From your summary, I gather that the small matter of the two wars in which we are engaged - and on which we are spending two billion dollars a week - did not arise.

That would be news to the millions who don't have jobs, who have been looking for one for a long, long time, who fear losing their unemployment insurance - again - who are looking at a long, cold winter and wondering how they are going to manage.

Or for the millions trying to save for retirement, who are now wondering if they will have the benefit of Social Security because a group of people in Washington think "fixing" entitlements can help with a deficit problem that really isn't a problem.

I didn't watch the interview; I didn't think I could stand to hear Obama once again talk about "working with" the Republicans, or telling us how we have to have everything on the table, including the social safety-net programs that are all that are keeping too many people from falling into the abyss.  Funny how we couldn't have single-payer on the table, but he's willing to put these very important programs up for discussion.

As far as I'm concerned, Obama should be on the defensive - he should have to be accountable for what he and the Democrats have not done, for what they have given away, for giving in instead of holding firm.

As for the Democrats' agenda - are you sure you know what it is, or whether it is "Democratic" in the sense we used to expect?  Because I am not at all sure I know what the agenda is - and the more I hear about "working with" the GOP, the less likely I think it is that it will be Democratic enough.

Croft spent the entire time using the Fox News fake third-person stunt of introducing the reporter's (sic) personal commentary via the "many say," "supporters think," "business feels," ad nauseum. And repeatedly he stated opinion (almost always Republican opinion) as fact.

Why didn't Obama annihilate the jerk? "Business is worried"? Business is making record profits! "Business is concerned about regulation"? Business has already figured strategies to game the regulations and continue its conscienceless, rapacious ways.

Taxes? Why didn't Croft acknowledge/why didn't Obama emphasize that Obama reduced taxes on the middle and working classes to less than Reagan or Bush levels? Is Croft unaware that main street small business will not be affected by the $250,000 personal tax (provided the owners haven't chosen to declare business income as personal -- like the owners of that "small business" Bechtel!)? Where was the recognition that the mega-rich are investing money overseas rather than in producing American jobs?

Why didn't Obama point out that his position favors the "little guys," while the Croft/Republican position favors the "bullies"; that Obama favors "David," while Croft and the Republicans favor "Goliath"? That Obama's plan reduces the deficit significantly, while the Croft/Republican plan increases it significantly?

Health care? Croft presented the issue as if it were a given that Obama's plan would cost the public more and benefit them less. Was he just ignorant, or was he deliberately misleading the audience?

Why didn't Obama nail him, pointing out that the plan is already helping the public and that it's greatest benefits won't phase in until after the 2012 election? (Smooth move Republicans, sucker move Democrats.) Why didn't he point out that the plan will save money, both for patients and for taxpayers?

It also exposes that Obama isn't as deft at policy as previous D presidents and nominees. Gore the Bore would have easily outmaneuvered Croft and gone over his head to the public.

This is exactly why embracing favorable media bias in the nomination process was not in anyone's best interest; we don't have a leader who has proven he can handle adversity.

And so, the test is gonna be what happens over the next several years, when it's not just an abstraction, but we have to start making serious choices. I've got a deficit commission that I've put forward that is gonna be releasing recommendations for how we can start reducing the deficit. And I don't know yet what they're gonna say, but I do know what the federal budget looks like. And if you eliminate all the earmarks. If you eliminate all the foreign aid. If you eliminate all the waste and abuse that people, you know, talk about eliminating -- you're still confronted with a fact that the vast majority of the federal budget are things that people really think are important. Like Social Security and Medicare and defense.

And so, you then have to start making some tough decisions about how do we pay for those things that we think are important? And you know, we're not gonna be able to balance the budget just by slashing the National Parks budget, even if you didn't think that was a proper function of government. We're not gonna be able to balance the budget by, you know, eliminating the National Weather Service.

I mean, we're gonna have to, you know, tackle some big issues like entitlements that, you know, when you listen to the Tea Party or you listen to Republican candidates they promise we're not gonna touch. link

Steve Croft almost always plays the provocateur during his interviews, so one has to wonder if  Obama and his advisors were simply too exhausted and depressed after last Tuesday's results to prepare for tonight. This interview won't do the Dems any favors.

And I disagree, once again, that comparisons between 2008 and 2010 turnouts are irrelevant. It's all about the GOTV effort and the extent to which voters are feeling either hopeful or turned off! Here in Washington, we had an all-time record turnout for an off-year election (over 60%). Compare that to our all-time record turnout in 2010 (84.61%) and it looks somewhat weak. However, a closer look at this year's totals for each of the 40 counties shows that nearly a third--14 of the counties--voted at more than 70%, and one voted over 80%. Maybe we Washingtonians thought more was at stake than other states' voters. Still, I know that a lot of young voters at UW and the other colleges were apathetic this year.

The drive in Congress to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy appears all but lost for the foreseeable future, with action unlikely this year and even less likely once Republicans take charge of the House in January.

Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and John McCain of Arizona, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, are in talks on stripping the proposed repeal and other controversial provisions from a broader defense bill, leaving the repeal with no legislative vehicle to carry it. With a repeal attached, and amid Republican complaints over the terms of the debate, the defense bill had failed to win the 60 votes needed to overcome a procedural hurdle in the Senate in September.

he Obama administration isn't raising expectations that the issue will be considered this year. "I would like to see the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell,' but I'm not sure what the prospects for that are," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters traveling with him in Australia over the weekend.

Asked what the White House priorities are for the coming congressional session, press secretary Robert Gibbs named four issues--tax cuts, a nuclear-arms treaty with Russia, a child nutrition bill and confirmation of Jack Lew as White House budget director. Asked why he wouldn't put gays in the military on the list, Mr. Gibbs said it looked like Republicans would block action. link

MELISSA BEAN FLOATED AS CFPB HEAD - Buzz on Friday had Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.) possibly getting tapped as the first Consumer Financial Protection Bureau head depending on the outcome of her too-close-to-call reelection race, in which Republican Joe Walsh maintained a slight lead as of Sunday afternoon. But a possible Bean nomination is not sitting well with reformers on the left who say the moderate Illinois congresswoman is far too close to the banking industry. Said one administration official: "It's not clear she would be acceptable to the reformers." link