The president's strategy was simple, but the plan for executing it wasn’t. Obama wins

In the end, President Barack Obama got exactly what he said he wanted — a debt-limit increase, an extension of the federal government’s funding, and no overly binding strings attached — and he did it by keeping faith with his unusual watchwords: No negotiation.

Experience had taught Republicans, and even Democrats, that he would wilt.


Obama had agreed to austere spending limitations and big tax cuts in past budget showdowns. And Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert joked earlier this month that the president needed a transplant of vital pieces of male anatomy to take a strong stand on the debt limit and federal spending this time around.

( WATCH: Obama delivers statement on deal)

But Obama stood his ground, beating back GOP efforts to extract concessions such as major changes to his health care law.

Over the summer, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid met with Obama, and the two men agreed to split up responsibility for the fall talks, according to senior administration officials. Reid would negotiate with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on federal funding and Obama would handle the debt limit.

The president reassured Reid that he meant what he had said about not negotiating back on New Year’s Day when the previous debt ceiling deal was reached. “While I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they’ve already racked up through the laws that they passed,” Obama said at the time.

( WATCH: Who won the shutdown? Top 5 quotes)

The intransigence speaks to a lesson Obama learned first during a similar fight in the summer of 2011, and again at the end of 2012, that negotiating with House Republicans who saw the creditworthiness and economic health of the nation as leverage points is a no-win proposition. Even if he could strike a deal with House Speaker John Boehner, there was never a guarantee that Boehner could pass it on the House floor, which meant endless rounds of goalpost-moving.

But as much as the fresh approach, Obama benefited from a shift from offense — where he had once vainly hoped to strike a grand bargain of Tax Code and entitlement reforms — to defense. What’s different this time, senior administration officials said, is that the playing field for Democrats was smaller. Obama was just playing for the status quo.

( PHOTOS: Senators vote on budget deal)

The strategy was simple, but the plan for executing it wasn’t.

To start with, staking out a no-negotiating position doesn’t sound good to voters. The Washington establishment always craves big displays of bipartisanship, and the White House feared they would get hammered by the pundit class.

As the shutdown entered its second week with no sign of resolution, one White House aide acknowledged the no-negotiating stance didn’t hit the ear well and the strategy had its doubters.

( Also on POLITICO: It's over)

“Dysfunction is bad for everyone,” the aide said last week. “But the president has a larger principle at stake here. We understand going through this process we will be taking hits too but we think it’s worth it at the end if we are able to take this weapon of default off the table.”

The idea of lifting the debt ceiling polls poorly, too. It sounds like Congress is extending its borrowing authority to spend more money, not that it’s about having the power to pay for things already purchased.

And the White House had to keep a close eye on the Senate, which likes to form gangs and try to solve problems, although their rate of success isn’t spectacular.

( Also on POLITICO: W.H.: No winners here)

Democrats both inside and outside the White House worried that the strategy wouldn’t work. The president and senior administration officials spent time allaying fears expressed by the business community, which wondered why Obama wouldn’t just give up something – anything – to avert a potential global economic calamity.

Obama’s response: If I give them something this time, they’ll back in a few weeks or months asking for more.

At one point, the president re-framed his rhetoric, emphasizing that he was happy to talk with congressional Republicans on any issue so long as they first voted to open the government and raise the debt ceiling. It was a softer tone, but the bottom line remained the same.

Not just any agreement would do.

Obama was intrigued and surprised last Thursday when Boehner offered to replace two years worth of sequester cuts.

But when Republican leaders came back with the details, it was off the mark. The pay-fors wouldn’t pass muster with House Democrats. Plus, House Republicans wanted at least two additional sweeteners: a pause in new federal regulations and a provision allowing employers not to offer insurance policies that cover contraception under Obamacare if they have religious or moral objections.

White House officials rushed Friday to squash an emerging bipartisan deal crafted by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) because they viewed it as a worse than proposals from Boehner.

It would have locked in next year’s even-deeper government spending levels and suspended the medical device tax, a key funding stream for Obamacare that’s unpopular with both parties.

White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors called Reid, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). The president didn’t want Democrats anywhere near that deal, and the Senate leaders, in turn, warned the rank and file to hold back and avoid committing to the deal. The president reiterated his concerns in a Saturday meeting with Democratic leaders, and they made clear that they couldn’t accept the proposal.

When McConnell made a public statement about an emerging bipartisan deal, rank-and-file Democrats began to pull away.

Even when Reid and McConnell began negotiating a debt-limit deal that would have given organized labor — a key constituency in Reid’s 2016 re-election race — the sweetener of a delay in the Affordable Care Act’s reinsurance fee in exchange for a more stringent verification of income levels for health-exchange consumers, the White House viewed it as a one-for-one sidebar, according to one of the senior administration officials.

In the end, Obama got the policy he wanted, including a framework for more budget negotiations. He spoke cautiously Wednesday night, after the Senate passed the bill but before the House took it up, so as not to upset the lawmakers who still had to vote. There are no winners in crisis governance, Obama and his aides have said.

The real lesson, he said, is that Democrats and Republicans ought to be able to negotiate on tough matters without the threat of total economic collapse.

“So hopefully that’s a lesson that will be internalized, not just by me but also by Democrats and Republicans, not only the leaders but also the rank and file,” he said.

Indeed, Obama still hopes for change.

“Hopefully, next time, it won’t be in the 11th hour,” Obama said Wednesday night from the White House briefing room. “One of the things that I said throughout this process is we’ve got to get out of the habit of governing by crisis. And my hope and expectation is everybody has learned that there is no reason why we can’t work on the issues at hand, why we can’t disagree between the parties while still being agreeable, and make sure that we’re not inflicting harm on the American people when we do have disagreements.”

As he left the podium Wednesday night, CNN’s Brianna Keilar shouted after Obama.

“Mr. President, isn’t this going to happen all over again in a few months?” Keiler asked.

The president stopped, turned to face a briefing room only half-filled with reporters at the late hour, and made sure his one-word response was heard loud and clear: “No.”