Mr. Green misses the point completely.  The idea is not to crush the opposition.  The idea is consider the country and the people and how they will be best served.  It's the art of negotiation, not domination. 

The next negotiation should be over spending.  Both sides will not like the result of that either.  But to put the economy on the right track both sides of the taxing/spending coin need to contribute.

Obama seems to actually like Boehner.  He should do exactly what Green says over the debt limit...go for the nuclear option and solve all three issues.

I think that Obama made a deal this time in order to keep Boehner as the most likely speaker for the next two years.  The others being nominated for speaker would likely have been hard to work with.

Once again, the liberal punditry can only see this in political terms. Obama could have held on for MORE tax increases, affecting more people, Green whines. But, true to form, he completely ignores the elephant in the room: spending. Government spending under Obama has skyrocketed. Some of it has been entitlements, but much of it has been discretionary. This is why we have trillion dollar deficits-increased spending during a flat economy. NEW PARAGRAPH: if only we could tax our way out of this, more Americans would support this approach. But Obama, and his liberal pundit friends have no desire to reduce the deficit. Raising taxes is like a religion to them, they believe it is the right thing to do, even if it does nothing to reduce our deficit. America's slouch toward Greek style bankruptcy continues, while the president and the media do a victory dance for raising tax rates.

It makes me feel so confident in our elected leaders. I liked it better when they were on their extended vacations. 16 trillion and counting.

I think this column is beneath the intellectual standards of The Boston Globe. Or should be. Green focuses on the partisan extremes and his articulation of what each such group has wanted to see, then says that compromise of last year satisfied nobody. But all he really shows is that it didn't satisfy either set of partisan extremes. To which I say Thank God. This article treats the whole thing as though it's an us vs them debate. Here's the news for Mr Green: it's all us. If you just reframe this article as a look at partisan dynamics and the chess moves involved, then it's an acceptable piece of analytical conjecture. But if you look at partisan dynamics at the extreme edges as the measure by which we judge success or failure for our nation's political actions, then you're part of the problem in my opinion. I'm very disappointed in the process regarding the cliff, but not at all for the reasons Green puts forth. 

Mr. Green seems to mis an important but not so obvious point here.  None of the major players wanted to go over the cliff.  All of the major players seem to be looking at the best interests of the country.  Will the R's be willing to go over the debt ceiling cliff?  Some of the knuckleheads who don't care what happen to the rest of us will, but I honestly don't think McConnell or Boehner for that matter want to default on bills the US alread owes.  Beyond that I think Obama may well play the 14th on debt ceiling.  Continuing resolutions etc. may well be knock down drag outs and the R's may force the govt. to close.  However, the end result of that won't be much different than the last time they did it.  The country in general, (I know some here don't care what happens to the economy as long as their ideology wins out), has no stomach for this obstructionism.  Speaking purely politically I think the R's are treading on very thing ice and are beginning to look to nothing more than a southern, rural party representing nothing more than a small slice of the American public.  

What we need is a complete revision of the tax code and a long hard look at how defense monies, entitlement funds and discretionary are spent.

I consider myself a progressive, and any practical progressive must understand that there has to be room for compromise. Could Obama have held out for more? Most likely, but at what expense: taxpayer angst, markets tanking and more counter-productive finger-pointing? Not a good way to start a new year and a new term.

The real test will of Obama's mettle will come with the debt ceiling and spending cuts. And guess what, folks? There needs to be spending cuts, tax reform and changes to Medicare and Social Security. Someone in this age of winner-take-all politics has to be a leader and an adult.

I suppose that if a deal had not been struck, then the stock market would have taken a dive along with everyones 401K's. What really should be done is remove the pensions from Congress, put them on 401K plans and they can eat it just like us.

Joshua is nailing things down real nice. . . Instead of being a mensch like he wants so awfully much to portray himself, Barry the O is turning into a schlimazel, especially on American government fiscal policy. Joshua should have included one other sentence in his credibly readable commentary: the President should spend less time lecturing the public and more time watching cable television where he can view advertisements for a number of testosterone supplement products.

the more you look at this the bigger sham it becomes. All it does is hurt 77% of us while protecting big companies - something Democrats like Obama were supposed to abhor.......

President Obama is showing his maturity that's all, whether you voted for him or not, the fact is he inherited a mess and he's trying to keep the ball moving forward, as best he can, consistent with his values, you may not agree with some or all of those values, but he is our President and he was elected to a 2nd term. He doesn't have to make a point, he's trying to make progress and he wants to make progress, but he has to do it with the Congress he has to work with, Bill Clinton figured that out in his 2nd Term as well. Except for the folks in the Congress on the fringes, they all know they have to move forward with implementing many of the recommendations and framework laid out by Erskin Bolwes and Alan Simpson. Our system of government is supposed to be contentious at times, but it does not mean in the end idealogical foes can't comprise and find some common ground that's ultimately in the best interest of the country. Our system of government works best when the power is divided, that's the type of government we get the best policy and legislation out of and I for one hope to see more  of it in the coming year. We're going to be fine if the President and the Congress do their part and we the citizens do ours, as best as we can, with whatever we've got in the tank any given day.              

Mr. Green, The president did raises taxes on those making greater than around 250,000 by restoring the phaseouts of personal and itemiized deductions.  I hope this makes you happy. I doubt it will though.