I’m currently reading Ron Suskind’s ‘Confidence Men’, and the feeling settling in is that President Obama is, among other things, a victim of his own poor staffing choices. How does a man who is the pride of black people, pick almost none to operate at senior levels at his White House? How does a man who preached hope and change pick deregulator Larry Summers as his trusted advisor?
That the banks were deemed “too big to fail” enraged both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, but if Obama had brought in Volcker at Treasury, he could’ve quieted those voices by nationalizing the banks, and euthanizing those that weren’t solvent. All of this could’ve been foreseen, so why didn’t Obama see it?
I think Obama thought he knew more than he actually did. Obama had a lay of the land, but by the time he ran for president, he’d been in D.C. what? A couple of years? That’s not long enough to learn what you need to learn and build the relationships you need to build in order to be effective. And he didn’t enter politics with a resume of executive leadership, as presidents who’ve served as governors do. So all the mistakes that governors make during their first couple of years in the state capitol were made by Obama at the White House.
So, as someone said, Obama was managed into insignificance. That doesn’t let him off the hook because a bigger, bolder, more secure man could’ve taken some chances that probably would’ve paid off in the end. But Obama is none of those things. He’s a charmer… and charmers aren’t accustomed to fighting the big fights. People normally warm to their smiles and good cheer. Mitch McConnell was having none of it.
Through it all, you just get the feel that Obama believed his own bullshit..that if he’d really understood the Clinton Wars, he would’ve been at least armed and ready for battle. But he believed that bullshit speech he gave at the convention in 2004. It’s one thing to sell bullshit. All politicians do it. But to believe is a politician’s undoing.
There you go again, Yvette. Cherrypicking facts to further your narrative that Obama's a failure. I'm convinced he is on the right side of history. You're not. So be it. You can downplay Obamacare all you want, but many presidents tried, and failed. Obama didn't. That's historic. It completed the social compact with Americans. Notice you don't downplay the substance of Obamacare, only the PR aspect of it. Could anyone explain what was in Medicare or the Social Security Act when it passed, probably not. What about Glass -Stagell? If knowing what was in major pieces of legislation was the threshold for legislative success, FDR and LBJ would be failures too. But most can tell you pre-existing coverage and kids stay on till 26. What about full contraception coverage? Blacks and Latinos failed to show up to vote in 2010. That's why the tea party won- the repubs last stand would have bested Obama supporting swing district congress folks anyway. You can't bully pulpit during your first year having run on bi-partisanship. Obamacare and a stimulus package (even if it was too small) in the first year is enough for any president. Your false comparisons to presidents past not faced with what Obama dealt with is politically immature. And, again, four months is all he had. Rightly or wrongly, his philosophy is rising tide lifts all boats. In policy and politics. Now, the only legitimate gripe a real progressive could have is drone strikes. Wall Street is a red herring. Gov't was contractually tied to the bonuses. I have slight disappointment that he let Geithner and Summers roll him on the bonuses. I would argue that Dodd-Frank and the CFPB will be seen as a huge wins for consumers. Obama is a pragmatic incrementalist. That's how you bring change. His paradigm builds upon the great civil rights leaders leaders. The next democratic president will build on what he did. I am glad he is not some back-slapping pol, indebted to large donors and special interests.
It's not a "narrative", it's an opinion. And from what you've expressed here, you have one too. Fine. But don't make it sound as if there's some unscrupulous plot afoot. Is Obama on the right side of history? Probably. But that has nothing at all to do with effectiveness. That doesn't say much about his ability to actually get the job done. And when I downplay Obamacare, you should ask yourself ...why? I appreciate that it extends coverage, but it does nothing to impact the greatest threat to the American heath care system: costs. Obama could've tackled this issue, but he allowed it to be framed by Tea Partiers, and began this "leading from behind" nonsense. Again,that has nothing at all to do with a strategy of incrementalism... and everything to do with competence. Re health care, Daschle told Obama how to play it, and how to frame it, but Obama didn't take his advice until it was too late. Who should I blame for that? Republicans? No. That's Obama's fault and he should own it. So should you. "You can’t bully pulpit during your first year having run on bi-partisanship." You're confusing things here. Using your bullypulpit to advance legislation doesn't require that you advance partisanship. Obama should have used the bullypulpit to express urgency as well as explain his position to the American people. He didn't do that, and when he did, there was little follow-up on the Hill. "Obamacare and a stimulus package (even if it was too small) in the first year is enough for any president. " Obama's Stimulus Package was too small because all economic recommendations had to go through Larry Summers, and Summers refused to show Obama Christina Romer's recommendation for a $1.2 trillion dollar stimulus. Now tell me, who hired the petulant Larry Summers? Who hired the emotionally unhinged Rahm Emanuel?
Did FDR need to worry about the filibuster in the senate?
First year Obama had a filibuster proof majority. When AIG got those outrageous bonuses after they'd been bailed out, etc. That was the time to act decisively. Most presidents come to office with a 100 day plan. Obama didn't. He had a sketch, and he never created a hierarchy within his own administration. No excuse for any of that. ... He's no FDR, and it doesn't have anything to do with filibusters...
You are wrong. Check your facts. Obama only had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate from 9/24/2009 to 2/4/2010. Exactly 4 months. That's when Obamacare passed. 100 day plan was scraped when the economy collapsed. Facts do matter.
When I said, "first year, Obama had a filibuster proof majority", I meant IN his first year, not the entire first year. And Obama passed.... one major piece of legislation (unless you're counting the stimulus) during that period. Most presidents come to office with a 100 day plan. LBJ passed more than 50 major pieces of legislation during his first year, and you're cheering at how Obama struggled, making excuses? And why, pray tell, didn't Obama use the bully pulpit to move his initiatives? Most people still can't explain what's in the Affordable Care Act ,and since the GOP framed it successfully as socialism, many Dems went down in 2010 because of it. So in that sense, it's largely Obama's fault that he lost the majority in 2010 midterms. He didn't then, and still hasn't, worked to save members of Congress who put their careers on the line for him. He's all about saving his own skin, which is why he never took bold action against Wall St., or on anything else for that matter. Obama looks out for Obama.
A look back critique after a financial crisis not seen since the depression would render most presidents incompetent. Didn't you hear Clinton at the convention.
Did it render FDR incompetent?
I remember blacks at Harvard being upset at his selection of whites and conservatives, and yes, that tendency was replicated here. But there is also a good deal of incompetency, and a reluctance at making big decisions that Suskind's draws out...
This is not new news. Look at his selections at Harvard Law Review.