Does Obama want "growing rebellion" from left to prove he really is a moderate?

First, we all know that the President is giving his major address on the debt and deficit today. The speech is scheduled for 1:35 PM ET and will be delivered from George Washington University, here in DC.

But, the political crew must be especially happy with the Washington Post today.

First, the above-the-fold headline in today's paper reads, "Obama risks losing liberals." This article lays bare a lot of the frustration from key progressive groups:

President Obama faces a growing rebellion on the left as he courts independent voters and Republicans with his vision for reducing the nation’s debt by cutting government spending and restraining the costs of federal health insurance programs.

Key liberal groups, which helped elect Obama in 2008, are raising concerns that he has given up political ground to Republicans, allowing the message of reducing government to trump that of creating jobs and lowering the unemployment rate.

This article isn't prominently featured on the Washington Post's often inpenetrable website. But, it's the headline that will be seen around DC today. (Yes, people in DC still have the Post delivered.)

Now, most of us view that as a bad sign. The base is very unhappy. But, I suspect there are many on Team Obama who welcome that message. The White House wants the Villagers (a.k.a. the Very Smart People) to think Obama has distanced himself from the dirty hippies on the left.

So, Dana Milbank's column was an extra bonus. The big revelation from one of the ultimate DC insiders:

Obama was born a moderate.

Out in Chicago, Jim Messina and David Axelrod are probably high-fiving.

Just wondering how all of this will translate into building enthusiasm in the Democratic base -- the people who are supposed to do the grunt work and donate the money to Obama's campaign. When they're done patting themselves on the back for redefining Obama as an anti-liberal moderate, Messina and Axelrod should read this article in today's Post, too:

Adam Barr was a die-hard Barack Obama supporter.

He leapt aboard the campaign in 2007, founding the group D.C. for Obama, which says it carpooled thousands of volunteers into Virginia for the crucial final stretch of the general election. He even worked briefly on Obama’s staff as a campaign field organizer.

D.C. for Obama had just scheduled its first meeting for later this month to kick off its 2012 reelection plans. But then came last week’s budget deal, with Obama negotiating away the District’s right to use its own money to fund abortions for poor women.

Now, Barr, 29, has put the meeting on hold. And D.C. for Obama has turned its attention to a new and rather awkward cause: criticizing Obama.

Last week, Obama announced his reelection campaign. Today's speech at GW is basically his first major address of the 2012 campaign. We'll get a very clear sense of what direction Obama take for the next nineteen months -- and a clearer sense of what he stands for. A lot of people who should be on Obama's side are worried.