Having been in the shoes of the team at the White House, I feel for them right now. Every group, business, and constituency in America that cares about tax and budget policy (i.e. most of them) is banging on them to do this or that, or more importantly not do this or that.

The media are hyping the so-called “fiscal cliff” deadline. The folks on Team Obama have just been through a tough re-election campaign and have to be just exhausted. It’s Christmas time and they want to see their families.

They just want the big showdown to be over so that they can catch a well-deserved nap (and maybe even see their kids at Christmas), and get on to the next exciting thing. Having been in the Clinton White House when issues were sometimes maddeningly unresolved for months at a time, I definitely remember the feeling of being so tired of an issue fight that I just wanted it to be over regardless of the outcome, so I am very sympathetic. I can also relate to the feeling of being squeezed by multiple trade-offs in policy, knowing that whatever deal you end up striking with right wing Republicans is inevitably going to have some bad things in it -- been there, done that too.

Just to prove I’m capable of being nuanced (something most of my friends and my wife doubt very much), I also want to say this about the White House proposal: There are certainly a lot of things to like in it from a progressive point of view. They are for example working very hard to preserve Medicaid, extend Unemployment Insurance, and hold other key programs that help the poor harmless.

I appreciate how hard they are working to preserve many of the things we progressives hold dear. The President and his team have a lot to be praised for in this confusing mess of budget negotiations, and I have a lot of understanding regarding what they are going through.

However, not everything we hold dear is being preserved, and I think the Obama team is going down the wrong path, specifically on Social Security benefit cuts. There are two major things that I think are moving them in the wrong direction.

Continue reading »

Most of the time when we monitor shows, we do so with an eye to the hypocritical or outrageous. And usually, when it comes to me, I find myself rolling my eyes or making some snarky aside and moving on. But every once in a while, you come across something that is just a little hard to set aside and make you really sick with the implications.

Case in point: strategist Mark Penn--the same guy whose political savvy got presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign to crash and burn--came on Hardball to tell Chris Matthews what he thought could help raise President Obama's profile. His answer? Mark Penn thinks Obama needs something like an Oklahoma City bombing:

PENN: Cabinets don’t really sell things. The President himself has to reconnect with the people. Remember, President Clinton reconnected through Oklahoma, right?...

MATTHEWS: Yeah, because of the bombing down there…

PENN: …And President right now, he seems removed. It wasn’t until that speech that he really clicked with the American public. Obama needs a similar kind of happening.

MATTHEWS: You think words are enough for Obama at this point?

PENN: No. He’s gotta get some results. But words will work, I think, if he finds that right moment.

Listen to these two men--who eat, breathe and live politics all day long, divorced of its real world ramifications--speak casually of the political opportunity available should hundred or thousands of innocent Americans die because of a domestic terrorist act. This is what Mark Penn thinks could help Obama:

Now Ed Morrissey of Hot Air and Tommy Christopher of Mediaite think this is just a brain fart of some sort. But I can't be so charitable. This is a perfect example of the banality of evil.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather) (video feed is dark, our apologies)

Chris Matthews can't help but get his Clinton hate on, even if it means some peculiarly revisionist history. He asked his "Matthews Meter" (a group of 12 regular talking heads on his show) whether Bill helped or hurt Hillary Clinton's fall from the presumptive Democratic candidate to trying to find a way to slow down the Obama momentum. Naturally, the Big Dog hurt his wife's chances, according to the talking heads. Cynthia Tucker makes a good point that we didn't get to see the gregarious, inspirational Bill Clinton of his own campaign, but the angry, protective husband, which didn't help Hillary Clinton at all. But when Matthews brings up Al Gore, who purposefully distanced himself from Clinton during his own run for the presidency as proof that Bill's Midas touch is tarnished, that's just more than a little silly.

My own take on Hillary Clinton's campaign has little to do with Bill or his input. First and foremost, the whole notion that the person who was at the top of the polls going into the primary season had the edge going out ignores history completely. John Kerry wasn't at the top of the polls, nor was Bill Clinton. They emerged after some strong wins in early states, just like Obama. And Clinton herself has not run a smart campaign, due I suspect more to her advisors like Mark Penn than her husband. On NOW on PBS, campaign strategist Joe Trippi (most recently of the Edwards campaign) contrasts the top down organization of Clinton campaign to the bottom up focus of the Obama campaign.

Download | play Download | play

At a event in New Hampshire, Bill Clinton rants on Barack Obama's (supposed) free pass from the press. The former president somehow managed to turn a question from a student about Mark Penn's (Hillary Clinton's campaign manager) judgment-- or lack thereof-- into a complaint that Obama hasn't been held to the same standard as Hillary Clinton on the war:

"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break. "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want.

The servers have been re-synched. We're all good to go with the Sunday Idiot Box Shows.

Christy at FireDogLake compiled the line up:

C-Span's Washington Journal : 7:45am - Tom DeFrank, New York Daily News, Washington Bureau Chief; 8:30am - Newspaper Articles & Viewer Calls; 9am - Philippe Gelie, Le Figaro, Washington Bureau Chief; 9:30am - Phoner From Baghdad: Nancy Yousseff, McClatchy Newspapers, Pentagon Correspondent.

ABC's "This Week" -- Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.; The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne and Michael Gerson, National Journal's Ron Brownstein, and ABC News' George Will; actress Ashley Judd on her new documentary about AIDS in India and why young women are increasingly at risk for infection.

CBS' "Face the Nation" -- Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., Mark Penn, chief strategist for Sen. Hillary Clinton campaign.

NBC's "Meet the Press" -- Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.; Tom Browkow about his new book.

CNN's "Late Edition" -- Mideast peace envoy and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair; Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

"Fox News Sunday" -- Former President George H.W. Bush.

I'd love to see Wolf Blitzer grill DiFi on her expected Mukasey vote, but that would involve, you know, the press acting as advocates for the public instead of Pravda.

What's catching your eye this morning?