Swampland’s Adam Sorenson points out the obvious about the Obama Administration’s desire to put the latest bank fraud problem behind them: “The Obama administration wants these issued settled quickly and cleanly.”

I’ll bet. They obviously decided from TARP going forward that they needed to protect the banks to protect the economy. Right or wrong (hopefully, we’ll never have to test the alternative – bankruptcy/restructuring of the banking system), they paid a huge political price for it.

But this is different. A thorough investigation of the banks, forcing them to prove ownership before bankruptcy or even to write down principles isn’t likely to cause economic Armageddon (perhaps, quite the opposite if we can mitigate the current foreclosure crisis). But if they protect the banks from their illegal and immoral practices on these matters, I think Obama seals his fate as a one-term president (may god help us all).

And this is another important decision that could help decide the 2012 presidential re-election.

These aren’t the public option, don’t ask, don’t tell or Guantanimo, where Obama had to show deference to others and nominal supporters were left to defend him by pointing out that he may have had little choice in the matter. He controls these policy decisions, practically unilaterally. And these are both critical issues for liberals and, accordingly, represent major campaign promises; to reform corporatist Washington (as if) and to take on global warming. Even if liberals don’t matter much in the political calculation – too small, too reliable – there are plenty of swing voters who are concerned about global warming and plenty more who are infuriated with what the banks – and the banksters – have gotten away with.

Ultimately, Obama will decide what they, and the fossil fuel industry, get away with this time. And, at the same time, whether his previous coalition of Democrats and Independent swing voters will let him keep his job.