I have been saying for a long time now that President Obama is the world's worst negotiator and has absolutely no interest in fighting for progressive principles. I didn't make this up out of the whole cloth. I voted for the guy and I desperately wanted him to succeed. But my job is to cover politics and when you cover Obama all you see is him running for cover.

Let me give you a small example nobody talks about, but I think is telling. After Gabby Giffords was shot, his administration indicated that he would do a major speech on gun control ... later. I told my audience that was not going to happen. Why? Because I know Obama. He hates, hates, hates conflict. And he would never take on an issue where he did not have overwhelming support. It's not in his nature.

Of course, there was no major speech. Instead there was a small op-ed buried in a local Arizona paper (a lot of times they write op-eds when they don't want any video out there that can be used in campaign commercials or repeated on the evening news that night). But that wasn't even the telling part. There were about half a dozen issues he could have addressed on gun control. The major one after the shooting was how many bullets a magazine could hold. Would he address that? Of course, not!

It turned out that he advocated for every position that polled over 67%. But, alas, the magazine issue only polled at 51% -- not good enough for Obama. He has the majority of Americans behind him, this was the major issue being discussed at the time and he has an incredible moment to tell this story -- and he left it out of the editorial. It's hard to imagine a politician more timid. It's almost as if he is trying to be the exact opposite of Bush -- all brains, no guts.

These days many are also wondering about the brains part. Has he not been paying attention to Republicans at all? Is he awake? Could any sentient person actually believe they were going to compromise this time around, let alone the next time? He was out there this morning talking about how he is looking forward to compromising with Republicans again over the Super Committee.

Unfortunately, that is the only guiding principle Obama has -- compromise. But that is no principle at all. What if I wanted to sell you a car for $10,000 and you offered me $1? Would compromise dictate that I sell it to you for $5,000? For $2? What if the car is really worth about $10,000, should I compromise anyway? Compromise is a tactic, it's not a principle. It doesn't give you the right answer. It is sometimes necessary, but offers no guidance in what should be the final outcome.

Can anyone name Obama's principles? Something he will not bend on? A progressive priority he will defend to the end?

Does Obama even think of himself as a progressive? He once pointed to a glass half-filled with water and told Sen. Bernie Sanders, "That's the problem with you progressives. You see this as half-empty." You progressives?

But does anyone think that the guy who hired Tim Geithner, Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers, William Daley, Peter Orszag, Ben Bernanke, etc. is remotely progressive? If you looked throughout the whole country, could you find more conservative, establishment Democrats? Barely, if at all. And, of course, some of those guys aren't even Democrats.

But finally, it isn't just us on the "professional left" pointing this out. After yet another unconditional surrender in the debt ceiling talks, he's hit his tipping point. Just go talk to any group of liberals in the country and see if half of them aren't incredibly pissed off at him. I do it all the time and their whispers of discontent has grown into a cacophony.

Finally, nearly every progressive commentator is talking about his profound weakness, if it even is that and not something worse (some have started to question whether he even wants to win on progressive issues or if he is fundamentally conservative).

Now, the Obama supporters won't believe this either. They'll blame the messenger as usual. But go ahead, ignore this message at your peril. Apparently, the people at the White House think they're such geniuses. "Did you know it turns out centrists decide elections?" This is the kind of politics you learn in third grade and they think they're playing three dimensional chess. Yes, independents are important, but they hate weakness in their leaders. Giving the Republicans everything they want every single time doesn't appeal to any independents and will lead to half of your own voters staying at home.

How did he not see that the Republicans would bludgeon him with the lack of jobs after he agreed to their spending cuts -- which would only lower the number of jobs in the country? How could anyone not see that and think they know anything about politics?

A young woman I talked to at the airport last week said that she will not vote in the next election. I hate to hear that. I think if you don't vote, you have no right to complain the next time around. You have voluntarily ceded your voice in this democracy. I told her that and she said, "After Obama, what is there left to hope for?"

If the clever guys at the White House don't realize they've hit their tipping point, they're in for a rude awakening when that tsunami washes over them. They're headed into the 30s in the polls and I don't think they have any clue how to get out of there. They don't even know that they're about to hit an iceberg. They think they're just one more compromise from turning the corner.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Like The Young Turks on Facebook: www.facebook.com/tytnation

I have been saying for a long time now that President Obama is the world's worst negotiator and has absolutely no interest in fighting for progressive principles. I didn't make this up out of the whole cloth. I voted for the guy and I desperately wanted him to succeed. But my job is to cover politics and when you cover Obama all you see is him running for cover.

Let me give you a small example nobody talks about, but I think is telling. After Gabby Giffords was shot, his administration indicated that he would do a major speech on gun control ... later. I told my audience that was not going to happen. Why? Because I know Obama. He hates, hates, hates conflict. And he would never take on an issue where he did not have overwhelming support. It's not in his nature.

Of course, there was no major speech. Instead there was a small op-ed buried in a local Arizona paper (a lot of times they write op-eds when they don't want any video out there that can be used in campaign commercials or repeated on the evening news that night). But that wasn't even the telling part. There were about half a dozen issues he could have addressed on gun control. The major one after the shooting was how many bullets a magazine could hold. Would he address that? Of course, not!

It turned out that he advocated for every position that polled over 67%. But, alas, the magazine issue only polled at 51% -- not good enough for Obama. He has the majority of Americans behind him, this was the major issue being discussed at the time and he has an incredible moment to tell this story -- and he left it out of the editorial. It's hard to imagine a politician more timid. It's almost as if he is trying to be the exact opposite of Bush -- all brains, no guts.

These days many are also wondering about the brains part. Has he not been paying attention to Republicans at all? Is he awake? Could any sentient person actually believe they were going to compromise this time around, let alone the next time? He was out there this morning talking about how he is looking forward to compromising with Republicans again over the Super Committee.

Unfortunately, that is the only guiding principle Obama has -- compromise. But that is no principle at all. What if I wanted to sell you a car for $10,000 and you offered me $1? Would compromise dictate that I sell it to you for $5,000? For $2? What if the car is really worth about $10,000, should I compromise anyway? Compromise is a tactic, it's not a principle. It doesn't give you the right answer. It is sometimes necessary, but offers no guidance in what should be the final outcome.

Can anyone name Obama's principles? Something he will not bend on? A progressive priority he will defend to the end?

Does Obama even think of himself as a progressive? He once pointed to a glass half-filled with water and told Sen. Bernie Sanders, "That's the problem with you progressives. You see this as half-empty." You progressives?

But does anyone think that the guy who hired Tim Geithner, Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers, William Daley, Peter Orszag, Ben Bernanke, etc. is remotely progressive? If you looked throughout the whole country, could you find more conservative, establishment Democrats? Barely, if at all. And, of course, some of those guys aren't even Democrats.

But finally, it isn't just us on the "professional left" pointing this out. After yet another unconditional surrender in the debt ceiling talks, he's hit his tipping point. Just go talk to any group of liberals in the country and see if half of them aren't incredibly pissed off at him. I do it all the time and their whispers of discontent has grown into a cacophony.

Finally, nearly every progressive commentator is talking about his profound weakness, if it even is that and not something worse (some have started to question whether he even wants to win on progressive issues or if he is fundamentally conservative).

Now, the Obama supporters won't believe this either. They'll blame the messenger as usual. But go ahead, ignore this message at your peril. Apparently, the people at the White House think they're such geniuses. "Did you know it turns out centrists decide elections?" This is the kind of politics you learn in third grade and they think they're playing three dimensional chess. Yes, independents are important, but they hate weakness in their leaders. Giving the Republicans everything they want every single time doesn't appeal to any independents and will lead to half of your own voters staying at home.

How did he not see that the Republicans would bludgeon him with the lack of jobs after he agreed to their spending cuts -- which would only lower the number of jobs in the country? How could anyone not see that and think they know anything about politics?

A young woman I talked to at the airport last week said that she will not vote in the next election. I hate to hear that. I think if you don't vote, you have no right to complain the next time around. You have voluntarily ceded your voice in this democracy. I told her that and she said, "After Obama, what is there left to hope for?"

If the clever guys at the White House don't realize they've hit their tipping point, they're in for a rude awakening when that tsunami washes over them. They're headed into the 30s in the polls and I don't think they have any clue how to get out of there. They don't even know that they're about to hit an iceberg. They think they're just one more compromise from turning the corner.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Like The Young Turks on Facebook: www.facebook.com/tytnation

I have been saying for a long time now that President Obama is the world's worst negotiator and has absolutely no interest in fighting for progressive principles. I didn't make this up out of the whole cloth. I voted for the guy and I desperately wanted him to succeed. But my job is to cover politics and when you cover Obama all you see is him running for cover.

Let me give you a small example nobody talks about, but I think is telling. After Gabby Giffords was shot, his administration indicated that he would do a major speech on gun control ... later. I told my audience that was not going to happen. Why? Because I know Obama. He hates, hates, hates conflict. And he would never take on an issue where he did not have overwhelming support. It's not in his nature.

Of course, there was no major speech. Instead there was a small op-ed buried in a local Arizona paper (a lot of times they write op-eds when they don't want any video out there that can be used in campaign commercials or repeated on the evening news that night). But that wasn't even the telling part. There were about half a dozen issues he could have addressed on gun control. The major one after the shooting was how many bullets a magazine could hold. Would he address that? Of course, not!

It turned out that he advocated for every position that polled over 67%. But, alas, the magazine issue only polled at 51% -- not good enough for Obama. He has the majority of Americans behind him, this was the major issue being discussed at the time and he has an incredible moment to tell this story -- and he left it out of the editorial. It's hard to imagine a politician more timid. It's almost as if he is trying to be the exact opposite of Bush -- all brains, no guts.

These days many are also wondering about the brains part. Has he not been paying attention to Republicans at all? Is he awake? Could any sentient person actually believe they were going to compromise this time around, let alone the next time? He was out there this morning talking about how he is looking forward to compromising with Republicans again over the Super Committee.

Unfortunately, that is the only guiding principle Obama has -- compromise. But that is no principle at all. What if I wanted to sell you a car for $10,000 and you offered me $1? Would compromise dictate that I sell it to you for $5,000? For $2? What if the car is really worth about $10,000, should I compromise anyway? Compromise is a tactic, it's not a principle. It doesn't give you the right answer. It is sometimes necessary, but offers no guidance in what should be the final outcome.

Can anyone name Obama's principles? Something he will not bend on? A progressive priority he will defend to the end?

Does Obama even think of himself as a progressive? He once pointed to a glass half-filled with water and told Sen. Bernie Sanders, "That's the problem with you progressives. You see this as half-empty." You progressives?

But does anyone think that the guy who hired Tim Geithner, Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers, William Daley, Peter Orszag, Ben Bernanke, etc. is remotely progressive? If you looked throughout the whole country, could you find more conservative, establishment Democrats? Barely, if at all. And, of course, some of those guys aren't even Democrats.

But finally, it isn't just us on the "professional left" pointing this out. After yet another unconditional surrender in the debt ceiling talks, he's hit his tipping point. Just go talk to any group of liberals in the country and see if half of them aren't incredibly pissed off at him. I do it all the time and their whispers of discontent has grown into a cacophony.

Finally, nearly every progressive commentator is talking about his profound weakness, if it even is that and not something worse (some have started to question whether he even wants to win on progressive issues or if he is fundamentally conservative).

Now, the Obama supporters won't believe this either. They'll blame the messenger as usual. But go ahead, ignore this message at your peril. Apparently, the people at the White House think they're such geniuses. "Did you know it turns out centrists decide elections?" This is the kind of politics you learn in third grade and they think they're playing three dimensional chess. Yes, independents are important, but they hate weakness in their leaders. Giving the Republicans everything they want every single time doesn't appeal to any independents and will lead to half of your own voters staying at home.

How did he not see that the Republicans would bludgeon him with the lack of jobs after he agreed to their spending cuts -- which would only lower the number of jobs in the country? How could anyone not see that and think they know anything about politics?

A young woman I talked to at the airport last week said that she will not vote in the next election. I hate to hear that. I think if you don't vote, you have no right to complain the next time around. You have voluntarily ceded your voice in this democracy. I told her that and she said, "After Obama, what is there left to hope for?"

If the clever guys at the White House don't realize they've hit their tipping point, they're in for a rude awakening when that tsunami washes over them. They're headed into the 30s in the polls and I don't think they have any clue how to get out of there. They don't even know that they're about to hit an iceberg. They think they're just one more compromise from turning the corner.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Like The Young Turks on Facebook: www.facebook.com/tytnation

New CBS News poll out confirms every other poll we've seen on the topic - the American people are solidly against tax cuts for the rich.

53% of respondents said there should only be tax cuts for the middle class and no tax cuts for people making over $250,000. That's the number most people in the media are using, but that's not quite accurate. Another 14% said they don't want tax cuts for anybody, including the top bracket. So, the reality is that an overwhelming 67% of the country don't want tax cuts for the rich (including 52% of Republican voters!). Only 26% said that everyone should get a tax cut, including the rich.

So, let's do the math for people who are a little slow. That's 67% to 26%. That's a crushing 41% lead. If it was an election, that margin would be so large they would think it was rigged. The group that doesn't want tax cuts for the rich is more than two and half times the group that does.

If that weren't enough, there is an internal memo being sent around to Democrats on the Hill by Anzalone Liszt Research that shows that 77% of Americans would let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire if the extra money went toward helping small businesses and balancing the budget. 77%!!!

Now, as a politician, how stupid do you have to be on the other side of this issue?

But that's not entirely fair because the Republicans have built their entire party on being on the other side of this issue and they're doing well. Why? Because they get handsomely compensated by those same millionaires and billionaires who benefit from the tax cuts. They use the money they collect from those guys into deceiving the American people into voting for them during the elections. That sucks for the rest of us, but at least that makes sense. There is a logical reason for them to take the more unpopular side of this equation.

Democrats on the other hand just got their ass kicked by that money spent to make sure they lose. Now, they would like to do a favor for the people who just killed them in the election and in the meanwhile take a position that 67% to 77% of the American people are against. How stupid do you have to be to do that?

That is the position of the Obama administration right now as they argue for a "compromise" where they extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich for another two years. Even Pat Buchanan laughed on-air and said that's no compromise at all. That's complete victory for the GOP. Remember, in two years there will be a new president - and if it's a Republican, the tax cuts will be extended forever. Complete and utter victory for one side. Complete and utter capitulation for the other side. Pathetic.

Of course, there are two other explanations for the actions of Obama White House. The first one is that they're not dumb, they are embarrassingly weak. They know they should side with 67% of the American people, they know they shouldn't help the people who crushed them in the last election, they know they are showing no leadership by constantly cratering to the other side, but they can't help themselves. It is in Obama's nature to always compromise, no matter what the situation is. He hates to fight. He is No Drama Obama. He will do anything to avoid a confrontation, including giving the other side exactly what they want in the guise of a sage and tempered compromise.

The last possible explanation is the worst of all. He is complicit. He is among the top 2%. So is nearly everyone he knows. Everyone in his bubble is rich, fabulously rich. So, all of the people he knows thinks it's a brilliant idea to give more tax cuts to the rich, namely them. Plus, most of the Democrats also get campaign donations from the millionaires and billionaires. Though it's self-destructive in the long run because those guys will always give more to the Republicans, they can't wean themselves off of that money. So, they go along with whatever their rich funders want.

All three options are sickening. But there is no fourth option. No one in their right mind can possibly think that opposing at least 67% of the American people to help the political opposition is a good political idea.

And one last note, when President Obama agrees to this and they add another $140 billion dollars to the deficit over the next two years because of these tax cuts for the rich, who do you think the Republicans will blame for that deficit? You guessed it, the man who just gave them everything they wanted -- Barack Obama.

Come on, how stupid do you have to be? Or at least, I hope they're just stupid and not the other options.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Become a Fan of The Young Turks: www.facebook.com/tytnation

New CBS News poll out confirms every other poll we've seen on the topic - the American people are solidly against tax cuts for the rich.

53% of respondents said there should only be tax cuts for the middle class and no tax cuts for people making over $250,000. That's the number most people in the media are using, but that's not quite accurate. Another 14% said they don't want tax cuts for anybody, including the top bracket. So, the reality is that an overwhelming 67% of the country don't want tax cuts for the rich (including 52% of Republican voters!). Only 26% said that everyone should get a tax cut, including the rich.

So, let's do the math for people who are a little slow. That's 67% to 26%. That's a crushing 41% lead. If it was an election, that margin would be so large they would think it was rigged. The group that doesn't want tax cuts for the rich is more than two and half times the group that does.

If that weren't enough, there is an internal memo being sent around to Democrats on the Hill by Anzalone Liszt Research that shows that 77% of Americans would let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire if the extra money went toward helping small businesses and balancing the budget. 77%!!!

Now, as a politician, how stupid do you have to be on the other side of this issue?

But that's not entirely fair because the Republicans have built their entire party on being on the other side of this issue and they're doing well. Why? Because they get handsomely compensated by those same millionaires and billionaires who benefit from the tax cuts. They use the money they collect from those guys into deceiving the American people into voting for them during the elections. That sucks for the rest of us, but at least that makes sense. There is a logical reason for them to take the more unpopular side of this equation.

Democrats on the other hand just got their ass kicked by that money spent to make sure they lose. Now, they would like to do a favor for the people who just killed them in the election and in the meanwhile take a position that 67% to 77% of the American people are against. How stupid do you have to be to do that?

That is the position of the Obama administration right now as they argue for a "compromise" where they extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich for another two years. Even Pat Buchanan laughed on-air and said that's no compromise at all. That's complete victory for the GOP. Remember, in two years there will be a new president - and if it's a Republican, the tax cuts will be extended forever. Complete and utter victory for one side. Complete and utter capitulation for the other side. Pathetic.

Of course, there are two other explanations for the actions of Obama White House. The first one is that they're not dumb, they are embarrassingly weak. They know they should side with 67% of the American people, they know they shouldn't help the people who crushed them in the last election, they know they are showing no leadership by constantly cratering to the other side, but they can't help themselves. It is in Obama's nature to always compromise, no matter what the situation is. He hates to fight. He is No Drama Obama. He will do anything to avoid a confrontation, including giving the other side exactly what they want in the guise of a sage and tempered compromise.

The last possible explanation is the worst of all. He is complicit. He is among the top 2%. So is nearly everyone he knows. Everyone in his bubble is rich, fabulously rich. So, all of the people he knows thinks it's a brilliant idea to give more tax cuts to the rich, namely them. Plus, most of the Democrats also get campaign donations from the millionaires and billionaires. Though it's self-destructive in the long run because those guys will always give more to the Republicans, they can't wean themselves off of that money. So, they go along with whatever their rich funders want.

All three options are sickening. But there is no fourth option. No one in their right mind can possibly think that opposing at least 67% of the American people to help the political opposition is a good political idea.

And one last note, when President Obama agrees to this and they add another $140 billion dollars to the deficit over the next two years because of these tax cuts for the rich, who do you think the Republicans will blame for that deficit? You guessed it, the man who just gave them everything they wanted -- Barack Obama.

Come on, how stupid do you have to be? Or at least, I hope they're just stupid and not the other options.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Become a Fan of The Young Turks: www.facebook.com/tytnation