There will be one this afternoon. They say that these are things to look for.

I'll be looking at legal documents myself. I count on you to tell me what's what.

Matt Yglesias:

[A]t the end of the day if the White House simply refuses to get sucked into a negotiation, the debt ceiling will be raised.

I agree.

Speaking for me only

Ezra Klein:

Obama will throw his support behind the bipartisan effort in the Senate to turn the Simpson-Bowles plan into legislation.

I'm shocked!

Speaking for me only

Yesterday, Jed Lewison wrote a post titled White House calling Republican bluff on debt ceiling. It seemed an premature interpretation of events to me, as I commented. Today, via Ezra Klein, it seems that Lewison's rosiness was misplaced, as the WSJ reports that President Open to Deal on Debt Cap:

Softening the administration's earlier insistence that Congress raise the so-called debt ceiling without conditions, officials now say they won't rule out linking an increase of the borrowing cap with cuts aimed at reducing the deficit—even though they'd prefer to keep the issues separate.

Again, I think this is bad bargaining. Of course, in the end, a deal will likely be made. But folding before there is even an offer on the table is simply bad bargaining. Instead, the White House should have been working on unveiling a contingency plan against GOP intransigence on the debt ceiling.

Speaking for me only

Back when there were discussion about what the Democratic Congress could do to require President Bush to end combat operations in Iraq, one of the main arguments I made was that the Democrats needed to announce a date certain when they would no longer fund combat operations in Iraq. (It goes without saying that no one listened to me. They never do.) So I am intrigued by Matt Yglesias' strategy proposal for the coming debt ceiling "hostage situation:"

It’s a two pronged strategy. The first one is a credible, repeated commitment not to surrender anything in exchange for getting congress to agree to the debt ceiling being increased. After all, why should anything be given up. [. . .] The second prong, important for credibility, is to move to thinking about what happens as we reach the ceiling.

This isn’t a sudden “shutdown.” Nor is is true that we have to default on obligations to our bondholders. Rather, it means that government outlays are now limited by the quantity of inbound tax revenue. But for a while, the people administering the federal government [. . .] will be able to selectively stiff people. So the right strategy is to start stiffing people Republicans care about. When bills to defense contractors come due, don’t pay them. Explain they’ll get 100 percent of what they’re owed when the debt ceiling is raised. [. . .]

I like this strategy. Chances of it being adopted? Precisely zero. The confidence fairy must be fed after all.

Speaking for me only

The New York Times reports President Obama will continue to push a path to the center for his re-election campaign.

When was he anything but centrist? Who but conservative Republicans trying to disparage him ever cast him as a liberal? Apparently, some Democrats are now becoming uneasy with Obama's centrism and compromising ways:

The question of where Mr. Obama’s bottom line is on Democratic priorities will be that much more urgent to his party as House Republicans, energized by their success in resetting the terms of the debate in Washington, press an aggressive conservative agenda in the coming months that includes deeper spending cuts and a fundamental reshaping of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Obama does not seem concerned: [More...]

His Saturday address:

A few months ago, I was able to sign a tax cut for American families because both parties worked through their differences and found common ground. Now, the same cooperation has made it possible for us to move forward with the biggest annual spending cut in history. And it’s my sincere hope that we can continue to come together as we face the many difficult challenges that lie ahead – from creating jobs and growing our economy to educating our children and reducing our long-term deficits.

President Obama is celebrating The Deal to extend the Bush tax cuts and cut spending on programs for the most needy in America. You have to be a little scared about what further triumphant compromises Obama has in store for us. What a disastrous Presidency.

Speaking for me only

Jeralyn writes about it. I just want to remind everyone that President Obama cut a deal with the Republicans in December to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Yes, today's budget fight is related to that. And yes, I expect Obama to cave again.

Hope I'm wrong. Another busy day for me. If the courts get shut down in 2 weeks, I'll have more free time.

Speaking for me only

CNN reports that President Obama will announce his bid for a second term as President as early as Monday. His first fund-raiser will be April 14 in Chicago.

Fund-raising for Obama's re-election is likely to shatter all previous records:

The president is making his campaign official slightly earlier than is typical for an incumbent so he can get a jump on fund-raising in a season that's likely to shatter all records. Obama’s team has been asking campaign bundlers to raise $350,000 each, no easy task since campaign finance laws limit gifts to $2,500 per donor. Two sources tell CNN the campaign team hopes that in total their bundlers will raise $500 million, leaving the campaign to raise another $500 million and amass a record-breaking $1 billion war chest.

Obama raised $745 million for the 2008 election.

CNN says Dems are worried about the amount of money Karl Rove and the Hunt brothers are likely to raise for the eventual Republican nominee. And Donald Trump told ABC News that he's willing to spend $600 million of his own money if he decides to run.

Former TARP Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky unloads a broadside on on Tim Geithner and his Treasury Department. My views of Mr. Geithner are a matter of record. He should be fired.

Here's the text of Obama's speech on Libya.

Answering those who think the U.S. should be more involved in Libya:

If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.

I didn't get to see Obama deliver the speech. How do you think he did? And more importantly, do you agree with him?

U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Carlos Pascual is resigning. Pascual's cables, critical of the Mexico President Calderon's handling of the drug war, were among those released by Wikileaks.

The Wikileaks cables on Mexico and the drug war are accessible here.