But those around him have a more specific diagnosis - and one that is striking in its uniformity. The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing, they say.My issues with anonymous sourcing aside, I came away thinking that there probably was a critique to be made, just not a geographical one. Anyway, check it out yourself. I'd love for a journalist to really report out this charge that Rahm Emanuel is ruining everything. This piece kinda tries it, but it isn't convincing.
In dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington - most of them given unattributably in order to protect their access to the Oval Office - each observes that the president draws on the advice of a very tight circle. The inner core consists of just four people - Rahm Emanuel, the pugnacious chief of staff; David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, his senior advisers; and Robert Gibbs, his communications chief.
People are talking about the Jane Mayer piece. I haven't read it, but there aren't many journalists whom I respect more. I'll report back after I've had a chance to read.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
The biggest disaster from Chicago is Education Secretary Arne Duncan:
http://laughterhopesockintheeye.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/new-yorker-magazine-buries-the-lead-in-puff-piece-on-education-secretary-duncan/
I've gotta cosign this. I have a few friends working in the CPS system and they will not hesitate to tell you how useless Duncan was during his tenure here. Dude totally destroyed neighborhood schools.
Thanx.
It dawned on me that I should probably say what an education policy not administered by someone who thinks that hurricanes=Best Education Reform Policy Ever would look like.
So look here for education reform policies from people who (unlike Duncan) can actually differentiate keysters from cabezas:
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/books_grading_education/
I kind of thought the issue was just the opposite. Haven't people been complaining that Obama wasn't out actively selling the health care plan? I mean it seems like the argument has been that he thought the campaign was over and now he needed to work behind the scenes but that was a mistake and he needed to be out using the bully pulpit.
I think the reality is the president has a lot less power than people think, people act like we have a parliament where the president is the leader of the party, but as we've seen the House may sort of work that way, but the Senate really is 100 people who all think they are an independent power who must be heeded. Being a permanent campaigner for his agenda is unfortunately a big part of his job.
It's over a year into the term, and there are still a *lot* of political appointee positions that haven't been filled yet, or took several months to fill; that means wasted time that could've been spent moving the President's agenda forward. I can't read the article, but I think the "tight circle" is a possible explanation for that; maybe they just plain didn't have enough people they consider to be trusted allies.
I'm from Chicago -- actually Duncan has done better than I expected (that said, his predecessor, Paul Vallas, would have been a far better pick -- he was canned for being too good and too much of a media magnet, hence a potential threat to Mayor Daley).
But people from outside of Illinois really don't understand just how bad our politics is. We don't have Dems vs. Republicans, we have "the combine" vs. reformers. The reformers can be liberal or conservative -- the state GOP HATED Senator Peter Fitzgerald, a popular reformist who was responsible for Libbygate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, so much they wouldn't back his reelection (paving the way for Obama to become senator). Our voting districts are gerrymandered beyond belief (the 4th Congressional district makes the Supreme Court majority in Bush v. Gore look like champions of democracy in comparison). It's legal here for lawyers and litigants to contribute money to the judges they appear before - no automatic recusal or even notice must be provided.
Against that backdrop, it's not surprising that pols like Rahm and Axelrod and Jarrett are failures. In Illinois, and Chicago in particular, the ends don't justify the means: the ends are the means. It is ALL about power, not ideology.
I found the article persuasive, in large measure because the author is careful. However, no matter what happens, Obama will not be as big a failure as Jimmy Cracker. Cracker declared war on the Democratic Party, particuliarly the progressive wing. Bad as Rahm is, Obama will not do that.
Remember, Cracker refused to move forward on Kennedy's national health insurance plan because it had a $13 billion (maybe only $11 billion) price tag. It probably would have passed, which would have changed everything politically.
I offer two quotes from the original article:
"The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing, they say."
"Contrary to conventional wisdom, Mr Emanuel managed the legislative aspect of the healthcare bill quite skilfully, say observers. The weak link was the failure to carry public opinion - not Capitol Hill."
Can someone walk me through this? Do these statements not completely contradict one another?
To me, the article reads like someone throwing everything negative they've heard about the administration against a wall to see what sticks.
Mommmm! Ryno took my post and won't give it back.... Political analysis which fails to acknowledge the political context in which events are ocurring. Obama seeks to restore governance to the acts of government, in the face of an opposition that seeks power without respect to ANY other goal, and it's the administration's inner circle that is failing? I'm seeing artfully concealed dagger thrust under the guise of a speculative and unsourced assessment.
I also wanted to bring up this quote:
"Contrary to conventional wisdom, Mr Emanuel managed the legislative aspect of the healthcare bill quite skilfully, say observers. The weak link was the failure to carry public opinion - not Capitol Hill."
To me, that's clearly nonsense. Public opinion faded when the legislative process became too bogged down and process stories became all the rage. If Rahm had done such a great job managing Capitol Hill, the process would have been much quicker and cleaner. And public opinion wouldn't have disintegrated.
The idea above is Rahm-spin. He was a failure in the one thing he was supposed to get done. Can him.
When I read the progressive blogs this am touting the FT piece (Sulley called it "granular") I was ready to learn something new, especially because I generally like and respect the reportage coming out of the FT.
Well, no, not this one. The piece is no different than any other political piece on any administration in the last 30 years that has hit some bumps. The same kind of pieces, with the same kind of "illustrative" anecdotes and conclusions, has been written about Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton. Nothing new to see here folks, move along.
I don't fault the anemic sourcing, that's the way business is done in the political "information bazaar" (and always will be, it doesn't make it right, just think of it as a "climactic condition.") I strongly suspect that many, if not all of the sources are fellow Dem's. who, for whatever reason, have their knives out for the "four horseman," which is SOP at this point in their term, for any administration. Members of a sitting admin.s own party, who criticize the WH, generally have more credibility with "serious" journalists. It's that whole "man bites dog" thing.
Obviously, for a variety of reasons, the Obama WH lost control of the "narrative." Surprising, on some levels, given the campaign, yes. But I'm not surprised that the WH has been surprised by the unhinged, unpatriotic, shameless and coordinated ferocity of the opposition, including elected members of the House and Senate, a 24 hour cable news network and "conservative" talk radio and blogs. Hell, I'm a former, longtime GOP'r, and I am shocked, yes, shocked by it. (Full disclosure: in the early aughts as head of communications for the NSC,I wrote and distributed talking points and recruited media surrogates for the Bush administration on foreign policy issues, including the war in Irag.)
But don't expect the opposition to change their strategy and tactics one bit because, with ample evidence to back it up, they believe its working. I.E., Gallup has a poll out today that says POTUS is losing the independents by 57% to 39% I believe.
The central conclusion by the FT piece, that the Obama admins. knows how to campaign but not how to govern, is however, wrong. Its quite the opposite. They've forgotten how to campaign.
Ahhh...thank you. That was my reaction as well. This piece can and has been written about every President in the media age. When a new President hits a bump people trot out two arguments:
1) He's campaigning, not governing! This line of argument establishes the writer and his sources as Very Serious People who care about Real Issues.
2) He relies too much on his friends and confidants who are Not From Here. In fact he should rely on veteran Washington hands who are Very Serious People...and who just happen to be my sources.
The article may be sort of right. But it gets written all the time whether it is right or not.
The way I see it, Obama didn't put together a team of ideologues. Maybe progressives think he should have. Perhaps if Obama and his team were dedicated to a rigid platform, there would be more consensus on policies, like healthcare, and a consolidated push toward said policies to along with it. Instead, it seems Obama's team operates within the loose frameworks that he sets. And that doesn't seem to be benefiting the progressive platform, thus far, as they see it.
It doesn't seem to be benefiting anyone.
"But those around him have a more specific diagnosis - and one that is striking in its uniformity. The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing, they say."
That comment makes absolutley no frickin' sense at all. It makes me thing those folks no longer have any idea of what "governing" consists of or looks like.
Mike
I can't believe people fall for this. This same article has been written repeatedly for at least 2,000 years. Seriously. Go look up the articles about all the local hicks and thugs hanging around Octavian (Caesar Augustus). That guy was arguably the most effective leader in history (look at what he started with and the empire he left behind). This narrative was pushed about Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Henry V, Philip II of Spain, and a whole bunch of other guys. It's always the same story. It can't be right about all of them. I have my doubts it's ever true.
The article is vaguely interesting as a gossip piece. It might be fun to read if the economy wasn't hanging on a precipice and if all of Obama's reforms weren't currently in the sh*tter, but, considering the current state of affairs, I don't really care about the "inside story" about White House dysfunction. I care that I actively campaigned for this guy and gave him what little money I could afford, and he hasn't been able to accomplish a single thing he ran on. And I'm taking a wild guess, but I would think that's generally why his poll numbers have fallen off a cliff.
I'm tired of Washington "reporters" and their endless fascination with political maneuvering, instead of informing us about the relative strengths and weaknesses of actual policy proposals.
I hate Rahm as much as any good-hearted kossack, but my main reaction to this article is "So what? When are these people going to get on the stick and actually get something done?"
Let me just add, as a Chicagoan, that I find common approach of liberal blogs painting this as some kind of "Chicago" cabal distasteful. We have our own woes this month, what with the Doosmday service cuts to the CTA, a disappointing primary election last week, and a host of other issues.
The problems of Washington should not be pinned on this fair city. Chicago has its own unique challenges. Getting an executive to push legislation through a recalcitrant and bitterly divided legislature is not one of them.
On the other hand, I find the repeated attempts of Republicans to gin up an "Obama is a rough, aggressive, Chicago-style pol, help help!" meme ever amusing.
Any article that makes/repeats the claim that Rahm Emanuel will run for Mayor of Chicago (against Daley) should be viewed with great skepticism.
There is nothing new in this piece except a polite reframing of the far right's talking points that Obama plays dirty Chicago politics. Whatever that means...