Rather than rehash why I think "The Deal," which appears to be doing for President Obama's popularity what "The Decision" did for LeBron James' popularity, is a terrible mistake (looking through the writings in the blogs on it, my thoughts are in mostly in line with David Dayen's, the President is trading government spending stimulus for tax cut stimulus in the short term (watch the GOP slash spending in the next budget) AND destroying the long term outlook for funding critical government programs such as Medicaid at the same time), I'm going to offer my view of what the President might do to limit the damage of this terrible decision. Greg Sargent gets at a major problem for Obama:

Former president Bill Clinton joined President Obama in the briefing room today where Clinton endorsed Obama's tax cut deal with Republicans.

I heard a large segment on the radio driving back from the jail. Clinton clearly misses the spotlight. Obama left (saying he had already kept the first lady waiting 30 minutes) and Clinton kept taking questions, even after Robert Gibbs called "last question."

Clinton said the deal is the best alternatives for Americans. Can he sway enough Democrats?

The Washington Post has this graphic on what the tax deal means for you.

President Obama has granted nine pardons, the first of his presidency. Four people who received light sentences for low level cocaine offenses, none of whom are now in prison, got pardons.

Four of the cases involve people convicted of possessing cocaine who were given sentences that the president deemed excessive.

Is the President clueless as to the draconian sentences being served today by drug offenders? Here are the sentences he deemed excessive and deserving of a pardon -- all completed a long time ago.

• Roxane Kay Hettinger, Powder Springs, Ga., sentenced in 1986 to 30 days in jail and three years of probation for conspiracy to distribute cocaine.

• Timothy James Gallagher of Navasota, Texas, sentenced in 1982 to three years of probation for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine.

• Floretta Leavy of Rockford, Ill., who was sentenced to a year and a day in prison in Kansas in 1984 on a drug-possession conviction.

• Edgar Leopold Kranz Jr. of Minot, N.D., who received 24 months of confinement and a reduction in pay for wrongful use of cocaine, adultery and writing bounced checks.

Really, really disappointing.

For much of the Obama Administration, some have defended its actions by arguing that you need 60 votes in the Senate to do anything. Whatever the merits of that argument, it surely does not apply with regard to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which merely requires Obama's resolve on the matter.

That resolve appears to be lacking and it seems we will be soon seeing a headline that reads "Obama Extends Bush Tax Cuts." One of the points I have consistently attempted to make is that demonstrating resolve is essential in a negotiation. Today, E.J. Dionne writes:

Surely there is a pressing need for school uniforms legislation, no? This is a mistake.

Speaking for me only

Paul Krugman:

What’s striking about Spain, from an American perspective, is how much its economic story resembles our own. Like America, Spain experienced a huge property bubble, accompanied by a huge rise in private-sector debt. Like America, Spain fell into recession when that bubble burst, and has experienced a surge in unemployment. And like America, Spain has seen its budget deficit balloon thanks to plunging revenues and recession-related costs. But unlike America, Spain is on the edge of a debt crisis. [MORE . . .]

President Obama got 12 stitches in his lip today after an errant elbow hit him during a basketball game. Who's the perp? Rey Decerega, director of programs for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute.

Maybe he'll feel better when he learns his new children's book has made the Times best seller list.

Via dday, 18 Senators write a letter asking for "changes" to the HAMP program. That's nice I guess.

Here's my letter - Fire the incompetent and corrupt Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner.

Speaking for me only

In a reprise of the Irrelevant Presidency theme, folks are again trotting out the poor Obama, "if only people had President Obama's back" line. Earlier this week, it was about Obama's powerlessness regarding the Bush tax cuts. Today, Balloon Juice argues the Obama Administration can't try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in a federal court in New York because Governor-Elect Cuomo won't like it. (I actually do not care if KSM is tried in federal court in New York but that is another issue.)

These "defenses" of Obama are not helpful, to the discourse or to Obama. As I previously wrote:

This DKos diary, a classic in the "Leave Obama Alone" genre, does raise the question of what precisely can President Obama do regarding the Bush tax cuts.

First, it is true that the President himself can not enact legislation - he either signs or vetoes whatever the Congress passes. But therein lies the point - the Congress cannot enact legislation without the approval of the President (excepting of course the extremely unlikely possibility that legislation would pass with veto-proof majorities.) Second, if no legislation is passed, the Bush tax cuts simply expire. To wit, the President CAN end the Bush tax cuts by refusing to sign legislation extending the Bush tax cuts. Third, the President and most Democrats in Congress want to enact new middle class tax cuts (in essence the middle class tax cuts portion of the Bush tax cuts.) The GOP and Evan Bayh Democrats are adamant that they will hold the middle class tax cuts hostage to tax cuts for the rich.

So what's the President to do? He clearly has two choices here - (1) hold his ground and veto any legislation that cuts taxes for the rich or (2) capitulate and embrace the Bush tax cuts. There is a possibility in theory of a "decoupling" compromise, where middle class tax cuts are made permanent and the tax cuts for the wealthy are made "temporary." In my view, the GOP will not bite. They will not permit decoupling. So the reality is the President has to decide if this is worth fighting for. My view is, if not this, then what? Contrary to the view expressed in the "Leave Obama Alone" diary, this issue really is about Obama and what he is going to do. For better or worse.

Speaking for me only

President Obama on his Catfood Commission:

"Before anybody starts shooting down proposals, I think we need to listen, we need to gather up all the facts[. . .] If people are, in fact, concerned about spending, debt, deficits and the future of our country, then they're going to need to be armed with the information about the kinds of choices that are going to be involved, and we can't just engage in political rhetoric.

President Obama's advisor David Axelrod on tax cuts for the rich:

Although the president "took the position he felt was the right position" -- favoring a continuation of the cuts only for families earning up to $250,000 -- Axelrod portrayed this "optimal" stance as unrealistic in the lame-duck Congress that begins next week.

The GOP will insist on permanent extension of tax cuts for the wealthy and Obama will capitulate. This may be why:

President Obama is interviewed on 60 minutes tonight about the message of the elections.

I just tuned in. He seems very calm and self-confident.

Steve Croft asked him about the droves of people who voted for him in 2008 that voted for Republicans in 2010. He mentioned the young, the elderly and independents. I wonder if that's even true that droves of those groups who voted for him in 2008 switched. I also don't think you can compare a midterm vote on members of Congress to the vote in a presidential election. The turnout is different.

The interview was conducted negatively, all questions seemed designed to put Obama on the defensive. There was too much emphasis on the Tea Party, as if it will be some major permanent force. Why not give Obama a chance to outline his policies and why they are better? There are still a lot of people, me included, who vastly prefer the Democrats' agenda. And I'll bet they turn out in 2012.

Anyway the interview got pretty boring, it was all tax cuts and economy.