Ace:
But note how very laudatory The Hill is regarding the wily Reid. And note the article goes out of its way to protect Obama from any political fallout from Reid’s aggressive, no-compromise stance — claiming that Obama is just a spectator in all of this, and himself only wishes to compromise.
President Obama has handed over the reins of leadership on government funding and the debt limit to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Reid is now fully in charge of his party’s negotiating strategy, a significant change from past showdowns with Republicans.
He has taken the initiative from Obama, who played the principal role in the 2011 debt-limit talks and New Year’s fiscal cliff deal. Some Democrats on Capitol Hill are relieved by the switch.
The majority leader has brought a more pugnacious style to the debate, bashing House conservatives as “anarchists” and mocking the “Banana Republican mindset.”
This is a welcome change for Democrats who thought Obama was too accommodating to Republicans during previous crises.
Wait, I thought compromise was a good thing? I also enjoy the Democrats’ efforts (assisted by the Hill) to try to shield Obama from the political consequences of his decisions — “Hey, Obama is just a big compromiser who wants what’s best for everyone, but he’s not in charge now, so don’t hold any of this partisan squabbling against him.”
Wait, the President of the United States isn’t in charge?
I can’t keep excerpting, but the passage I cut has more Democrat quotes talking about how open to compromise Obama is, but that he’s been sidelined by… well, by someone who has no power to sideline him.
Why doesn’t Obama simply resign?
@drjohn:
Because Valerie Jarrett won’t let him. She’d lose her Secret Service detail (never before given to anyone in her position) and Obama and Moochelle would have to pay for their own vacations and fancy steaks.
The delagater in chief hard at work shiftin the blame the second the polling shows a negative.