Albert Hunt opines that team Obama's problems go higher than Axelrod and Rahm:
Staff differences have little to do with this president’s problems.
He inherited a miserable economic and fiscal situation, he chose an exceedingly ambitious agenda, and he faces an opposition party that has no interest in compromise.
Campaign Strategy
Yet there is a larger self-created problem for which Emanuel and Axelrod are only partly to blame. Go back to the remarkable Obama campaign of 2007-2008. More than any of its rivals, it had a strategic sense of what it was, where it wanted to go.
This provided a shield against setbacks: losing the New Hampshire primary, the candidate’s careless remarks about rural Pennsylvania voters or even the incendiary remarks of Obama’s pastor. These became speed bumps in the strategic narrative.
That is missing in the Obama presidency. Too often it seems situational rather than strategic, reactive more than proactive. Thus setbacks, from minor ones, such as the handling of the Christmas Day bomber, to major ones, like the loss of the Senate seat in Massachusetts, throw team Obama off stride, and leave voters confused.
I wish Mr. Hunt had expounded a bit more on just what Obama's campaign strategy was. I would have guessed that Obama ran on hope, change, and a commitment to be historically black 24/7. So far he is one for three.
As to specifics, well, on health care Obama opposed the controversial individual mandate and the Cadillac tax on expensive employer-sponsored health care plans; now he favors them both, but where is the mandate?
And is the CW crystallizing? Mark Halperin of TIME joins in on Obama's failing, flailing Presidency:
How Obama Is Making the Same Mistakes as Bush
....Consider all the ways in which the current occupant of the Oval Office has-inadvertently or otherwise — repeated the errors of the recent past:
No chief economic spokesperson
Quick: name all three of George W. Bush's treasury secretaries. Hard to do, isn't it?
I managed, but I wasn't exactly whistling "Unforgettable".
Like Bush, Obama has failed to install an economic commander-in-chief who can serve as the public face and the in-house honcho of the administration's financial team.
Failure to integrate policy, politics, and communication
From its earliest days, Obama's White House has failed to put in place the necessary procedures and personnel to move strong, serious ideas along the conveyor belt from the minds of wonky experts cloistered in the Old Executive Office Building chambers to the President's lips as he introduces new initiatives at dramatic public events.
Tying the Adminstration's fate too closely to his own party's congressional leadership
...And Obama, like Bush, has lashed himself over and over to the political fortunes of the Capitol Hill portion of his party, allowing the agenda and vision of Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid, and a covey of mostly liberal committee chairs to define the public image of the Democratic Party and determine what his administration can accomplish.
Too much Pelosi and Reid? No kidding.
Failing to empower Cabinet members on domestic policy
Obama has put numerous talented people in his Cabinet, from a Nobel Prize winner, to several successful governors, but, like his predecessor, he has no system to get the most out of them.
Has the empowered Eric Holder been helpful? As to the rest, I'll score that as a "maybe", even though Hunt also cited an under-utilized Cabinet. Do we really need even more people with more whiz-bang idea running around Washington? I think Obama's problem is much simpler - he is attempting too much. Remaking health care, financial services and the energy sector during a ghastly recession (and while fighting two wars) may not be the best way to provide investors and business leaders with a sense of confidence and stability.
Jennifer Rubin has more, but I will steal this:
Frankly, Obama has a big picture. It’s just the wrong one — a statist spend-a-thon that seeks to reorient the balance between private and public sectors, grow the scope of the federal government, and do it all without popular support.
His problems start with "rookie". He's never run anything; he's always just voted "present". He'd screw up a two car funeral.
Posted by: Mike Myers | March 08, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Lying and breaking promises as fast as he makes them does not help either
Posted by: Abad man | March 08, 2010 at 11:26 AM
I think the roots of Al Hunt's hair grow to the center of his brain pan.
Posted by: Ignatz | March 08, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Attempting too much, and too much of the wrong stuff.
A lusty -19 at Raz today, and 20% Strongly Favor Obamacare; 41% Strongly Oppose.
Amazing how closely the "strong" numbers on Obama and healthcare correlate.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 08, 2010 at 11:27 AM
He is doing the wrong thing, over and over again, and expecting a different result
Posted by: narciso | March 08, 2010 at 11:29 AM
It would never, ever occur to Al Hunt that the electorate has well-informed, substantive opposition to the Obama agenda. No, there cannot be anything wrong with what he is trying to do; therefore the reason he is not getting it done must be tactical and organizational, and a failure of the message.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 08, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Simon Heffer of the Telegraph has an excellent article about the discontent.
========================
Posted by: China, climate, and capital. I told ya'. | March 08, 2010 at 11:33 AM
If you used a really, really sensitive micrometer, you might discover that Ezra Klein is smarter than Al Hunt.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 08, 2010 at 11:34 AM
Al Hunt is an idiot.
Of all those you quote, only Rubin makes any sense to me.
Do you suppose the left is demonizing Rahm, even to the point of diabolically planting stories in which he is the hero, thereby letting his rivals think he's the source of those tales? (That's hw I'd write the novel anyway.)
If Rahm goes, the entire show is over, I think. He is the only one with any common sense up there.
As for the talented cabinet, let me laugh now. Why does he have cars? (Because his cabinet is a "look like America" Potemkin cabinet. As was Clinton's for the most part though he ran everything thru sub cabinet members.)
Obama ran a campaign which was astonishingly light on specifics and therefore offended few constituencies. Try running the country like that, Al you dunce.
Posted by: Clarice | March 08, 2010 at 11:38 AM
Here's that Telegraph link:
The end of the road for Barack Obama?
It's got some silly railing on Fox, and some BS about managing expectations, but Heffer also calls Emanuel a "Chicago hack" and Jarrett a "fixer" for the Daley machine. If only we could get this kind of CW reporting here.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 08, 2010 at 11:39 AM
he faces an opposition party that has no interest in compromise
Said like that's a bad thing. If your opponent wishes to feed you a shit sandwich, compromise would mean either you eat just half, or you both eat half. Either way, you're still eating shit.
Quick: name all three of George W. Bush's treasury secretaries. Hard to do, isn't it?
Quick, name anything a treasury secretary can do to make a difference.
Failing to empower Cabinet members on domestic policy
This brings to mind a failing the prez shares with Al hunt, "failing to understand that, as a nation of free individuals, we don't need the Cabinet holding our hands".
Isn't there anyone who believes in getting the government out of our way and letting us get on with our lives?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | March 08, 2010 at 11:43 AM
Clarice-
Did you see that WaPo story on using "disparate impact" analysis in K-12 and college on AP courses, college prep curricula, and discipline records?
"we are weaving equity into all that we do" says Office of Civil Rights chief.
No kidding.
Posted by: rse | March 08, 2010 at 11:46 AM
**why does he have cZars***
Posted by: Clarice | March 08, 2010 at 11:47 AM
Obama campaigned on generalities and had the MSM running cover for him the entire way. They got to print the reality of the campaign. Today reality is trumping the MSM and there is nothing they can do to spin their way out of it.
Posted by: Jeff | March 08, 2010 at 11:54 AM
How can you let anyone in your cabinet take the lead when you think you're the smartest man in the room?
Answer: You can't. Oh and he isn't smartest man in the room either.
Posted by: Roux | March 08, 2010 at 11:59 AM
rse, I didn't, but I'm not surprised. I suppose I should worry that my brilliant grand daughter will be forced to take stupid lessons to even things out,
Posted by: Clarice | March 08, 2010 at 12:05 PM
This thread is a perfect place for the latest Paul Johnson piece in the current Forbes. LUN
Posted by: Old Lurker | March 08, 2010 at 12:08 PM
I suppose I should worry that my brilliant grand daughter will be forced to take stupid lessons to even things out
Shades of "Harrison Bergeron." The wolverine will never let them outfox her, Clarice.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 08, 2010 at 12:08 PM
What could possibly go wrong, with Sheriff Joe, in charge
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/08/89974/stimulus-funds-pay-for-monkey.html
Posted by: narciso | March 08, 2010 at 12:10 PM
RSE, the WSJ lead editorial today concerns the nationalization of all student loans and the extension of that sort of help into the college market. What has been done to K-12... We've covered that at JOM before so it's nice to see some press on it.
Posted by: Old Lurker | March 08, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Fabulous examples of liberal media idiocy, TM. Rubin excepted.
I'm try to see how George Bush pressing for a troop surge in Iraq fits into this picture.
I have this emerging vision of higher education, say a school of journalism, where really stupid people hand out degrees and honoraria to students and others who successfully achieve a satisfactory level of stupidity. Being a leftist, of course, rates as the highest achievement, the absolute pinnacle.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | March 08, 2010 at 12:14 PM
I read that OL.
I have always hated disparate impact analysis because it forces decisionmakers to ignore real differences that do impact the makeup of a group.
The timing makes sense as they are in process of rolling out one national standard for all in English and math that will magically be deemed to be "College and Career Ready".
They are even renaming Title 1 the College and Career Readiness Program.
Easier to pretend if you're the students loan lender and get to decide who must pay back and who can escape and why.
Can you imagine when the only borrowers who have to repay are those taking private sector jobs?
Posted by: rse | March 08, 2010 at 12:18 PM
Can you imagine when the only borrowers who have to repay are those taking private sector jobs?
Another reason to stock up on rope, pitchforks, tar, feathers, and rails.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | March 08, 2010 at 12:20 PM
It's tough to fix upon an idiotic leader of the month, but I'm nominating Dominique Strauss-Kahn, chief IMF honcho, for the March award. At a time of global economic downturn and with global warming utterly discredited, S-K is proposing that nations figure out a way to pool funds to battle climate change. See LUN.
Perhaps Greece can issue more bonds to fund its share.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 08, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Whoops! Here's the LUN. Don't want to ignore S-K's contribution to world leadership!
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 08, 2010 at 12:26 PM
From the Forbes Article.
--President Barack Obama. To quote Benjamin Disraeli, "A sophisticated rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity." If only he would talk less, and think more.
How long till they admit that he doesn't have the intellectual capacity?
Posted by: Pofarmer | March 08, 2010 at 12:37 PM
Was that not the best quote, Po?
Posted by: Old Lurker | March 08, 2010 at 12:51 PM
Disraeli's comment also applies to Thomas Friedman.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 08, 2010 at 12:52 PM
"How long till they admit that he doesn't have the intellectual capacity?"
RSE has posted very good links revealing the answer to be "never". The President is a fine example of what "norming results" can achieve. He's a fully credentialed moron performing at peak capacity (about 15 Watts).
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 08, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Why are we here and not alling/writing Massa to un-resign?
Posted by: Clarice | March 08, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Clarice, I think it is Fox News that we should be contacting. In one of the articles on Massa (full article at LUN), it is stated that:
It appears as if Massa will rescind his resignation only if media pressure is brought to bear on Dems to lay off Massa.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 08, 2010 at 01:06 PM
Frankly, I think he's a rather intemperate man and I take what he says with a grain of salt, but I doubt if Fox needs my prodding on this one.
Posted by: Clarice | March 08, 2010 at 01:26 PM
Hmmm, Fox as instrument of human redemption.
=========================
Posted by: He knows for all the rest it's just narrative. | March 08, 2010 at 01:32 PM
I agree, Clarice, but it is great to read about Blue on Blue attacks (although the story of Emanuel and Massa in the shower is one I could have done without).
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 08, 2010 at 01:32 PM
At least RE wasn't wearing his tutu in the House gym. It coulda been worse. And I love massa's complaint about the missing shower curtains.
All this will undoubtedly raise public esteem for our solon class.
Posted by: Clarice | March 08, 2010 at 01:40 PM
Clarice, now all we need is one of our JOM photoshop artists to do one of Rahm in the shower wearing a tutu! :-))
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 08, 2010 at 01:43 PM
Why not file a claim against Rahm for sexual harassment? I thought showers were private. Since when was it OK to burst into someone's ablations and proceed to harangue them?
And after all that talk about republicans wanting to get into your bedroom, it turns out the dems wanted to get into your shower.
Even at the doctor's office I have more "privacy" than I do in the shower...so what does that say about their respect for personal privacy wrt healthcare measures?
Posted by: Stephanie | March 08, 2010 at 01:45 PM
Another thought...
Are the missing shower curtains a foreshadowing of the amount of privacy you can expect under Ocare? What are you trying to hide? Code Pink, PETA and other lefty groups have no problem parading around in the buff, why should you?
They did say they were all for transparency in health care didn't they?
Posted by: Stephanie | March 08, 2010 at 01:50 PM
what the hell is Emmanuel doing in the Members gym anyway? That is way over the line.
Posted by: matt | March 08, 2010 at 02:15 PM
My guess is that they did away with the curtains after poofterism became an issue. With those pages and all, it was getting like the bath houses in L.A.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 08, 2010 at 02:28 PM
You'd think they would put double layers of curtains if pooferism was the issue? Who wants to see that?
Posted by: Jane | March 08, 2010 at 02:52 PM
The IOC is the only group that said "No" and meant it. They might change their minds, but the American People clearly have.
They voted for Obama. Now they're learning what for what policies they voted and turns out they hate them.
I still hold out hope that President Obama will be exposed a phony rather late in his presidency, because if we see any of his transcripts before the final days it's going to be very ugly.
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | March 08, 2010 at 02:52 PM
Gabriel, the only puzzle piece that doesn't fit into the intelligence profile is the Harvard Law Review posts: editor and then the elected position ("president" was it?). Was the first a result of affirmative action and the second a measure of his gift of gab and charisma? Or was he indeed very bright at that time? The brain can go to rot after 20 years of idleness, leftism, and perverse religion.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | March 08, 2010 at 03:01 PM
Jim,
Editor of HLR was an elected position back then. I don't know if the same went for getting on the Review in the first place. At my school it was the top 10% of the first year class.
Dot would know.
Posted by: Jane | March 08, 2010 at 03:09 PM
Is it true Massa is going to go on the Glenn Beck show? Rahm and Massa in a shower EWW!
Posted by: maryrose | March 08, 2010 at 03:10 PM
Is Al Hunt opining or whining?
Posted by: Ruth H | March 08, 2010 at 03:18 PM
Tomorrow MaryRose.
Posted by: Jane | March 08, 2010 at 03:41 PM
Don't look for Massa's charges at Yahoo or the SF Chronicle's website (which currently has a Bakersfield state senator as it's top story - Bakersfield is about a five hour drive from here and is only considered part of the Bay Area when our leftie newspaper has a leftie point of view to sell). Apparently the size of the charge was only important during the Bush years. Now you need proof, in triplicate, and what a shame if your proof got accidentally filed in the dumpster.
Thankfully, the MSM's gatekeeper effectiveness is in the toilet. So the MSM will eventually cover it.......in a fact free op-ed piece that finds the fault lies with Fox and Sarah Palin.
Posted by: EBJ | March 08, 2010 at 03:49 PM
Jan, IIRC that year the HLR had a program where grades and writing werent the only criteria for getting onboard..It appears AA played a role. There's no way this dope was in the top any meaningful percent of his law school class.
Posted by: Clarice | March 08, 2010 at 03:55 PM
Hunt has been a liberal shill for years.I never did understand why he was appointed head editor at Bloomberg news. Could it be that Mayor Bloomberg (still owner of Bloomberg News)wanted to torpedo the Republican party? Check Bloomberg News financial reporting 3&4Q '08- helped Dems win election?
Posted by: Moose | March 08, 2010 at 04:11 PM
Wasn't Harvard also going through a good bit of turmoil at the time that made it propitious to make a statement?
I want to say it had something to do with Lani Guinier.
It was neither just grades or a write-on competition.
Posted by: rse | March 08, 2010 at 04:30 PM
Every law school was all about AA at that time.
Posted by: Jane | March 08, 2010 at 04:35 PM
"what the hell is Emmanuel doing in the Members gym anyway? That is way over the line."
Matt, technically ex-members of Congress can use the facilities, as my wife who was a former Leg Asst to Sen. Sarbanes told me. [he had to talk to guys like Gary Hart who hung around the Senate gym after losing his seat.] Lobbying takes place in those sporty precincts.
But I suppose ethically Matt has a point, since Rahm-bo now works for another branch of government and separation should be maintained. Maybe the House Ethics Cte could look into it, ha ha ha.
Speaking of which, I used to yak with Al Hunt in the YMCA sauna at R.I. Ave N.W. & he was never very smart. Common-sensical, but really not in touch with outside-the-Beltway goings-on.
Posted by: daveinboca | March 08, 2010 at 04:39 PM
His wife Judy woodruff is a total CW airhead.
Posted by: Clarice | March 08, 2010 at 04:55 PM
As I recall, the president spot ont HLR was elected and Zero was chosen in parlimentary fashion to break a deadlock on the umpteenth ballot.
Posted by: Old Lurker | March 08, 2010 at 05:10 PM
Quick: name all three of George W. Bush's treasury secretaries.
Let's see Snow and Paulson ... and ?? O'Neill
Posted by: Neo | March 08, 2010 at 06:05 PM
A minor???incident like the Christmas Day bomber?? It took BARRY 3 days to sober up and respond to this "minor"incident.
Posted by: Dein | March 08, 2010 at 06:59 PM
So Snow was one, Neo? I thought that, but then wondered if I was thinking of Tony Snow.
To be sure, none of the three are as memorable as Turbo Tax Timmy. Not that Capt Zero needs any help to explain how a good profit-earning ratio shows that a company isn't wasting resources on administrative overhead or profits or the like. He can even explain the shortcomings of the Austrian school of economics - and in the original Austrian, too!
Posted by: bgates | March 08, 2010 at 07:23 PM
"His wife Judy woodruff is a total CW airhead."
Clarice, got to know Judy when she interviewed me on MacNeil/Lehrer way back in '91 while I was in Saudi Arabia. Charlaine Hunter-Gault had hit it off with me in Riyadh and I actually told Woodruff on TV how to stop the Kuwaiti oil from leaking into the Gulf after Saddam did one of his eco-attacks on the Persian Gulf. [Blow up the pumping station], which the US Air Force asked me about after the interview, and promptly did several hours later, saving countless dugongs and other sealife in the process.
To give Judy her due, at that time she showed avid interest in the mechanics of what was going on & talked to me for a half-hour after the interview was over.
Now, as you noted, she has sunken into an MessNBC mode of hard left CW as her cerebral frontal lobes ossify.
Posted by: daveinboca | March 09, 2010 at 12:32 PM