It's only natural for the Obama people to be concerned that a popular backlash could have negative effects on the President, his agenda and the Congress. It's also sensible.

If things don't start improving or if the Obama team starts being perceived as too eagerly servicing the nedds of Wall Street, the natural scapegoats in the public eye will be the people in charge. Now I think Obama, et al have a pretty long leash to run out with the public because it is obvious they didn't cause the mess. The difficulty for Obama and company is whether they will be perceived as sufficiently and competently cleaning it all up.

One of the biggest impediments to making sure the public understands that Obama and his team are competent, etc... is if they look like they are taking care of Wall Street at the expense of the common people of the country and I hate to say it is looking more and more that way. the key phrase here is "look like". It may not be something that can be helped (though I doubt it) and it may not be something that they intend.

It hasn't gone so far that the President's agenda is in trouble, but Geithner and Summers were both intimately involved in creating this financial tsunami. Neither of them inspires any confidence at all in me and I don't think in among the public at large, but that's just my opinion. Perceptions aside, I believe they are not the right people to be in charge of cleaning up the financial sector's mess. Their entire orientation is toward taking care of Wall Street. They are not oriented toward taking care of the average American except in the most sidelong manner. Their performance thus far, even in such a short time span, has, to be charitable, not been impressive. When they look bad it threatens to make the President look bad. If the President looks bad it could weaken him politically, etc, etc, etc...

In fairness, Obama has always been a DLC sort of Democrat which means putting corporate priorities first. That is a potential vulnerability for him that didn't pop up with the advent of the public ire against business. His administration's focus on bailing out the big boys does not serve him well politically and could potentially be damaging. It is my own opinion that is does not serve the nation well in any respect but that's not the main point here since we're really discussing politics and perceptions.

The first quote that appears above is:

"The Obama administration is increasingly concerned about a populist backlash against banks and Wall Street, worried that anger at financial institutions could also end up being directed at Congress and the White House and could complicate President Obama's agenda."

I think that is a fair and reasonable worry on the part of the Obama staff. If they didn't have that concern on their minds they'd be foolish. Remember, this is being presented as what Obama's people are worrying about, not the reporter's opinion. Remember, the point of the quote is that they are worried about the possibility, not that they think it is upon them. I commend them for looking out to the horizon on this. That's what they're supposed to be doing is looking out ahead to keep the President's agenda on course. But part of the potential problem here is the President's agenda itself. If his agenda were more populist, if his rhetoric were more populist, if his representatives were more populist then the likelihood of the backlash problem would be diminished significantly.

Populism is not Obama's natural style it's true. Nor is populism his strong suit. For most of us here at TPM it's okay because we can review his statements and consider what his nuanced words are indicating. But for the average American, that isnt the way this game works. For the average American (who is the type the Obama staff worries most about)the President has fleeting contact and most of it on the tv network news. While the President certainly commands the bully pulpit the precious few seconds he gets each day to leave the right impression with the common folks is what he relies on for continued popular support. So, the staff is worrying about the right stuff here in terms of keeping the popularity of the President as high as possible.

I find your analysis more of a whitewash than an analysis. Obama's Economic Team consisting of Corporate Tim and Corporate Larry have been shoveling public funds as fast as they can to the same bunch who invented "new and improved" financial instruments to make them and their corporate classmates obscenely wealthy and everyone else...well less so. Now this crackerjack team (rivals of whom? the public?) of likeminded corporate hacks "discover" that the AIG criminals continue to enrich themselves at the public's expense. And when there is a public outcry and outrage we hear the usual excuses from Obama apologists. Sorry it doesn't sell. Before Obama picked his team of corporate hacks we were told to wait for POLICY; now that the POLICY is laid bare to anyone with a mind we are again told Obama is entirely blameless. Shovelling money to the same corporate criminals who made this mess is Obama's policy; if he is not happy with it he can change it. If AIG is too big to fail, then nationalize it. Otherwise spare us the excuses and fingerpointing.

Repubs always go back to the class warfare crap.

I just wish we would all admit it is class warfare, it always has been class warfare and it always will be class warfare.

Now go back to that 30's:

WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON? WHICH CLASS DO YOU REPRESENT?

Since I have other things I need to do today, I'm not planning on responding any more comments on this particular blog. I could spend all day writing back to everybody, and I'm sure other readers could spend all day responding back in kind.

However, I have to say I think the debate has been good, if a little heated. It seems a lot of people (myself included) are pretty angry and sad about the prospect of executive bonuses for those in charge of the current economic mess -- in much the same way I'm angry and sad that those who worked in the Bush Administration could get away with their crimes at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. And, I have to admit it is hard for me to reconcile my hope for tougher regulation of banks with confidence in Tim Geithner and Larry Summers when both men have had their hands in the very companies they're bailing out.

As a last thought, I'm still operating under my belief, hope, whatever you want to call it -- that President Obama is on the people's side, and not that of Wall Street. And let's face it, he's pushing a very big agenda right now in only the first couple of months, a bigger agenda that a lot of presidents don't even get to in a single year. There's nobody I'd rather have in charge right now. I don't think Obama's statements against executive pay are just a rope-a-dope, I think he IS serious about it, although I'm always willing to modify that opinion if it continues to be a problem for several months down the road.

As for Geithner and Summers....well, I can still give them the benefit of the doubt too, but I've always preferred Paul Krugman as an economic adviser, myself.

Now that he's in office he's fully accountable for AIG's recent bonuses. Kudos to Obama for trying to claw them back.

But on the other things SuperBowl talks about like the "credit default abuses at the crux of the failing economy" - statements like this prove the point that Obama is trying to cure the symptoms and not the causes. Not enough effort is being spent to fix the banking crisis, the housing crisis and the unemployment crisis. Instead we're interrogating banking CEOs about their credit card rates, about selling naked CDS, green energy, affordable healthcare, forestry service projects, etc.

Obama needs to focus on the core issues: banking, housing and jobs.

All of our leaders in Washington are on autopilot and are failing to look at true resolutions to crisis. I have e-mailed my representatives over and over again and they just do not listen. We can all blame the previous and new administration all day long and they are at fault for not thinking outside of the box. We have a person at the treasury that willingly failed to pay his taxes but he is needed to fix the issues and he has yet to come up with one idea that would.

First off if you are going to give a bail out and give it to the people that need it then it should be coming directly to us and not to a billion dollar corporation that is going to use it to line their own pockets. Here is what I proposed:

1. From the bailout money give every single homeowner 50,000 to 100,000 dollars to pay down debt. Every married couples owning a home 200,000.

This would be used to pay down debt, pay off their homes and stabilize the financial system. They now have liquidity and the so called bad notes and treasures out there would begin to be evaporated.

Non-home owners that are U.S. citizens would receive a lesser amount based on their pay scale.

2. The above would be considered a loan to the American people that need it and tax increases would be implemented to recoup the cost of this bail out. The tax increases would begin in 2011 when the Bush tax cuts are repealed. This would give the economy time to recover before any tax increases go into effect. Based over a 5 to 10 year period all that funds provided for this bail out would be recovered by the federal government.

3. Limit credit cards to the people that take the money. This would ensure they never over extend themselves again.

4. Provide financial planning classes for all high school seniors, college students, and people that have taken the funds. This would ensure we are educating people about their responsibilities and the roles they play in the market. Too many people are just over extended and living beyond their means.

5. Cap interest rates on credit cards. When a card goes from 14.99 percent to 29.99 percent in one month there is an issue. The banks are praying on the situation and causing more delinquency and instability in the market. There is no excuse to have a 35.99 percent interest rate on anything and is down right loan sharking.

This is the basis of the plan and can be expanded up, of course it is too late and we have to suffer through a business and political world that only looks in their own back yard and how it would benefit them. It is about time they all put America and Americans first instead of lining their pockets.