Maddow:

A Democratic President kicks his base in the teeth on something as fundamental as civil liberties—he puts the nail in the coffin of a civil liberties promise he made on his first full day in office—and he does it on the first day of his re-election effort. And Beltway reaction to that is... huh, good move. That's the difference between Republican politics and Democratic politics. The Republicans may not love their base, but they fear them and play to them. The Democratic Party institutional structures of D.C., and the Beltway press in particular, not only hate the Democratic base—they think it's good politics for Democratic politicians to kick that base publicly whenever possible. Only the base itself will ever change that.

Greenwald:

One thing is for certain: right now, the Democratic Party is absolutely correct in its assessment that kicking its base is good politics. Why is that? Because they know that they have inculcated their base with sufficient levels of fear and hatred of the GOP, so that no matter how often the Party kicks its base, no matter how often Party leaders break their promises and betray their ostensible values, the base will loyally and dutifully support the Party and its leaders (at least in presidential elections; there is a good case that the Democrats got crushed in 2010 in large part because their base was so unenthusiastic).

In light of that fact, ask yourself this: if you were a Democratic Party official, wouldn't you also ignore—and, when desirable, step on—the people who you know will support you no matter what you do to them?

Americablog:

The relationship between the Dems and Republicans is often described as a "hostage situation". Republicans threaten to kill the country with starvation if the Dems don't cave. Progressives also have a "hostage situation". Obama threatens to kill the country with Republican rule if progressives don't cave (by voting for him). What do progressives do? Joan Walsh will vote for him anyway. Sam Seder will vote for him anyway, if only because of the Supreme Court. What will you do? Which burnt bridge is a bridge too far for you? More importantly, what should progressives do as a group?

The choice is clear. Unless some primary challenger turns up, it's Obama or some Billionaire-financed Teabag-worshiping Republican. I won't express myself on the shoulds of the decision, not yet. Is it automatically worse if a Republican wins in 2012 and the Democratic Party goes up for grabs? I'm not prepared to say. But I will express myself on the shoulds of the discussion—we have to be talking about this now, and well within earshot of Team Where Else You Gonna Go?

Krugman:

What have they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected? Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn’t seem to stand for anything in particular?

...

But let’s give the president the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that $38 billion in spending cuts—and a much larger cut relative to his own budget proposals—was the best deal available. Even so, did Mr. Obama have to celebrate his defeat? Did he have to praise Congress for enacting “the largest annual spending cut in our history,” as if shortsighted budget cuts in the face of high unemployment—cuts that will slow growth and increase unemployment — are actually a good idea? ... More broadly, Mr. Obama is conspicuously failing to mount any kind of challenge to the philosophy now dominating Washington discussion—a philosophy that says the poor must accept big cuts in Medicaid and food stamps; the middle class must accept big cuts in Medicare (actually a dismantling of the whole program); and corporations and the rich must accept big cuts in the taxes they have to pay. Shared sacrifice!

Talking Points Memo:

In retrospect people see President Clinton's moves in 1995 as savvy approaching brilliance, at least in political terms. But it didn't seem that way to many people at the time. Certainly, almost everyone from the liberal wing of his party thought he was giving away the store and a more general belief in his fecklessness was almost universal across the Democrats' ideological spectrum. It wasn't quite as it appeared though. Clinton is a political intuitive. At the most generous reading he let the Republicans take their punches until they'd allowed themselves to get dangerously exposed politically ... and then he made his move. Doing so earlier would have been foolish, certainly in political terms and quite likely in policy terms too.

If that's what the Friday night deal was about, it could be shrewd. The costs in terms of over-zealous cutting are small—very small—in comparison to the vast decisions to be made next. For that reason, I'm not convinced yet that this was quite the defeat for the president that a lot of people are claiming. It all depends what comes next.

Discuss.