So, protest from "his base" can strengthen Obama's hand, eh?
The media has Sister Souljah Psychosis. We are no longer in the 1990's. It is no longer "news" when a Democratic politician rattles liberals. It doesn't stand out as "a refreshing show of independence" to anyone who really matters anymore, like, um, voters for example. It comes across as "more of the same".
The Republicans have religion about respecting the priorities of "their base". They are not going to be seduced by a President who instinctively tilts toward them every time that they defy him, they just bank his concessions and move on from there. "Standing up to Obama" is how Congressional Republicans get elected to their gerrymandered seats.
Can Obama score a few points with some actual voters by defying the fervently held position of his own core supporters? Sure, it's a big country, but really, how many votes? How many moderates are there left out there still supporting Republicans, who Obama can swing Democratic with this type of stance? Contrast that to how many voters are voting Democratic precisely because they believe it is essential to protect, preserve, and even expand the economic safety net in the face of chronic unemployment and stagnant if not shrinking incomes for the vast majority of Americans?
Here is the essential point that mainstream commentators fail to grasp, often willfully. The Democratic base is more in tune with the American public than the Republican base is, which is why Democrats just won the national election, even with an economy that has everyone still anxious. Insecurity about our economic future is why the majority of Americans support Democrats, because the Democratic Party is the architect of our nations economic safety net and it was seen as the Party most likely to defend it.
When Bill Clinton first "stood up" to the base of his own political party America was still just emerging from it's infatuation with Ronald Reagan. Republicans had dominated Presidential politics for three election cycles prior to Bill Clinton. It could be said that Bill Clinton was courting the votes of "Reagan Democrats" by "standing up" to liberals. Can anyone say, with a straight face at least, that the fortunes of the Democratic Party are at risk due to the mass defection of "Romney Democrats" who somehow must be returned to the fold? Now consider the opposite. Would the fortunes of the Democratic party be at risk if the once sharp distinction that separated Democrats from Republicans in the public mind, when it came to defending the economic safety net, increasingly became blurred?
This fight is about much more than the relative value of this or that bargaining chip in budget negotiations with current Republicans in Congress. President Obama, even under his best case scenario as advanced by establishment minded pundits, conceivably could win a small battle for his administration - forcing Republicans to give an inch, but lose the war for Democrats - and for people who have counted on the Democratic Party to protect their economic interests on issues that can literally mean life and death.
= new reply since forum marked as read
No reason so far too think otherwise. 
No-one will believe them. Candidate Obama and President Obama are entirely different personalities. Candidate Obama told us what we wanted to hear. President Obama has proven that the d&r parties are just two arms of the PTB.
Candidate Obama used (probably the last) of the proven "peoples party" goodwill to get re-elected in another election where Americans were forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
It is now totally transparent, for anyone willing to look, that our two "viable" parties are just different arms of the same oligarchs.
If any change is to be made that will benefit the 99% it will not come from either current party. Unless we can, beyond a doubt, recapture the spirit and deeds of the original Democratic party, we will have to rely on another name for that party. Are Americans progressive enough to get behind a Democratic Socialist party? Our most pro-people Senator IS a Democratic Socialist (Bernie Sanders) who uses the moniker of Independent party (for reasons that I understand). We may have to do the same to field FDR Democratic politicians in order to make them "viable" and acceptable to the average voter.
Whatever it takes, I will not vote for another dlc candidate who wants to ride his/her way into politics by misrepresenting the name of great Democrats in order to make themselves appealing to average voters. Obama has probably ruined that possibility anyway...
that's what the very , very serious people are saying.
So as a governing document, it’s dead on arrival. But it’s still useful: By taking a step toward the center on this one element, Obama demonstrates a willingness to go against his political base – and that base has helped him publicize that point by vocally and publicly objecting to his proposal. By extension, his move on chained CPI could be helpful in dealing with other elements of his agenda.
“Obama is cleverly using it as a bargaining chip to give himself wiggle room on other key agenda items like gun control and immigration reform, while still leaving open the minuscule possibility of reaching a budget grand bargain,” says Republican strategist Ford O’Connell.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0410/Obama-budget-changes-Social-Security-Are-Republicans-on-board?nav=655577-csm_article-leftColRelated
Like the Center and Right-of-Center does. 
