The price for the "cromnibus", this strange hybrid of continuing resolution and omnibus spending bill that will keep government funded in the short-term is entirely too high. By reopening old wounds that would allow financial institutions to engage in the same practices that led to the financial collapse in 2008 and by encouraging even greater opportunities for large donors to corrupt our political system the Obama Administration has sold out the progressive agenda. No deal at all would have been a better deal than this one.

Compromise for the sake of compromise is capitulation, and if this is a precursor for the way this administration intends to operate over the remaining two years the Obama legacy will succeed in being viewed as one of sheer ineptitude. From the very beginning the Obama crowd has shown a rather dismal grasp of the art of negotiating. The stimulus was too small, health care reform was marginalized because the White House took the public option off the table, and an all of the above energy policy refuses to acknowledge the tough choices that need to be made in moving from a fossil-fuel economy to a renewable energy future.

While I have been a strong supporter of the President since the earliest primaries in 2008 and given the lack of anything approaching a viable alternative on the other side of the aisle have given him and his administration the benefit of the doubt on most issues, his ability to negotiate acceptable compromises in a very difficult political environment has always been suspect. By exposing weakness in this very important area of expertise early on he allowed the opposition to be emboldened and reckless.

There was a glimmer of hope that after the pounding Democrats experienced last month finally the administration would proverbially take off the gloves do the right thing so as to at least maximize the potential for achieving good compromises. But this is a very bad compromise and once again it makes the White House and the President appear to be a patsy for the bare knuckles bargaining that will most assuredly commence when a solidly Republican legislature takes the gavel in January.

“I think Elizabeth Warren is going to capitalize on not only her economic populism, but also the social justice aspect,” co-host Kennedy Montgomery anticipated, pointing out that all of the senators who were potential presidential candidates had voted against a recent budget bill that weakened consumer financial protections.

“And she really came out smelling like a rose,” Francis said. “I mean, she said this is a big gift to Wall Street.”

“And I can tell you from talking to people in the financial industry, in banking, on Wall Street, they think she is actually the devil,” the Fox Business host continued. “I mean, without question, Elizabeth Warren is the devil. So, they’re going to put any money they have behind Hillary Clinton, which should be a help.”

Andrea Tantaros argued that Warren’s populist message was a “political winner.”

Her chances are rising because of that word “fight.” The emotional register of the Democratic Party is growing more combative. There’s an underlying and sometimes vituperative sense of frustration toward President Obama, and especially his supposed inability to go to the mat.

Events like the Brown case in Ferguson and the Garner case in New York have raised indignation levels across the progressive spectrum. Judging by recent polls, the midterm defeat has not scared Democrats into supporting the safe option; it’s made them angrier about the whole system. As the party slips more into opposition status, with the next Congress, this aggressive outsider spirit will only grow.

In this era of bad feelings, parties are organized more around what they oppose rather than what they are for. Republicans are against government. Democrats are coalescing around opposition to Wall Street and corporate power. In 2001, 51 percent of Democrats were dissatisfied with the rise of corporate power, according to Gallup surveys. By 2011, 79 percent of Democrats were. According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last month, 58 percent of Democrats said they believed that the economic and political systems were stacked against them.

Clinton is obviously tough, but she just can’t speak with a clear voice against Wall Street and Washington insiders. Warren’s wing shows increasing passion and strength, both in opposing certain Obama nominees and in last week’s budget fight.

The history of populist candidates is that they never actually get the nomination. The establishment wins. That’s still likely. But there is something in the air. The fundamental truth is that every structural and historical advantage favors Clinton, but every day more Democrats embrace the emotion and view defined by Warren.

Elizabeth Warren and a host of Democratic lawmakers are demanding the Obama administration stand up for gay rights.

A coalition of 80 senators and House members spearheaded by the Massachusetts senator—alongside Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Reps. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)—sent a letter Monday to Sylvia Burwell, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, protesting the long-standing prohibition that bars men who have had sex with men from donating blood in the United States.

In 1983, the federal government instituted a lifetime ban for any man who has had sex with another man—even once—at any time after 1977. That rule went into effect during the early days of AIDS panic when the disease was largely unknown. Now, technology exists that can detect HIV within a few weeks of infection.

Last month, an HHS panel that handles blood policy advocated tossing out the lifetime ban—but argued for replacing it with a measure that would keep any sexually active gay man from contributing to the blood supply: a ban on donations from any man who had sex with another man within the past year.

To the Democrats in Congress, that slight improvement isn't nearly enough. The letter calls both the lifetime ban and the one-year deferral policies "discriminatory" and "unacceptable." The lawmakers urged an end to the lifetime ban by the "end of 2014," while also pushing for a less-stringent restriction than the one-year celibacy requirement.

In her book released this year, Sen. Elizabeth Warren recounted a dinner she had with President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, in April 2009, when Warren was the outspoken chairman of a congressionally appointed panel probing the government’s response to the financial crisis.

Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. ... He teed it up this way: I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People — powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule. They don’t criticize other insiders.

I had been warned.

Warren ignored the warning.

He was also one of President Barack Obama’s most prominent Wall Street friends, a rare high-profile Democrat in an industry dominated by low-tax, free-market Republicans. Dimon spent several years in Obama’s hometown of Chicago, where he ran Bank One after a nasty breakup with his one-time mentor. He got to know Rahm Emanuel. He hired Bill Daley as a top executive before Daley became Obama’s second chief of staff. He gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to Democrats.

Obama returned all the love, at least at first. Dimon made at least 16 trips to the White House and met at least three times with Obama — a bond that allowed the president to appear business-friendly. The New York Times in 2009 called Dimon Obama’s “favorite banker.”

But in the wake of a $2 billion trading loss, Dimon’s reputation as a blunder-free Master of the Universe is badly tarnished. And Dimon’s connection to the president, which the JPMorgan CEO now says was never all that strong, seems gone for good. Dimon has joined the loud chorus of Obama’s Wall Street critics, calling himself a “barely Democrat” who is turned off by what he views as the administration’s anti-business rhetoric and policies.

NBC's Andrea Mitchell has more: "Senior intelligence officials tell NBC News that they briefed the White House, Congress, and interagency partners of a classified intelligence assessment that there was a "heightened potential" that the release of the so-called Senate 'torture report' could 'stimulate a violent response.' It was that assessment that led to the alerts in Egypt and other embassies, closing down visa operations and strengthening security. Similar precautions have been taken at military posts around the world. The intelligence assessment was followed up by the call that was reported on Friday from Secretary of State Kerry to Senate Intelligence Chair Feinstein -- during which he suggested delaying the release of the report. As of late Sunday, Feinstein remains undeterred, colleagues say, and the report is expected to be released as early as Tuesday.