Mr. Cilliza, a Washington Post apologist for Obama, acknowledged that Obama had a broken promise moment in his opinion piece: Who had the worst week in Washington? President Obama.
The "good news" is that an Obama apologist acknowledged that Obama misspoke, a euphemism for lying.
The "bad news" is that Mr. Cillizza totally ignored the fact that the Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance for at least three years and that the promise would be eventually broken. As this story of deceit unwinds, Mr. Thiessen, another Post opinion writer observed that the Obama administration is a: A dishonest presidency. Mr. Thiessen in that article referenced the The Wall Street Journal article: "Aides Debated Obama Coverage Promise" (November 1, 2013). (Unfortunately this story is behind the WSJ pay-wall). Based on the accumulating evidence, one can't simply dismiss this broken promise as being inconsequential. It was a planned deceitful act.
Obama lied and lied again to get re-elected and to mislead the electorate concerning the undesirable effects of ACA. If Obama, the ("transparent" and "above politics") messiah knowingly lies to you and misleads you, I would have expected Mr. Cillizza to have been outraged that the messiah, despite his prostrations, would have voluntarily descended into crass partisian venal politics. Doesn't Mr. Cilliza feel betrayed by this deceit?