Let me finish tonight with this: "The time has come for all good men [and women] to come to the aid of their party."
That's an old typing drill. It could also be a call-to-arms for the Obama Democrats.
He's raised the banner of economic fairness--can't be more Democratic than that. He's said that Americans should share the cost of government fairly. That's what the Buffett Rule is all about! He's said that those at the top, that 1 percent, shouldn't be getting special tax deals while other people are facing cuts in life-and-death benefits.
Sounds like FDR, Harry Truman and Bill Clinton rolled into one.
So what's the objection? Why are some New York-based Democrats rallying, not to the Democratic cause, but to Wall Street?
Tougher point: does the President have the right to set the course of a campaign, or doesn't he? If President Obama stakes out the position that the Democratic Party should fight the good fight of economic fairness, why are people out there saying that he should be taking up the cause of those who make the most of unfair tax laws, who benefit from earned income being treated as capital gains, who benefit from an overall preference that's given to money made off money over money made from making goods and delivering services?
The question for Democrats, especially the big ones who can get on television, is where their primary loyalty lies. Whom do they fear upsetting the most? The leader of their party? Or the people in the financial industry who just hate it when Democrats say out loud what they have long claimed as their party heritage: to look out for the people who need looking out for the most.