« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama’s New World

By: RightinSanFrancisco (Diary)  |  June 8th, 2012 at 05:51 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

In the broad arc of Barack Obama’s political career this is a new world. Among the unfamiliar factors that he must deal with: insurrection from the Clinton/labor wing of the party; requests for help from at risk supporters; and a growing capacity for criticism in the media. And that was before the major Spring economic slowdown and the Wisconsin wipe-out.

Most importantly, there is a recognition among the Democratic political class that it is not good for them to be attached to Obama’s anti-business stance. First there was Newark Mayor Corey Booker who found Obama’s attacks on Bain Capital to be “nauseating”; then basic support for Booker’s criticism by former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and former “car czar” and MSNBC commentator Steve Rattner; and finally former President Bill Clinton’s declaration that Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital was “superb”.  While weak “contextualizations” followed, it is obvious that it is OK to stray off of the reservation and undercut one of President Obama’s few potential campaign themes.  It is just possible that Clinton harbors some resentment for Obama’s criticism of “economic policies of the last few decades.”

A corrolary: there is no “you help me and I’ll help you”. For Obama it is all about Obama.  Elizabeth Warren, who organized his consumer protection efforts did not get the opportunity to run the department because Obama did not want to fight for her; now she on her own against Scott Brown in Massachusetts who is doing remarkably well among Obama voters.  And labor’s 15 month jihad against Scott Walker in Wisconsin? Not worth a drop-by on the weekend before the recall election even though Obama was campaigning for himself in Minnesota and Chicago. What does this say about giving your all for Obama who will be a lame duck in five months?

And now Maureen Dowd, lamenting the wandering administration and campaign: “The president who started off with such dazzle now seems incapable of stimulating either the economy or the voters.” (This is undoubtedly the first time that I have quoted the queen of liberal snark.)  Far Left supporters like Medea Benjamin have started open criticism of Obama’s weekly “Kill List” review of terrorists to be target for drone attacks. It may be just me, but it seems as if Politico and ABC have decided that their futures are best served by a rediscovered balance.

More than the specifics, the question is whether Axelrod and company can restore the discipline needed for a campaign against a formidable, centrist Republican whose party has already gone through its convulsions and come out with everybody except Ron Paul focused on beating the socialist president.  Mainstream Democrats – and a few reporters -  seem to understand that it will take more that some good speeches and populist rhetoric, and that some “leading from in front” will be needed. For David Axelrod that must be a greater concern than the future of the Service Employees International Union.

—–

This week’s video is a ” Values” advertisement by  Committed Catholics to Win (cc2w.org). Romney support will not come only from the Koch Brothers and American Crossroads.

www.RightinSanFrancisco.com

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • checkmate2012

    of what normal people call competition and principle. Talk about someone with a silver spoon. I’ve never seen a only child be as spoiled as this brat. It’s me me me all the time. Plus he’s only lost one “real” election when he didn’t sling mud at the last minute and expects it to be handed to him again…me thinks not this time.

    Didn’t he announce months ago that none of his coffers would go to help House and Senate candidate races (which made me extremely gleeful with his selfishness)?

  • Flagstaff

    He doesn’t play well with others.

    It occurred to me the other day that the lists of names and faces associated with Barack Obama haven’t had many (or any) added to them since he was elected, yet there are some who have left. I may be wrong, but I don’t thnk so.

    That made me think about the “czars.” Why did he need so many (or any), when it was a rare appointment in other administrations, usually reserved for some campaign which wasn’t addressed well in existing cabinet bureaucracies, such as a “drug czar”? My conclusion was that (1) he doesn’t know enough about running a huge organization like the federal government to handle all that subversion within the standard framework, (2) by creating the czars, they were all at an organizational level that he could control through senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, (3) they were mostly far left ideologues, not the usual array of bureaucrat functionaries that we’d expect to see in those jobs were they filled normally within Commerce or HHS, for instance.

    Then think about the Affordable Health Care Act (gag on the name). The President didn’t work on that at all, it seems. He told Reid and Pelosi to handle it, and what a mess it became. It’s clear he doesn’t work with Democrat leadership much, and with Republican leaders not at all. His idea of compromise is for others to agree to do things his way, or to say he’s “leading from behind” when bullying doesn’t work.

    This President is more detached from other members of his own party than any other President in my memory. Reagan, as a Republican, worked more closely with Democrats than Obama does today. Obama’s communications to Republicans seem to consist mainly of “I won,” and he seems to get along better with the Russians than with other Democrats.

    The fact that he’s surrounded himself with the likes of Jarrett and David Axelrod, ideologues with no record of high-level political success, and that they have remained in place from the beginning, betrays a lack of “creative destruction” within his inner circle. The same people keep giving him the same advice, which results in a decision to stay away from Wisconsin out of fear of becoming associated with a “loser” (Tom Barrett), rather than to “stand up for union members” in their fight to unseat Scott Walker. He showed himself to be a cautious coward (a loser) rather than a courageous fighter (a winner, even if in a losing fight) like Walker showed himself to be in victory.

    Thankfully for us, his advisers remain intent on minimizing his risks rather than on maximizing his political/Presidential accomplishments. Thus, he is currently absorbed with fund-raisers to support his attempt to remain in office, trying to amass as much as he can so as to be able to counter anything Mitt Romney puts up, rather than applying himself to actually being President and doing something substantive that Romney would have to overcome.

    If he actually had a close relationship with any veteran national Democrat, he’d be getting some good advice about his choices. He has none, so he’s getting bad advice from bad advisers. Bill Clinton spoke up this week to stop the counterproductive tactics Obama’s people were forcing, to keep the party from going down a rat hole that would hurt it in the end.

  • westcoastpatriette

    and thrown too many allies under the bus to get the support he had in 2008. The emperor has no clothes on this time around — and even his most devout supporters see it.