This (admittedly rightward-ho!-ish) explanation of the all-at-once strategy is from the Note's Rick Klein:
I suppose yr answer to this question hinges, maybe, on whether or not you think the "all-at-once" srtgy. really is BHO's strtgy. I think it is, and I think it's "not crap," but you tell me...
This week an ambitious President Obama continues his move from what he must do (the economy, Iraq) to what he wants to do (healthcare, energy policy) and what he’s judging that he must do again, and again (AIG is the latest back at the federal till).
Using that sky-high popularity for what it’s worth (and then some), Obama is pressing ahead in a brash style, telling his opponents he’s ready for battle, calling them on hypocritical statements as quickly as they’re doing the same to him, and choosing more fronts, not fewer.
This is what he was elected to do -- though not necessarily all at once.
Now, piece by piece, Obama is taking ownership of problems he inherited -- not just from his immediate predecessor, but from decades of calcified politics that couldn’t deliver breakthroughs on the biggest issues of the era.
The pile-it-on strategy (just last week, remember, he said he was ending the war, fixing the financial meltdown, and curing cancer) signals an early evolution for a president who’s struggled with his own definitions of bipartisanship and effective governance.
More than ever, he looks like a president who will succeed spectacularly or fail miserably.How much is too much?
I do not claim to know what the next six months of legislative combat have in store for us, but I think this tack is the White House's best bet for beating down the politically insane but tactically effective lockstep marching of the Congressional Rs.