Here's The New York Times' Jackie Calmes, with a strange lede:

Not since the first years of the Clinton administration has a White House had to debate whether to give precedence to stimulating the economy or reducing budget deficits.

What? Why not? The Bush White House went through some times (like, say, 2008) when the economy needed stimulating and deficits were soaring, due in large part to President Bush's wars and tax cuts. The confluence of a weak economy and large deficits isn't something Barack Obama created; it's something he inherited. But I guess deficits only matter when there's a Democrat in the White House.

Also odd: In an analysis of the purported tension between stimulating the economy and reducing “public anger,” Calmes never mentions the possibility (or, if you prefer, probability) that when -- and only when -- the economy improves, “public anger” will dissipate. Or, in other words: that the best political course of action is to fix the economy. That isn't indisputably true -- but it's a strong enough possibility that it's a pretty glaring omission.