Ummmm...... no it's not. A strawman argument is refuting an argument without actually refuting it. I wrote 2 sentences. The first is a statement in PJ that the Dems won't do this b/c they will lose Congressional seats. The reality is that tax policy like this can be changed after the November elections when the voters can't do anything about it. That's not a strawman argument, it addresses his statement directly.
The second sentence I wrote was a rhetorical question highlighting the fact that Obama made a campaign pledge to not raise taxes on those who are not "the wealthy", a group he defined as making less than $200,000 or $250,000 per year (depending on which quote you take). Eliminating the mortgage deduction would seriously affect those who are not "wealthy" by his definition and would effectuate an increase in taxes, a direct violation of his promise. It was a rhetorical question b/c we already know the answer: politicians will say whatever they need to say to get elected and then fuck everyone over when the shit hits the fan.
That sentence was not a strawman argument since I didn't even attempt to address the economic validity of the mortgage deduction. A strawman argument requires an obfuscation of the argument through an apparent addressing of the argument through subversive means. I just pointed out that Obama is a politician (read: liar) regardless of the original argument.
Here's a pointer: next time you try to throw out internet jingoism (like "strawman") why don't you understand what the hell you're talking about first.