Obama's put himself out there big time on behalf of a Big Deal.  I think if he doesn't get some sort of package people will view that as a failure, of the GOP but also on Obama's part.  Why wouldn't you?  If Obama doesn't get what he wants then there's something wrong with Obama.  That seems like a logical line of thought.

And they know that.

So whatever Master Chess O'Donnell and ABG think Obama is playing here, I'm pretty sure the other side has their own game, and are playing Obama like a Stradivarius.

Even if, by some miracle that will have me looking to see if pigs have taken wing, there would be a clean bill in the end, what Obama has signaled is that he is more than open to the kinds of changes and cuts that Republicans fairly drool over - and they will find a way to get them in a way that will only have Democratic fingerprints on them.

But if you're interested, you can join anonymously (just use a name that sounds like a real name) and see what it's about.

The later books are significantly more interesting than the earlier ones and written for an older audience.  6 and 7 are probably my favorites, 5 is a bit dark and moody - full of teenage angst.  It's funny, my whole family has read them, including my parents, aunts, uncles and grandmother.  Not a single one of us was in the target demographic when it came out.  Although I know a number of people who stopped half way, since the earlier books are written for a much younger audience it can be hard to get into - but you're definitely missing the best of the bunch.

Funny how people assumed that this was about the issues. This is about posturing and always has been.

Fourth dimensional chess?

Apparently McConnell wants to create a process where the Congress allows a debt limit vote in tranches, with three votes over the next year-plus, through the 2012 elections. And it would allow all the votes to come from Democrats, because they would simply be upholding a Presidential veto of something like a resolution of disapproval for increasing the debt limit. This is essentially a license for the Administration to increase the debt limit by themselves, with little constraint except a destined-to-fail 2/3 vote.

But then there's this weird line about the President being "required to propose offsetting savings" as part of the deal, which could refer to impoundments or a line-item veto or I don't know what. I'm trying to get my hands on the internal memo, although Mitch McConnell doesn't really call or write me on a regular basis. McConnell has scheduled a press conference to discuss the proposal.

Understand that this is where McConnell's been at the entire time. He isn't really all that concerned with the debt limit, and thinks he has other options to force spending reductions, especially if he can keep taxes low. The 2012 budget is a perfect example. So this is a Rube Goldberg mechanism to achieve McConnell's goals. Basically, his only concern is that Jon Tester and Claire McCaskill and Ben Nelson and Joe Manchin have to vote to increase the debt limit. McConnell has never used the word "filibuster" in relation to the debt limit. He just wants Democrats to carry the load entirely. In other words, he wants what every Senate Minority Leader has wanted on the debt limit since time immemorial: putting the entire responsibility on the majority. Republicans could freely vote against the increase and accuse Democrats of racking up debt. And since the President would be the prime mover in this, it fits with McConnell's other main goal of making Obama a one-term President, since he would have no cover on increasing the debt limit.

Now, I cannot name for you one single solitary member of Congress who lost his or her seat because they voted to increase the debt limit. So McConnell may consider this tactically brilliant, but Democrats would be fine to call his bluff. What's more, it would keep alive the many charges they could level at Republicans in 2012, like voting to end Medicare. The way I think it's structured, you wouldn't even necessarily need the aforementioned Tester and Nelson and McCaskill and Manchin to vote to uphold the Presidential veto; you'd just need 34 Democrats.

John Boehner said today that raising the debt limit was "Obama's problem." McConnell's plan would affirm that.

And here's more since the McConnell presser:

The plan is designed to give President Obama the power to raise the debt limit through the end of his first term on his own, but to force Democrats to take a series of votes on the debt limit vote in the months leading up to the election [...]

The plan would require Congress to pass a bill allowing Obama to raise the debt limit on his own contingent on him taking a series of steps: Obama would have to notify Congress of his intent tor raise the debt limit -- a high-sign to Congress that would be subject to an official censure known as a "resolution of disapproval," and which Obama could veto. If he vetoed the resolution, and if Congress sustained the veto, then Obama would also have to outline a series of hypothetical spending cuts he'd make, equal to the amount of new debt authority he gives himself.

McConnell proposes extending this process in three tranches, to force Obama to request more borrowing authority, and to force debt limit votes in Congress, repeatedly through election season.

I'm not so sure having this thing hanging over us until the end of 2012 is the kind of "clean" we were looking for.

Additionally, there are a couple of things to consider:

(1)  Will Obama accept this deal?  What happens to his credibility if he now walks away from the relentless talk about how the ONLY way we could ever hope to grow the economy is to "get our fiscal house in order and do SOMETHING about reducing the debt and the deficit? Is "nevermind!" going to be an option for him?

(2)  Will Democrats really - really - be able to run on Republicans being the party that wanted to end Medicare, or will Republicans be able to neutralize that charge by holding Obama up as Exhibit No. 1 in their own argument that he is no friend to the social safety net?  My guess is that Republicans will handle that part of the game with more finesse than Democrats because Obama's going to be hard to defend on the charge that he was ready, willing and able to cut benefits.

there's a lot more. I rarely criticize him because I think he sticks to his guns. I won't vote for him because his guns point at a lot of my social infrastructure areas.