First, you win

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If you think Rachel Maddow is harsh in her assessment of Barack Obama, you should watch Keith Olbermann. Ouch!

I've got to stop blogging so much about this. But it is a big deal. It's a big deal politically and it's a big deal economically. And there's a lot to it (but, admittedly, I keep repeating myself, and that's not good).

(Ed Stein)

No doubt Obama feels under siege. He got a compromise from people who have flatly refused to compromise, and if you look at the dollar amounts involved, Democrats (centrist Democrats, at least) seem to have gotten a lot more from it than Republicans. He got that second round of stimulus he's been wanting, and he vows a real fight in two years.

Unfortunately, pretty much no one believes that. As I said before, the Democratic base has pretty well given up on expecting Barack Obama to fight for anything. It's not this particular agreement that's the problem - at least, not with me - but the pattern he's set in the past year and a half. And although some progressives consider this tax agreement a possible win, most seem to see it otherwise:

(John Darkow)

That's a very bad image for the president of the United States. It's bad politically, and it'll have a terrible effect on his ability to govern our nation. (As Rachel Maddow asks, how long will it be before he's simply ignored?) Republicans, of course, spread lies about "appeasement" when Barack Obama made the common sense observation that we've always talked to our enemies (and where we haven't, as with Cuba, it hasn't turned out well). But now it's the left that sees appeasement, in his dealings with the GOP.

And these days, Obama seems far angrier at the left than at the right. Well, I suppose he thinks he's being stabbed in the back. After all, he did campaign on bipartisanship, on compromise, on working with Republicans, despite our differences. And he's steadfastly held to that intention, throughout two very difficult years. It's clear that he really believes this hyper-partisanship is bad for America (and he's probably right about that, although I think his solution isn't working at all).

And Barack Obama was never as liberal as his enemies portrayed him - and as many of his supporters had hoped. Frankly, this should not surprise anyone. What, did you think the right-wing had started telling the truth, all of a sudden?

(John Deering)

As Obama himself says, he's a pragmatist. But his campaign was all about idealism, all about change. Yes, a lot of his supporters projected their own hopes onto his candidacy. But is that any surprise? The campaign, after all, was all about hope!

And now, this is how many of his supporters see it:

(John Cole)

There are errors on both sides - both sides within the Democratic Party, I mean (the Republican Party being nothing but errors) - but it's Barack Obama who really needs to learn from this. Perception is critical in politics, and so is enthusiasm. So is hope.

Whatever final agreements must be made, for the good of our country, we need a president who's a strong leader. We need a president with a bold vision. We need a president who'll fight like hell on our behalf. And we need to see that. We need to feel it in our bones.

To accomplish anything, he'll still need to compromise, no doubt. But to get the very best agreement you can, you must start out strong. You must give ground only reluctantly, fighting for every inch. And you must use the presidential bully pulpit to make your case - not just occasionally, but over and over and over again (he should repeat himself like he's Fox "News").

I want a president who'll fight for what's right even if it isn't popular. But Jebus, we're talking about positions here that are actually popular!  The Republican Party wants to enormously increase the budget deficit by giving huge tax cuts to the wealthiest of the wealthy in America, people who'll take that money and invest it in China, if they invest it at all. Democrats couldn't ask for a better battle than this! It's been handed to them on a platter!

Of course, Congressional Democrats have been too cowardly to do anything about it - especially before the election, when this was just begging for bold moves - but their spinelessness is legendary. So where's Barack Obama. Where's our leader?

This isn't the only popular Democratic position, either. I've said this is a pattern, and I mean it. For another example, why not go to the mat on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?  The military is behind it - not just the leadership, but a full 70% of the rank and file - and the public is on our side, too. So why won't we fight?

Can you imagine how dispiriting it is when our politicians are too cowardly to fight even for popular causes? Maybe this is just perception, not reality, I don't know. But perception matters!

OK, I've said most of this before, again and again. My apologies, but it is infuriating. I certainly understand the rage coming from the left. But, nevertheless,... let's not go overboard. Let's not take it too far. There is, after all, a big problem with cutting off your nose to spite your face:

(Tom Toles)

And remember what happened in 2000, when Ralph Nader supporters gave us President George W. Bush. No doubt there's a lot of blame to go around in that one, but look at the results - two ongoing wars (one against a completely innocent country), the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, the torture of prisoners, and record-breaking budget deficits... for nothing (our schools are in crisis, our infrastructure is outdated and crumbling, and we're still hopelessly addicted to foreign oil).

And the results next time could be far worse.