pass this thing today, and then continuing with FY 2012 appropriations this fall. So perhaps liberals will still turn out to be correct about the overall (lack of) effectiveness of the president. And no question: from a liberal point of view, this turn in policy is basically a disaster, and it's also a disaster from a mainstream economics point of view (although almost certainly not as big a disaster as two more weeks of stalemate would have been). Moreover, there's nothing at all wrong with realistic criticisms of the president's negotiating record. But to be realistic, those criticisms need to take into account the actual bargaining strength and positions of everyone involved, most of which has very little to do with Barack Obama.

A message to the Firedoglakes, Greenwalds, Schultzes and Greens of the world...

From Ezra:

When Nancy Pelosi served as speaker of the House, her job was conditioning her members for disappointment. It was Pelosi who had to bring them around to a Senate-designed health-care law that lacked a public option, a cap-and-trade bill that gave away most of its permits, a stimulus that did too little, a bank bailout that endangered their careers. Pelosi had to do that because, well, that’s what the speaker of the House has to do. To govern is to compromise. And when you’re in charge, you have to govern.

Lately, Boehner has not been governing. What should have happened Friday is obvious: Having failed to pass a conservative resolution to the debt crisis without Democratic votes, he should have begun cutting the deals and making the concessions necessary to gain Democratic votes. That, after all, is what he will ultimately have to do anyway, as whatever he passes will also require the approval of the Senate and the president.

But Boehner went in the opposite direction. He made his bill less conservative. He indulged his members in the fantasy that they wouldn’t have to make compromises. It’s as if Pelosi, facing criticism for dropping the public option, had tried to shore up her support by bringing a single-payer health-care bill to the floor. Even if that would have pleased her left wing, what good would it have done her? Her job was to prepare her members to take a vote that could lead to a successful outcome. Pretending that that outcome could be far further to the left than it actually could be would ultimately make her job harder.

Did you catch that?

I seem to remember the Whiny Left crowd chanting for exactly that when the Public Option fight was going on...kill the bill and start again with Single Payer.

What we're seeing now in the Debt Ceiling fight is the exact same hole you wanted to dig us in during Health Care Reform.  So, thanks for nothing.

I'm sure ramming through Single Payer would have made the aforementioned people feel sooooo much better, and accomplished exactly nothing as the whole of Health Care Reform would've gone down in flames.

The very thing so many Lefties are excoriating the Republicans for today, is the very same behavior they are still mad at the President for yesterday.

The purpose of the Speaker, of the Senate Majority Leader, of the President, in a strange way are all exactly the same, even if those three will occasionally come to blows.  It is to prepare the caucus for what the deal will look like (yes, disappointment, but with realism), but at the same time do so in preparation for a successful outcome.

The problem I have with the Bill Killers from HCR, with the Ed Schultzes, the Jane Hamshers, the Adam Greens, the Arianna Huffingtons, the Keith Olbermanns (there, I said it), Bill Mahers and the Glenn Greewalds of the world, is that they are very good at sketching out what is their preferred outcome is, while conveniently neglecting to give us any realistic indication of how to get there.  Sure they give us 100% Grade-A bullshit like "he should have lead more", or "he's not using the bully pulpit", or "he's really a Republican".

(And for the record, Robert Reich has been through these fights and should know better.  I guess he enjoys getting his ass kissed too much by the Huffington crowd.)

I went through the Bush Years with a belief that the Left, the people of my ideological stripe, were at least the one's mired in reality.  But the last two years have shown, that that's nonsense.  The Left is terrible at Politics.  There's a reason they lose as many campaigns as they do.  They're lazy and arrogant (lazy because they feel they should just present their ideas and have everyone bow in acquiescence).  The problem is the Left hasn't heard that lesson...and multiple defeats at the polls have not taught them otherwise.

My marker is down, and remains down.  The only way this President does not win re-election, honestly, is if douchebags, like the ones I've mentioned above don't show up.  I am a Liberal, and I will always remain a Liberal in my beliefs, thoughts and actions...

...but I can't stand Liberals.  And if they don't show up to support the President in 2012, I will make it my mission to end organizations like MoveOn, like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

Like Chris Mattews said yesterday, "I will not forget those who did this..."

But I'm talking about you Professional Left.

I have discovered your mirror opposite, and for some reason...they've been allowed to sit in the House of Representatives.



P.S. Oh, and Conservatives...if that's how I feel about Liberals, imagine how I feel about you?

Dick Durbin: "The president negotiated with [Boenher] in good faith. [Boenher] walked away from it. Twice.”

...you own it.

The second most powerful Democrat in the Senate warned Republicans Sunday that they are toying with a fragile economy and would take the blame for any fallout from a debt default.

On Sunday, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he had six words of warning for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio): “If you break it, you own it.”

Republicans and the White House have argued the case that the president “owns” the economy, along with its recovery.

Durbin slammed Boehner for calling off debt-ceiling negotiations with the White House on Friday.

“The president negotiated with you in good faith,” Durbin said he would tell Boehner. “You walked away from it. Twice.”

Man, someone's really running for President in 2016

A two-fer from Martin O'Malley:

The ratings agency Moody's is threatening to reduce the rating of five states with AAA credit (along with the rating of the federal government) if Congress fails to raise the debt limit in early August. Now the governor of one of those states -- Maryland's Martin O'Malley -- is publicly singling out the Republicans in Congress who are preventing swift action on the debt limit.

"All of this brinksmanship and these threats of the dinosaur wing of the Republican party led by Eric Cantor to drive us needlessly into a default have impacted confidence I think throughout the country," O'Malley told me in a Tuesday interview. "It's impacted consumer confidence, it's impacted investor confidence, it's impacted the confidence of small businesses who are the backbone of this economy and who need to hire again. In that respect it's already had an effect. The closer we get to this deadline, and the more immediate ramifications that has for those of us that are going out into the bond market."

Remember, he also took a big step out of Andrew Cuomo's shadow for 2016.

Someone's running for President in 2016...

At some point I'm going to make a blogpost featuring names of people to know, what their current job is, and where they've got their eye.

One of my entries as going to be: Martin O'Malley, currently Governor of Maryland, and possible 2016 Democratic Nominee for President of the United States.

Today's announcement kinda sealed that deal.  After all, another entry would have to be Andrew Cuomo, currently Governor of New York, and possible 2016 Democratic Nominee for President of the United States.

So how much leverage do Congressional Democrats have in the Debt Ceiling Fight?

Apparently, quite a bit, according to Jonathan Bernstein, writing today at The Plum Line:

Greg asked earlier, “Do House Democrats have any leverage in the debt talks?” Barack Obama’s quick statement today to reporters made it clear that: yes, they do.

By emphasizing that “Democrats and Republicans are going to be required in both chambers,” the president inched towards defining a standard under which any grand bargain will require majorities of both parties in both Houses of Congress.

In reality, Obama was basically acknowledging the mathematics and politics of the situation. We know that at least 50 of the 240 House Republicans, and probably a good deal more, are not going to vote for a debt limit increase no matter what. That means they’ll need at least about 30 Democrats, and probably a good deal more. If a deal is going to need close to half of House Democrats, then it almost certainly needs Nancy Pelosi.

The truly goofy thing about this whole mess is the outsized influence enjoyed by those 50 or so House Republicans that won’t be voting for any deal, no matter how much it might tilt towards conservative priorities. One would think that they’ve dealt themselves out. However, they — along with their slightly less rejectionist conservative collaborators — are the key restraint on John Boehner. As Jonathan Chait notes today, what their opposition does is make some of the deals that are mathematically possible into political poison for the Speaker. He isn’t going to endorse anything that won’t get the approval (in private at least — they may not vote that way) of a strong majority of the House Republican conference, because otherwise he risks a revolt.

For House Democrats, the best strategy (no surprise here) is unity. If they can maintain that, then they have quite a bit of leverage. If not, Boehner can start trying to pick off 25 or 30 or 35 Democrats, and perhaps he can make that work. My guess, however, is that ultimately nothing will pass unless it has genuine leadership support — and not just votes — from Democrats and Republicans in both chambers. Nancy Pelosi certainly knows that, and as the President himself said today, he’s very aware that he needs Democrats to get this done.

Remember, this has always been the key thing. John Boehner places being Speaker over the fiscal health of the Country.

Lawrence O'Donnell: So much for that whole "Democrats soft-on-defense" meme (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy