Clinton

Right after Easter, the irrepressible evangelical-left activist Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine announced a new “spiritual battle” against cuts to sacred federal programs in the 2012 budget. Enlisting the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the Salvation Army, Wallis proclaimed their “Circle of Protection” around federal poverty programs.

A mystery lies at the heart of America’s budget politics. In the weeks since debate began on raising the debt limit, President Obama has faulted Republican budget plans as a way of giving favors to “millionaires and billionaires” at the expense of the poor and aged, just as he did during last winter’s quarrel over retaining the Bush tax cuts. He does this because it places the public firmly on his side.

In 1998, President Bill Clinton flew over Japan without stopping on his way to spend nine days in China. This led to acute concern in Tokyo over “Japan passing”—the belief that Washington was neglecting a key Asian ally in favor of the region’s rising star, China. Twelve years later, Indians worry that the same thing may be happening to them, despite the transformation in U.S. relations symbolized by the 2008 nuclear deal.

On March 24, Obama administration officials briefed reporters on what was described as a very positive development in the U.S. effort to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon: China had agreed to participate in a conference call to discuss sanctions.

Mark Halperin says David Brooks's column today "cracks the code of the Obama White House."

What does the decrypt reveal? Here's what:

The atmosphere in the White House appears surprisingly tranquil. Emanuel is serving as a lighting rod for the president but remains crisply confident in his role as chief of staff. It’s true that several top administration officials did not want to attempt comprehensive health care reform this year. But they are not opening recrimination campaigns. It’s no secret that many think the president needs to be more assertive with Congress, yet administration officials still talk about Obama in awestruck tones, even in private.

Some would say the administration is underreacting to the incredible shift in the public mood. Some would say they need more voices from the great unwashed. But no one could accuse them of panicking, or of scrambling about incoherently. In their first winter of discontent, they are offering continuity and comity. Whatever their relations with the country might be, inside they seem unruffled. The bonds of association, from the top down, seem healthy — especially for a bunch of Democrats.

Hence Obama's decision to re-litigate health care reform even though public opposition brought his plan to a standstill in Congress; even though he said in the State of the Union that his "number one focus" was jobs; even though his approval ratings began falling precipitously at the moment when health care took center stage in the national debate. His post-State of the Union bounce is gone: Marist pegs Obama's job approval at 47 percent. Rasmussen also has it at 47 percent.

The old saw about generals who err by fighting the last war instead of the present one may offer the best explanation for the peculiar inability of a surprising number of Democrats—including, it seems, President Obama and his top advisors—to heed the message that the people don’t want them to continue to push for health care reform.

A great many liberal pundits (who, conveniently, don’t have to run for reelection) are in agreement that the health care reform bills should not be allowed to die a quiet death. The New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg calls for passage, and Paul Krugman makes the argument that dropping the push for the bills at this point would be to “fail the test of history.”

Regarding President Obama's extraordinary "Well, the big difference [between] here and in '94 was you've got me" comment to Arkansas congressman Marion Berry: Well, in '94 they had Bill Clinton--who had won statewide in a pretty conservative state (Arkansas) something like seven times, and who was the fourth challenger in the 20th century to oust an incumbent elected president, following in the footsteps on Wilson, FDR, and Reagan.