Replace Rahm?

[Maggie]

Replace Rahm

There has been a lot of pundit speculation lately that what President Obama needs to do to right the ship is restructure his staff but Leslie Gelb’s assumptions when making that argument are remarkable.

Underneath its supposed "realist" practicality and its discreet evasions he appears to believe that President Obama is smart, articulate but naive soul who requires wise old advisers to keep him from sinking. :wacko: He is the President for crying out loud; the chief executive of this country; not some little boy.

I don't really find the criticisms of Rahm Emanuel, for example, very persuasive, nor do I buy the notion that Obama's communications skills have suddenly degraded, as some of his liberal admirers, in other places, actually seem to believe. Obama's fundamental problem is that he vastly over-promised, and that he has a world view that in certain key respects doesn't match reality.

I do think his lack of experience is an aggravating factor – which leads to the narrative that President Obama doesn’t appear up to the job. This, in turn, leads to the expanded narrative that he has surrounded himself with people that, by and large, appear not up to their jobs either. But I think the people that make these arguments are missing the point I referenced above: These supposedly incompetent advisers are not steering a naive Obama places he doesn't want to go. They are implementing his policies. They are Obama - not the other way around.

[wu_shizzle]

Seems like his only hope is to take a page from Clinton and try a little Dick Morris style Triangulation.

[Maggie]

Seems like his only hope is to take a page from Clinton and try a little Dick Morris style Triangulation.

Some people do believe that now it is a question of adopting either the model of Clinton triangulation or of Carter's sanctimonious finger-wagging path to irrelevance. President Obama appears to have chosen, at least for now, the latter path – he doesn’t seem capable of truly moving to the center.

President Obama and Clinton are two different political animals with different mindsets.

President Clinton, during the course of his political career (as a Governor and President) positioned himself near the center (although his administration went fairly hard left during the first couple of years) – he is most comfortable closer to the center. Additionally, say what you will about Clinton but he is and was a shrewd political operator - he, for the most part, has good instincts.

President Obama is a man of the Left and rhetoric aside always has been. I think his problem is twofold: (1) He is most comfortable governing from the Left because that is what he knows. Consequently, his governing instincts, such as they are, resist truly moving to the center – where the majority of Americans reside; and (2) simply hubris. Hubris is why he has invoked the "I didn't explain clearly enough" defense on health-care - this from the guy whose every fortnight utterance on television has been hyped as brilliant, moving, and for the ages. From the get-go President Obama seemed to believe that his silver tongue could talk anyone into anything (talking Iran out of nukes; Palestinian/Israeli negotiations; to health-care) – and, in part, I don’t blame him. He has never “failed” in life and everyone around him, including a fawning media, has reinforced this myth.

I am not convinced he can move toward the center – he faked it during the campaign; however, the difference now is he has to govern.

[ISASO]

Simply an outstanding recap of the situation Maggie.

A follow-up comment, if I may. If you are a community organizer/agitator, how do you really know if you've succeeded or failed? Everything is pretty subjective in that "profession" which allows people to spin the outcome in their favor. It's a space where moral victories easily become spun into real victories.

That's why Obama is struggling in the face of real, tangible failure.