Core Chicago Team Sinking Obama Presidency (Steve Clemons)

[KittyWampus]

Core Chicago Team Sinking Obama Presidency
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/



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

It's a vital article -- a brave one -- that interviews "dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington".
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b6b4700a-10fb-11df-9a9e-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

snip

The entire article needs to be read, but to set the stage here is the beginning of Ed Luce's portal into the heart of today's Obama machine:

At a crucial stage in the Democratic primaries in late 2007, Barack Obama rejuvenated his campaign with a barnstorming speech, in which he ended on a promise of what his victory would produce: "A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again." Just over a year into his tenure, America's 44th president governs a bitterly divided nation, a world increasingly hard to manage and an America that seems more disillusioned than ever with Washington's ways. What went wrong?

Pundits, Democratic lawmakers and opinion pollsters offer a smorgasbord of reasons - from Mr Obama's decision to devote his first year in office to healthcare reform, to the president's inability to convince voters he can "feel their pain", to the apparent ungovernability of today's Washington. All may indeed have contributed to the quandary in which Mr Obama finds himself. But those around him have a more specific diagnosis - and one that is striking in its uniformity. The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing, they say.

In dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington - most of them given unattributably in order to protect their access to the Oval Office - each observes that the president draws on the advice of a very tight circle. The inner core consists of just four people - Rahm Emanuel, the pugnacious chief of staff; David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, his senior advisers; and Robert Gibbs, his communications chief.

Two, Mr Emanuel and Mr Axelrod, have box-like offices within spitting distance of the Oval Office. The president, who is the first to keep a BlackBerry, rarely holds a meeting, including on national security, without some or all of them present.

With the exception of Mr Emanuel, who was a senior Democrat in the House of Representatives, all were an integral part of Mr Obama's brilliantly managed campaign. Apart from Mr Gibbs, who is from Alabama, all are Chicagoans - like the president. And barring Richard Nixon's White House, few can think of an administration that has been so dominated by such a small inner circle.

"It is a very tightly knit group," says a prominent Obama backer who has visited the White House more than 40 times in the past year. "This is a kind of 'we few' group ... that achieved the improbable in the most unlikely election victory anyone can remember and, unsurprisingly, their bond is very deep."

John Podesta, a former chief of staff to Bill Clinton and founder of the Center for American Progress, the most influential think-tank in Mr Obama's Washington, says that while he believes Mr Obama does hear a range of views, including dissenting advice, problems can arise from the narrow composition of the group itself.

To hit some of the later highlights, Luce speaks with political giants 'inside' the Obama tent who suggest that Rahm Emanuel lost track of the importance of communicating to the public about health care, despite some success in legislative deal-making. While Luce doesn't explicate this topic, I would also suggest that Rahm pulled the plug on shuttering GITMO, which had a good plan on paper, but was unwilling to move the political wheels to get that done -- not understanding that this was a key pillar of progressive political support for Obama.

snip

I will never forget when Rahm Emanuel laughingly responded well within earshot of several national media (and this blogger/writer) at an Inaugural bash to an inquiry if Emanuel was enjoying putting Tom Daschle on the basement floor of the White House in a non-descript office pretty far from the President. Emanuel joked back glibly that Daschle had to be happy with any office in the White House because "any square inch of real estate inside the White House -- no matter where it is -- is more valuable than anything outside it."

Compare this flippant meanness and hubris to the tone of Obama campaign manager David Plouffe's depiction of the campaign in Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama's Historic Victory and one couldn't imagine more different worlds. Plouffe describes a campaign with a "no assholes" rule -- one where good policy would be pursued -- not just what was a winning political hand.

Luce's brief paints a picture of even a well-meaning, policy-focused "Obama the man" being warped out of shape by "Obama the team." Recounting some of the antics during Obama's November China trip, Luce recounts:

The same can be observed in foreign policy. On Mr Obama's November trip to China, members of the cabinet such as the Nobel prizewinning Stephen Chu, energy secretary, were left cooling their heels while Mr Gibbs, Mr Axelrod and Ms Jarrett were constantly at the president's side.
The White House complained bitterly about what it saw as unfairly negative media coverage of a trip dubbed Mr Obama's "G2" visit to China. But, as journalists were keenly aware, none of Mr Obama's inner circle had any background in China. "We were about 40 vans down in the motorcade and got barely any time with the president," says a senior official with extensive knowledge of the region. "It was like the Obama campaign was visiting China."

One wonders why Valerie Jarrett was on the trip in any case. As head of public engagement for the White House, it would seem she should have a rather full plate meeting the demand of the many groups around the United States that want to feel like they are connecting with and being heard by the Obama White House.

more at Washington Note link. Story is posted on TPM, Huffington Post etc.

[frazzled]

1. The perennial Washington-insider's complaint

I'll just repost what I posted in another thread to this yesterday:

With all due respect to Steve Clemons and FT Washington Bureau chief Edward Luce ... I have to laugh at this quadrennial (or octennial) complaint from Washington insiders about the yokels from (name the president's home state) who are botching up the White House.

Bill Clinton's WH staff and senior advisors in his early years contained many Arkansans (Mack Maclarty, Vince Foster, et al.)--I'm sure you remember the great press they got. Jimmy Carter brought up all those hillbillies from Georgia like Hamilton Jordan, who didn't hit the cocktail circuit with sufficient savoir-faire. George Bush stacked his staff with people from Texas (Rove, Hughes, et al.)--well, somehow the media didn't complain about anything W. did.

I'm sorry, Washington big boys: big fucking deal. These men and women are from, GASP, Chicago. Get over it. We hear this every time a president comes to Washington. Well, we hear it if they are Democrats. Their staffs are know-nothings from the sticks who are doing great disservice to the President. Really, if I do say so myself, that's kind of fucking retarded.

[zipplewrath]

2. Actually, a bad headline

You're probably guilty of paying attention to a bad headline, which of course is a problem that starts with a bad headline. The problem here, and the primary complaint, has nothing to do with being from Chicago, or his campaign, or anything else. They virtually undermine their own headline when they point out that neither of those characteristics actually applies to this group of 4. The real problem that they describe is that he is being advised ON EVERYTHING by 4 people, only one of which has any real governing experience. Many of the people he does have with applicable experience are not being either engaged or really trusted. And that has the added problem that it puts every problem back upon the oval office directly.

I found some weaknesses in their article, again related to a desire to make their point quickly by relying upon stereotypes. The biggest one is that he actually is relying upon more than "the four". Hillary and Gates both have a fair amount of influence. His real point is that on just about anything "domestic" he is relying upon these 4. And to a greater degree he is only relying upon these 4 for the "public face" part. Holder obviously has "control" of the justice department, occasionally to the irritation of the White House and the CIA. It is in his communications with the people, and in his legislative priorities that he is relying upon the 4. At the end, even Gergen suggeests something to the effect that there isn't really anything wrong with that. They may be botching the job (I think they are) but the solution probably isn't including more people in the job, but in getting better people.

I do think the point that they are trying to communicate everything through these 4 people is a good one. I have been surprised that he hasn't used the cabinet secretaries more to address many of his legislative priorites. I'm always surprised I don't see other press secretaries more, and Gibbs less.

Obama or Rahm are about the only two that can "fix" this problem. Obama has to look up some day and suggest that maybe these 4 should ALWAYS be in the room on EVERY issue. Biden might be able to bring it to his attention but there are appearances that he isn't in the room much either. It is probably hard for Obama to actually see the problem though, because physically he does see alot of people every day. What he doesn't see is that they have gone "through" these 4 in some sense, and even more so, these 4 are the first and last "in the room". The China trip is a classic example. At some point it has to occur to him that Valerie is on the trip and he can't quite explain why, much less why she is in the limo.

[frazzled]

4. Well, I did read the whole article

And I was unimpressed. My point still stands.

Look ... why are you surprised you see Gibbs so much more than other press secretaries? He's the Press Secretary, for heavens sake. In every administration the PS does the daily WH press briefing. Whether it was Maclarty or Lockhart or whomever for Clinton; Fleischer or McClellan or Snow for Bush. Plus, maybe you haven't been looking in all the right places: I've seen the inimitable Linda Douglass, who is Director of Communications for the White House Office of Health Reform, on any number of shows over the past year, shilling for HCR. When I have seen Sibelius, she hasn't been all that convincing, frankly. This doesn't mean she isn't good in policy discussions or hasn't been listened to.

Now let's look at the credentials. You complain these people (besides Rahm) have no governing experience. Well, they're not governing: that is not their role. They are senior advisers. Let's take them in order:

Axelrod, who has been in politics (successfully) his whole life, first as a political science major, as a top political reporter, and then as one of the country's more successful campaign advisors. His role is exactly like that of Karl Rove in the Bush White House--did anyone complain that Karl Rove didn't have governing experience? No, even those of us who thought he was evil incarnate thought he was damned effective within his role. Clinton had the same senior adviser capacity in James Carville, who had no governing experience either--he was a senior adviser. "The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing, they say." Yeah, well welcome to the modern White House. This has been true for the senior advisers to all modern presidents. It's like being shocked that there is gambling in Casablanca.

Let's take Jarrett next. She certainly has had government experience. It just wasn't in Washington. She was Deputy Corporation Counsel for Finance and Development in the Harold Washington administration and Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard Daley. Her role is White House Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Relations and Public Liaison. She's actually one of the better spoken and most fiercely loyal advocates for the president in the public realm (her job). What she brings is trust--something that all NEW presidents like to bring with them: someone they can implicitly rely on to be in their corner, like Karen Hughes was for Bush or Bert Lance for Carter.

Gibbs, of course, is not from Chicago. But it's not like he didn't have the credentials--or the trust, again. He was Obama's coommunications director as senator. He also was the press secy for John Kerry's 2004 campaign, and has been communications director for the DSCC, and for Senator Fritz Hollings (remember him?).

Rahm Emanuel needs no further explanation. You either think he's the devil incarnate or a tough cookie who can get things through the House (and less so, the Senate).

These four are exactly the kinds of loyal, close personal advisers every president has brought with them in their early years--people they can trust. Like them or not, there is nothing unusual about the president relying on them. At the same time, we have read article after article that says that Obama, in contrast to, say, Bush, has listened to a far broader set of people than anyone who has come before. There are just so many examples of this it's not worth repeating.

I stand by my claim that this is a typical insider's complaint.

[zipplewrath]

6. It's a matter of degree

It's going to be hard to discuss, because it is primarily a problem of degree. The problem isn't that we see Gibbs, the problem is we see him, on every issue, to the exclusion of the other press secretaries. You saw more of Rumsfeld's secretary than we are seeing of Gates'.

Furthermore, I did not "complain" that they have no experience, but it is merely an observation to point out that his advice is coming from a fairly narrow point of view, which of course is the larger point of the original article. He's getting only 4 points of view on everything (which is a bit of hyperbole as I pointed out. He is getting other points on issues of State or DoD.) But only getting 4 points of view like this on EVERYTHING having to do with much of his agenda (legislatively really) is the primary point of the article. I think there is some validity to it. He has a full cabinet and yet these 4 are hoarding a huge portion of his agenda. No one is that smart to be the "go to guys" on such a large portion of the agenda. That is especially true of Gibbs who needs to coordinate his message through different secretaries. If you want to talk about how past presidents have handled it, THAT is what many successful presidents have done from Reagan to Clinton and both Bushes. If nothing else Reagan used to like to have his announce good news, and teh department secretaries announce bad news.

And we have seen the results. "All the eggs in one basket" is the basic problem here. Healthcare was suppose to "launch" everything else. Now we're here in February and it still isn't passed and nothing else is moving forward. And he picked potentially the one issue upon which the GOP could hold tight to their "pass nothing" strategy. If he had a wider consultation of his advisers, he would likely have had a wider first year agenda that didn't rely solely upon one bill getting passed. It was clear by last August that he was going to have trouble with Health Care and as such a wider group might have easily given a wider advice concerning stategty other than "stay the course" because it was "the one" the Mighty 4 had decided upon.

Obama himself was worrried about being sucked "into the bubble" and it was one reason that he held so tightly to his blackberry. What you are missing is that it is the people who have the number to that blackberry that are observing that The Mighty 4 are the problem. This isn't a "washington insiders" complaint, it is his friends.

[Hawkowl]

7. Failure is the reason

I agree with your point that this is typical of most presidents. A core circle of personal advisors that influence EVERYTHING.

The reason it is being brought up is because Obama is failing. Yes, yes, a lot of small successes and some complete reversals of Bush policies, but they were never given center stage.

The big three: Healthcare, War, and Jobs are to this point epic failures. If Obama had managed to get a truly popular healthcare reform signed (universal access, public option, price control mechanism etc) he would be more popular than anybody ever and the insider criticism would be irrelevant. Similarly, jobs keep vanishing, and the Wars keep surging.

Rahm needs to go because he is a failure and he is the least closest of Obama's advisors and the most responsible for Obama's kowtowing to the rethuglicans and the resulting paralysis in the Congress.

[frazzled]

8. Fiddle-faddle

About all Clinton accomplished in his first year was the Family and Medical Leave Act (a good thing, but no more significant than the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act) and Don't Ask Don't Tell policy ... and a string of failed nominees. I don't blame him: he was mercilessly bedeviled by the media, the right, and the left. But according to your standards, he failed even more greatly in that first year than Obama has.

[Hawkowl]

10. Yes, Clinton failed

That is why he was "bedeviled" his first year. You're agreeing with me, so I truly don't get what point you are trying to make?

My point is Obama needs to do one of the three: Bring all troops home without a ridiculous surge; Pass a truly universal affordable health care bill; or start creating a net several hundred thousand jobs per month.

The media/right/corporate rich will ALWAYS attack a dem president. However, if he accomplishes one of the three main goals the PEOPLE will support him and he will be re-elected.

Clinton succeeded in generating jobs (thru a massive credit bubble a la Greenspan which won't work again), and thus earned the support of the people which saved his political ass.

[shireen]

3. don't blame the inner circle

the buck stops with Obama.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. The gop has made it's mission to stonewall Obama from day 1.

The "insiders" haven't done anything wrong.

[spanone]

9. i blame the cheneyites and the palinites and the bu$hkies