Hallucinating Hope

I don't know about you, but I am finding it a more than full-time second job these days keeping that Hope thing properly virile.  I don't find it all that reassuring to engage in hypotheticals like what if Palin/McCain had won or what if w had seized a third term.  The reality as I see it is that we have had a year of democratic party control of the White House and both houses of congress, and I find appallingly little actual positive forward motion, aside from the aforementioned "think how bad it could have been."

Aside:  how is it that the dying press can in good conscience feature headlines regarding the D's losing their "super-majority" or "filibuster-proof majority," as a result of the disappointing Mass. senatorial election?  The democrats, far more of an open tent than that other racist-laden group, have never shown anything remotely resembling the regimented brown-shirt behavior the repubs are exhibiting these days.  So sad to see journos like nyt and wp writing their own obits with this sort of pathetic swill.

If you are devoted to trying to keep up on the news, which these days imho means you are on-line with a vengeance, you can't help but conclude that the miraculous Obama campaign has not translated well when it comes to actual results.  The man is amazingly eloquent and charismatic, probably more-so than anyone since JFK, and perhaps he even outdoes Jack. I am a sucker for that sort of thing.

Never mind that - we are in desperate need of results Big Time.  And soon.  That prior stinky entitled infestation courtesy of that fake cowboy awol psychopath left the stables wholly engorged with feces.

Despite the source, I found this analysis at the Financial Times (channeled here by Clemons), pretty dang compelling:

Financial Times Washington Bureau Chief Edward Luce has written a granularly informed insider accountRahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs, Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod. about those who hold the keys to the inner most sanctum of Obama Land --

It's a vital article -- a brave one -- that includes "dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington." 

Most are unnamed because the consequences of retribution from this powerful foursome can be severe in an access-dependent town. John Podesta, president of the powerful, administration-tilting Center for American Progress, had the temerity and self-confidence to put his thoughts publicly on the record. But most others could not.

Mark Schmitt, executive editor of the liberal magazine the American Prospect, wrote that "Luce has written what seems to me the best and most succinct rundown of what's gone wrong in the White House, with particular attention to the role of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel." But some of the big aggregators out there -- Mike Allen at Politico and ABC's The Note among others -- didn't give Luce's juicy and lengthy essay any love. 

Why not? Allen is a good friend of mine and tries to keep a good balance between tough-hitting political stuff, but also goes out of his way to give strokes to those in the White House he can -- particularly "Axe" -- who is a regular in Mike's daily Playbook. I try to do the same, to be honest, and have a particular thing for Bill Burton's wit and was pleased to see Rahm Emanuel giving David Geffen rather than Rick Warren lots of hugs during the Inauguration eve fests.

But this Luce piece is unavoidably, accurately hard-hitting, and while many of the nation's top news anchors and editors are sending emails back and forth (I have been sent three such emails in confidence) on what a spot-on piece Luce wrought on the administration, they fear that the "four horsepersons of the Obama White House" will shut down and cut off access to those who give the essay 'legs.'

-clip-

You devoted patrio-laureates, who I know will be processing the full Clemons and Schmitt articles, will also benefit from Digby's insights.  In particular, I would note that she suggests Rahm is more trouble than he is worth.  Absolutely.  If he'd actually pulled off even one brazen pantsing of a republican senator, or a successful ridicule of a Shelby or some other junior high school prank, the sort of thing he is famous for, he might be tolerable.  Pathetically, he's not even achieved the stature of Baby Rove.  Begone, you pathetic swine, and do not further damage our increasingly frail republic!

Ok, before we go any further, I have to interrupt and point out that there is a missing explanation here: perhaps the problem is that everyone, apparently including the Obama team and this reporter, insisted on actually believing that the election signaled a fundamental shift in the political landscape so huge that the earth was knocked off its axis and everything was different. In other words, far too many people believed the hype, which I understand was very, very seductive, but it was foolish, nonetheless.

The problems were always huge, the system was always broken, the Republicans were always nuts. For some reason it was convenient to ignore all that pretend that we had had a rebirth all shiny and new and that if the worst happened, Obama could always just make a speech and everything would fall into place. Nobody's as good a politician as he was assumed to be --- and that assumption came from a presidential campaign that could have probably been won by anyone with a D after his name, which makes it even more facile. It was hubris, and we all know where that leads.

The piece goes on to reveal that Obama is being badly served by his closest advisors, Rahm Emmanuel, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and Robert Gibbs, who apparently dominate decision making in the White house and in the view of whoever is is talking, insulate the president from more diverse thinking and give him bad advice. The thesis is that they are political hacks who are preventing the president from making sound policy decisions. If the anecdotes are true, that may be the case, especially in a time when good politics depends so heavily on good policy.

It's fascinating, of course, because it's gossip and because some in the White House and others close to the administration have decided to try to dethrone these four. The courtiers are rebelling. That's usually not a good sign. It will be interesting to see if Obama reacts.

I would just point out two things. First, this is exactly the set-up which everyone admired so much about the first term Reagan White House. He was surrounded by three close aides, Deaver, Meese and Baker, who insulated his beautiful mind from outside influence. It's surprising how much the Obama administration modeled itself on Reagan. And it's vaguely disturbing, as well, since the political landscape is radically different even if the economy is equally stressed. Plus, Reagan was an elderly, white Republican, which alone makes it a different political universe.

The second point is that these stories always act as if the president is a simple child who has no agency in all this. The fact is that if there's one job he has above all others as chief executive, it's choosing the very best people to run the administration. If he's surrounding himself with political aides whose jobs it is to protect the Obama brand or whatever, it's his decision to do so.

What this really signals is that the Obama bubble has conclusively popped and people are now dealing with political realities. Believing that he was some kind of wizard whose very person was imbued with the power to change reality with a few well chosen words wasted a lot of time. But if its over, I'm very glad of it. Now maybe they can start looking at problems realistically and understand just how hard they have to fight to solve them.

And Rahm, by the way, is way more trouble than he's worth. Even Nixon's advisors were more subtle --- and far more lethal. You don't keep a nasty henchman who makes enemies of everyone and inspires loathing by his very presence if he can't even get the job done.