FWIW, a few metaphorical observations about politics and Obama-watching from the world of poker. 

There are poker players who think a game consists of a series of hands, each played as if it were the whole game in and of itself, without reference to what came before or what might happen after.  In the poker world, such players are known as "fish." 

And then there are poker players who play the long game.  Players who ask themselves at each fall of the cards, "what' has happened before and how can I use that now and in the future."  These are the players who will bluff a hand fully intending to get caught so the other players will be more likely to call them on a strong hand later (and, of course, there's always the chance you'll pull it off).  These are the guys who who take what's happened before--even instances in which they made bad decisions and got burned--into account in evaluating how the other players perceive them and who make each new decision with an eye on how the outcome--whatever it may be--can be used later. 

Fish call such players "lucky bastards."  Those who aren't losing money to them call them "pros." 

All of us people out here in the blogosphere and and the commentosphere are "railbirds," live spectators who don't actually know what cards any of the players are holding.  We're used to watching complete dumbasses play--people like Bush and Cheney and Rover any number of other Republicans who think they're brilliant and devious players but who, in fact, are so one-dimensional and predictable that they might as well be playing with their cards face-up.  It made sense to get pissed off in advance of anything they actually did, because their motives, their actions and their intentions were an open book.  They were and still are fish.  The only way they won was by playing even bigger fish.

However, it is clear (to me at least) that Obama plays the game like a pro.  He has lost a few hands here and there, but he's the one who keeps ending up with all the chips at the end of the night.  Just lucky?  Yeah, that's what all the fish say. 

Having concluded that, I've further been compelled to conclude that it's dumb to get my hissy on over any action he takes, or says he may take, because there's too good a chance I'll end up feeling foolish later (if I have any retrospective self-honesty, that is). 

Assuming these reports about tax cuts are accurate--which is always a valid question before someone goes on the record with it--he could be screwing up six ways from Sunday, or he could be playing a game well beyond the comprehension of us railbirds and we won't know until the game--not this one hand, the whole game--is over.  This is going to be maddening to us railbirds, trained as we are, in a school where fish like George W. Bush and Denny Hastert were presented as sharks. However, the truth is that Obama's game is so deep that it's only possible to perceive his real mistakes well after he's made them, by which time, they'll be too old to be outrage-worthy.   Sucks for those of us with an urge to comment in real-time, but we might as well get used to it.