As the lead puts it:

The Obama administration is openly supporting the anti-government demonstrations shaking the Arab Middle East, a stance that is far less tempered than the one the president has taken during past unrest in the region.

The Post adds that the White House has "thrown U.S. support clearly behind the protesters, speaking daily in favor of free speech and assembly even when the protests target longtime U.S. allies such as Egypt."

The support for demonstrations against Hezbollah, which the U.S. government deems a terrorist organization, is to be expected. In Tunisia, though, the White House approach seemed quite "tempered," in fact. As NYU's Mohamad Bazzi wrote:

As the uprising spread in Tunisia, the administration of President Barack Obama stayed largely silent until the day Mr. Ben Ali fled. That was when Mr. Obama issued a statement condemning the use of violence against peaceful protesters and applauding "the courage and dignity" of Tunisians. By then, it was too late: The U.S.-backed dictator was gone, and the Arab world chalked up another example of how Washington favors stability over democracy.

So where is the evidence that the Obama White House is openly supporting democratic protests? Here is what the Post offers:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that "the Egyptian government has an important opportunity ... to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people." She urged "the Egyptian authorities not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications, including on social media sites."

Well, that's rather mild. Since the Egyptian government would seem to be continuing precisely what Clinton "urged" them not to do, what's been the official response?  The Post also has this:

Asked whether the administration supports Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs replied only: "Egypt is a strong ally."

But the most revealing example might be this (emphasis added):

"Some of the confidence and assertiveness comes from having spent time in government, and now we've identified ways where we want to make our push," said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss White House thinking on the Middle East developments.

And later, presumably from the same "senior official":

"Democracy had been characterized in some quarters as the United States seeking to control countries," said the senior official. "What we've made clear in the last few years is that democracy is important to the United States because of who we are, but not as a means of controlling governments. Quite the contrary, we're supporting a process in Tunisia now that we do not know how it will end or who will emerge as leader."

It's hard to take the premise of the article seriously when the most definitive statements of support for democracy come from anonymous government officials.

In the corporate media, moving to the right and bashing the Democratic base is constantly offered up as a smart move for Democratic politicians. So it was not a surprise when Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank offered a defense of Gibbs' comments (8/12/10):

Gibbs and his colleagues have reason to be frustrated by the constant carping from the professional and semi-pro left. The Gulf oil spill has been plugged, and three-quarters of the oil is gone. Combat in Iraq is ending in a matter of days. Healthcare reform has been enacted. The auto industry is recovering, the bank bailout funds have been repaid, and a depression was averted. Yet the president, instead of getting credit, has received the sort of criticism from his unruly base that the right never bestowed on George W. Bush.

That's a pretty unconvincing case. The fact that the oil spill "has been plugged" is irrelevant; progressives disagreed with Obama's pro-drilling stance, his choice of interior secretary, the administration's failure to address existing problems at the Minerals Management Service (which oversees offshore drilling) and the degree to which the White House seemed either disengaged on this issue or acting more on BP's behalf than the public's.

"Combat in Iraq is ending in a matter of days"? That would be a surprise. If Milbank means the U.S. troop withdrawal, then yes that is happening. That policy was a continuation of George W. Bush's drawdown plan. The massive troop increase in Afghanistan, meanwhile, was opposed by the left--and is unmentioned in the column.

On healthcare, the left's critique (familiar to everyone who followed the debate) was that the White House stripped out the most progressive aspects of the reform bill, such as the public option (never mind the failure to even raise single-payer as a serious option).

The fact that bailout funds "have been repaid" does not address the criticism that the subsequent Wall Street/financial sector reforms were weak, or that the bailout itself  was structured to benefit certain Wall Street giants (Goldman Sachs, for instance).

Averting a depression is, of course, a good thing; the criticism from the left is that the federal government hasn't done enough to combat unemployment, and that the economic stimulus was smaller than it needed to be (a decision launched in a futile attempt to attract GOP support).

Looking back to this post on the FAIR Blog, I was reminded that Milbank was defending the Obama White House against left-wing agitators back in December. His main point then was that Obama's escalation of the Afghan war "is above all a pragmatic, nonideological strategy." Opposing it, then, is crazy;  Obama supporters should instead "applaud this sort of thoughtful, methodical leadership." Milbank singled out Michael Moore, Arianna Huffington and Code Pink for not having the good sense to support a president who does something they fundamentally disagree with. It was a strange argument then, and it's a strange argument now. But it's not surprising that Beltway pundits would approve of Gibbs' base-bashing.

party leaders also tried to improve the gloomy prognosis. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, reversing course from comments he made over the weekend, said Tuesday he now believed Democrats would retain control of the House, a sentiment shared by the House majority leader, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland.

It's odd, then, to look at what actually Gibbs said on NBC's Meet the Press--which does not seem at all controversial:

DAVID GREGORY: Two final points.  First of all, I want to get a prediction from you on, back on the political debate.  Is the House in jeopardy, the majority for the Democrats in the House, in jeopardy?

ROBERT GIBBS: I think there's no doubt that there are a lot of seats that will be up, a lot of contested seats.  I think people are going to have a choice to make in the fall.  But I think there's no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control.  There's no doubt about that. This will depend on strong campaigns by Democrats. And again, I think we've got to take the issues to them.  You know, are--do you want to put into the speakership of the House, a guy who thinks that the financial calamity is, is tantamount to an ant?  The guy who's the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Joe Barton, started his congressional testimony of the CEO of BP by apologizing, not to the people in the Gulf, but to the CEO.  I think that's a perfect window, not into what people are thinking, but the way they would govern.  Joe Barton, John Boehner, those are the type of things you'll hear a lot, I think, from both the president and local candidates about what you'd get if the Republicans were to gain control.

Somehow this message--that mathematically speaking the Republicans could win in November if Democrats do not run strong campaigns--is the one Beltway pundits and reporters misrepresented and seized on.

A  more revealing exchange in the same Meet the Press interview came when host David Gregory asked a question that was essentially posed from the left, wondering if Obama's campaign rhetoric about breaking with Bush-era practices had been all talk:

The promise to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, yet it's still open. The Afghanistan war is not scaled down, it's been escalated. This administration has upheld the state secrets exemption in its pursuit of terrorists legally. It appears the worst-kept secret in Washington is that there appears to be abandoned plans to put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in front of a civilian trial. Same strategy for North Korea and Iran, basically.

Gibbs'  response was to argue that the Obama White House has outflanked the Bush administration to the right on some of these issues--a much more revealing window into White House thinking than Gibbs' completely uncontroversial take on the midterms.

GIBBS: I hate to interrupt, but let's understand this. We have the toughest sanctions on North Korea that we've ever had as a result of unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution.

GREGORY: Same strategy. Same strategy.

GIBBS: Same strategy...

GREGORY: Pursued by the Bush administration.

GIBBS: More important, better tactics. We've got the strongest sanctions regime on Iran that has ever been in place. And, David, go back...

GREGORY: Same strategy as the Bush administration.

GIBBS: But, but understand--let's go back to the Bush administration.

GREGORY: Yeah.

GIBBS: You brought this up. I know the next panel's going to say I blamed this all on the Bush administration...

GREGORY: No, no, no. But can I just finish?

GIBBS: But--let me...

GREGORY: The predicate here, which is, is it harder to do a reversal from Bush foreign policy than you originally thought?

GIBBS: No, because I think you've greatly oversimplified it. It--if you ask Ed Gillespie, ask any of the folks that you had right now, if in September of 2008 or October of 2008 or November of 2008 whether China and Russia were going to come on board for strengthening sanctions against Iran. The answer to that would be a flat no. You wouldn't have gotten to the Security Council because you would have had at least two countries raise their hand to veto those. This president has put together a coalition that includes Russia and China, that's actually strengthened our sanctions regime on South Korea [sic]. We have better relationships with virtually every country in the world as a result of the president's foreign policy outreach. We're reducing nuclear weapons in this world that we know can cause the type of calamity, whether they accidentally launch or whether they fell into the hands of a terrorist. There's no doubt, David, that we have taken foreign policy in a different direction. We have improved relationships with countries, but not just as a means to an ends. That's actually making our country safer and more secure as a result. I think you created, oversimplified, sort of, what the president is trying to do, because the things that he's instituted couldn't have been done in the last administration.

"Same strategy...better tactics." If that's the new White House motto, that's a lot more newsworthy than saying that Democrats are going to have to work hard to win the midterms.

In explaining why it was OK to sock a new 5.4 percent tax on the highest earners in this country--to pay for healthcare reform--President Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said this:

"The president believes that the richest 1 percent of this country has had a pretty good run of it for many, many, many years."

Ah. So that’s it. The old "You’ve had it good enough for long enough" policy. That’s why a family earning a million dollars a year should now cough up $54,000 of that--in addition to all the other taxes it pays--to cover healthcare for people who may not pay a penny of new tax themselves.

But a family making $1 million a year wouldn't pay an extra $54,000 in taxes from the proposed 5.4 percent surcharge--because that surcharge would only apply to income beyond the first million dollars of income. A smaller surcharge would kick in at $350,000, and increase at $500,000--but the total tax increase for a couple making $1 million would be $9,000, or one-sixth of what Albom claimed was a "grossly overweighted tax."

This is how taxes generally work, with marginal tax rates that apply to income over a certain level. You'd think that Albom, who has an MBA from Columbia University, would be familiar with the concept. But media outlets have been known to trip up on this subject, even when their stories are prepared in conjunction with tax experts (FAIR Action Alert, 9/22/08).

Albom's charge that the Obama administration is "engag[ing] in the worst and most destructive form of politics: class warfare" is also a familiar corporate media trope (Extra!, 1-2/01). Given that for the media, "class warfare" is almost always waged by the bottom against the top, it's perhaps not surprising that Albom has trouble figuring out what Gibbs means when he says that " the richest 1 percent of this country has had a pretty good run of it for many, many, many years." (Albom speculates that he's "suggest[ing] that the top 1 percent are a bunch of Bernie Madoffs, that they’ve been scheming their way to riches, evading the system, hiding their money in complicated offshore deals.")

Gibbs is presumably referring to data compiled by the Congressional Budget Office (CBPP, 4/17/09) showing that income for the top 1 percent has climbed by 256 percent from 1979 to 2006, while the take-home for middle-income households has grown by only 21 percent; for poor households, growth was just 11 percent. The share of all after-tax income that's gone to the top 1 percent has more than doubled since 1979, from 7.5 percent to 16.3 percent.  You might say they've had "a pretty good run."