Protecting the Obama brand

[Beacool]

The president's recent political missteps raise questions about what he's doing for -or to- the Democratic Party



Two stories about President Obama this weekend pushed my growing unease with his recent moves into full-blown anxiety. They come on the heels of Tim Dickinson's devastating Rolling Stone piece laying out concrete problems with Obama's response to the BP oil spill – from delays in cleaning up the Minerals Management Service, distrusting scientists who correctly reported the spill was much bigger than BP said, waiting more than a week to declare the crisis "an Oil Spill of National Significance," which corralled new services. Maybe the most damning, to me, section of Dickinson's piece comes when he quotes the president proudly announcing he'd reversed his stand against offshore oil drilling "It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills," the president said. "They are technologically very advanced." Dickenson notes: "Eighteen days later, on the eve of the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, the Deepwater Horizon rig went off like a bomb."

Of the weekend's worrisome Obama stories, the first was Politico's Roger Simon's interview with Obama, published in full today, in which his self-defense about how he's handled the BP oil disaster sounded whiny and juvenile, and raised big questions about whether he's capable of fighting the battles he needs to enter and win to move the country forward. The other was Matt Bai's "President in Chief?" in the New York Times Magazine, which showed that Obama and his team seem more focused on protecting the "brand" that they believe galvanized millions of new voters, young voters and independents in 2008, to potentially realign American politics, than with helping Democrats hold the House and Senate.

On that point, quickly: I don't have a problem with the president focusing on the big picture, concentrating on government, to the neglect of partisan political duties. If he were working on programs and policies that he thought would resonate with those new and/or unaligned voters who backed him two years ago, I'd be perfectly fine. What worries me is the White House's relatively substance-free approach to keeping the Obama brand bright and shiny. Bai argues that Obama's team sees "inclusivity, transcendence, a generational break from stale dogmas" as the so-called brand – and there's nothing in that notion that has anything to do with actual political programs, policies or problem solving. That's a little terrifying. Republicans succeeded for most of the last 40 years because they delivered on many of their promises to their base, especially big business, with tax cuts, deregulation and demagoguery against government. Democrats have stumbled in that period because they haven't done the same. Could Obama ultimately hurt the Democratic Party more than he helped it?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/06/13/after_obama/

Et tu, Joan?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. There's enough in that article in every paragraph to discuss for a week.

Deeply discuss. I will bookmark it.

[chill_wind]

7. One for the bookmarks, agreed.

And I think it would be difficult to characterize Joan Walsh as "just another 'hater'."

[Beacool]

11. Yes, there's a lot there to digest.

The NY Times article alone is 9 pages online.

:o

[polichick]

2. Yes, Obama could ultimately hurt the Democratic Party more than he helped it. nt

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kalun D]

4. Have To Protect the IMAGE

because there is very little substance, and the substance that's there is contrary to the image.

"It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills," the president said. "They are technologically very advanced."

hey Mr President, have you noticed that the BOP technology, the main purpose of which is to avoid what recently happened, hasn't kept up with the other equipment used in drilling?

hey Mr President have you noticed that there was an oil president in office for 8 years and maybe you should look at the regulatory agency MMS to see if it's corrupt and ineffective?

[amborin]

55. +1000

Obama and Salazar *knew* MMS was a mess; S had said he was the 'new sheriff in town' and would clean it up

yeah, right

[rocktivity]

5. You help your party by helping ALL your party's voters

not just the ones who can supply you with biggest campaign contributions, cushiest post-political jobs, and free hookers.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[boston bean]

9. The last sentence about transcendency and overcoming.... whew..... Go Joan!

[ProSense]

6. Tim Dickinson's piece is basically the BP spill is Obama's 9/11

There are two pressing reasons that I find Obama's current stasis so worrisome. One is that we're at a dangerous time, given the world economy, and on the right, Obama's election has worsened a 20-year pattern of Republican obstruction and destruction (and it's got an undercurrent of hate and demonization that can't be denied.) At the same time, Obama has an incredible moment to articulate what Democratic leadership stands for: Improving the lives of ordinary Americans, protecting the country from the unbridled, deregulated dangerous corporate excess, and moving boldly on problems, like climate change, that require boldness and leadership. Between the BP oil disaster and the near-collapse of the world economy thanks to the finance industry – both have in common a corporate arrogance that big risks to make big money were worth taking, no matter the impact on the rest of us – Obama has the perfect context for laying out why government matters, and why Democrats run the government best. Instead he's carping about "folks up there" in Washington and complaining that if he'd tried to regulate the oil industry before the spill, people would have said bad things about him. Grow up, Mr. President.

The President avoided the oil industry?

January 2010: Ken Salazar Announces Tougher Oil And Gas Regulations

February 2010: Obama budget seeks to end oil, gas subsidies.

From the OP:

At the same time, Obama has an incredible moment to articulate what Democratic leadership stands for: Improving the lives of ordinary Americans, protecting the country from the unbridled, deregulated dangerous corporate excess, and moving boldly on problems, like climate change, that require boldness and leadership.

Of course the President has done none of those things.

I chock this up to more pile on.

[boston bean]

8. Pile On..... .... Is that anything like Move On?

Another one awakens.... poor Joan, I hope she knows what she's in for....

What does ProSense stand for, what would be one issue that you would make you angry with Obama? Is there one?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chill_wind]

12. And Walsh's isn't.

She devotes one opening paragraph to it. What she's writing about are two newer stories.
Let's see if you can actually pick them out.

[boston bean]

25. I wish I could see what she replied....

[depakid]

10. "bipartisanship is a pillar of the Obama brand"

And in that sense the author is- and the evidence shows- absolutely correct that Obama has up to this point hurt the Democratic party more than he's helped it.

The oil spill triangulation was the coup de grâce in a long line of activities, public statements and policy decisions that have enabled and legitimized Republicans and repeatedly given them a hand up- when they ought to have been smacked down and relegated to the fringe for a generation.

[waiting for hope]

13. The Republicans wouldn't have thought twice

about being bipartisan ... why is the Dem party so concerned with it? This tactic has gotten us nowhere, but like an addict, they keep going back, expecting a different result.

[depakid]

18. Unfortunately, it seems to be an indelible trait of the person in office

He seems to pine for a "place" like Harvard Law Review where he was able to "bring the two sides together" and doesn't have to engage in "divisive" rhetoric or take hard, principled stands on issues.

Republicans- on the other hand are astute schoolyard bullying types- they recognize that Obama has this psychological need and that it runs deep. Thus- they go to extremes to deny him any hint of "bipartisanship," often long after it would appear, at least on the surface, to be politically effective.

Thus- as the author describes, we get this:

....Republicans won't face voter anger from Obama's new cadre of backers if they're never told Republicans are the problem; it's merely Washington that's broken. Likewise, if Obama-brand voters are all about Obama, and require a gauzy appeal to bipartisanship and transcendence, denuded of practical problem solving -- health care reform, climate change, creating jobs, a fair tax structure – what do they really add for Democrats?

In the same way, bipartisanship is only a means to an end; it should never be an end in itself. If Obama was able to move a significant bloc of liberal Repubicans behind his moderate goals on the above issues, to get good things done, fantastic.

But right now, Obama can only achieve bipartisanship by capitulating on Democratic values and adopting Republican goals – larding both the stimulus and jobs bills with tax cuts, for instance, or flip-flopping on offshore oil drilling to try to win GOP support for a climate change bill. Even then, Republicans tend to back away from his outstretched hand, and Obama looks like an impotent nincompoop waiting around for cooperation that will never come.

[Beacool]

19. Isn't it ironic that Bush got his way more often than not?

Bush didn't give a rat's tail end about bipartisanship and still managed to get Congress to pass most of his legislative agenda, even when by 2006 the Republicans were in the minority.

Go figure.......

:eyes:

[snagglepuss]

24. Nail meets hammer. nt

[jaxx]

14. Joanie Joanie Joanie

you've just added yourself to the long list of the woulda coulda shoulda club.

ps....they all think they know more than the guy at 1600.

[AtomicKitten]

22. backseat driving has been elevated to an art form nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. Funny, I didn't see any these "know-it-alls" on the ballot. Obama was the best of the lot . . .

and is doing the best he can with little backup support.

[tekisui]

32. Obama was the best of the lot.

That doesn't mean he couldn't be better.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

63. Fair point - everyone falls short of their full potential, but . . .

most objective, well-informed people have to admit that Obama has done more (as President) with less (in Congress) than any of his recent predecessors.

[tekisui]

31. When do you ask why that club has grown so large?

As the bubble gets smaller, it may be time to look within.

[jaxx]

35. More like it has become a deadly game with the media.

Let's put down Obama today...and tomorrow and the next day. One says something and the next guy tries to top that, and so on. We see the result, nothing but a bunch of pundits thinking they know it all when they don't. But you'll never convince them of that.

[freddie mertz]

15. Joan Walsh is one of the most thoughtful analysts out there.

I have to take time to process this. a lot of new material here, and True Blood is starting soon!

[Laelth]

17. I don't care how he looks. I care about what he DOES. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Raine]

20. THANKS for posting this

it's going to take time to read it but I will. :thumbsup:

[Beacool]

23. Yeah, it's a compendium. LOL!!!

I still haven't finished reading the Rolling Stones article. There's a lot there to process and digest.

:hi:

[xchrom]

21. recommend

[Beacool]

26. Thanks

Although it is still at 0, some eager beavers must be busy unrec'ing it. LOL!!!

:D

[tekisui]

27. kn(invisible)r.

[Beacool]

28. Thank you nonetheless.

:hi:

[tekisui]

29. This part(among others) nails the problem with Obama:

"The pragmatic, content-free, bipartisan Obama appeal has nothing to do with getting done what Democrats need to do.To an extent the folks around Obama are right: Many of us on the left believed Obama's victory was a mandate for the liberal policies he (sometimes quietly) backed on the campaign trail: serious healthcare reform legislation, a climate change bill, tough new financial regulation. But a subsection of Obama voters (no one knows how large) backed the president not because of specific programs, but because he promised a new kind of politics that could break through the gridlock that has paralyzed Washington. The Obama team doesn't know exactly what he has to do to keep those voters in 2010 and 2012, but they seem to believe it doesn't involve pushing tough Democratic legislation or bashing Republicans for their intransigence."

[Beacool]

33. It's arrogance.

It's arrogant for any political team to assume that voters will automatically vote for them because, where else would they go?

Politicians should always remember Tip O'Neill and his "all politics is local", which he learned when some lady he had known most his life did not vote for him when he ran for a seat on the Cambridge City Council. When he asked her why she hadn't voted for him, she responded by saying "you never asked me". Lesson learned, Tip never lost another election in his lifetime.

;-)

[babylonsister]

67. Arrogance? Rush? Beck?? Is that you? nt

[Number23]

34. It frightens me to have to agree with some of the posters in this thread

(who are not folks I would want to be on the same side of on ANY issue) but this is a very thought-provoking read.

I appreciate Walsh's apparent understanding that the wide political coalition that put Obama into office (hint: it wasn't even close to being just "liberals") and ability to bring in millions of new voters has in many ways tied his hands. I also appreciate her call for the President to straightforwardly explain the differences between Repubs and Dems and how Dem leadership has traditionally improved the lives of ordinary Americans -- or has at least done so more than Repub administrations.

Good read. All of this really highlights that the President has his hands full and you couldn't get me to try to do his job for all of the money and power in the world.

[Beacool]

36. Do tell...........

I think that I just fell in a dead faint.

:D




:hi:

[Number23]

62. And some more truly frightening folks kicked and rec'd after my first comment

Oh well.

And there's no reason for you to fall into a "dead faint." I am an independent and owe no allegiance to any party. I am happy to point out the President's mistakes as I see them just as quickly as I point out his accomplishments when I see them.

But considering we all know to whom your heart belongs, I guess it's not that surprising that you would be surprised that not everyone wears their heart on their sleeves when making political assessments. :)

[dionysus]

37. Bea, are you trying to start a kerfluffle? no banky for you!

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[Beacool]

38. Always, sweetheart, always................

Unquestioning complacency bores me, particularly when there is a lot of truth in every linked article.

;)


No banky?

:-(


Here's a hug anyway.

:hug:

[dionysus]

39. ok, banky tomorrow

:P

[Beacool]

40. Promises, promises...........

:eyes:




:D

[dionysus]

47. and i deliver!

banky!!
:hi:

[Beacool]

48. Banky!!!!!

:woohoo:

I'm still sleepy, I wish I could snuggle up to it and sleep some more.

:boring:


Thank you.

:pals:

[bvar22]

41. K&R....still at zero.

"Obama has an incredible moment to articulate what Democratic leadership stands for: Improving the lives of ordinary Americans, protecting the country from the unbridled, deregulated dangerous corporate excess, and moving boldly on problems, like climate change, that require boldness and leadership. Between the BP oil disaster and the near-collapse of the world economy thanks to the finance industry – both have in common a corporate arrogance that big risks to make big money were worth taking, no matter the impact on the rest of us – Obama has the perfect context for laying out why government matters, and why Democrats run the government best. Instead he's carping about "folks up there" in Washington and complaining that if he'd tried to regulate the oil industry before the spill, people would have said bad things about him. Grow up, Mr. President."

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Beacool]

42. Thanks anyway.

The unrec'ing crew is working overtime. Pretty childish if you ask me.......

:7

[bvar22]

43. It is childish.

As soon as people willing to look at the real picture read this, it will get to the greatest page.
Those people still outnumber the children.
I'm good for a few kicks.



"I don’t represent the big oil companies. I don’t represent the big pharmaceutical companies.
I don’t represent the Enrons of this world. But you know what?
They already have great representation in Washington.
It’s the rest of the people that need it.”
---Paul Wellstone’s Last Commercial

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[opihimoimoi]

45. He will help the DEM Party in the end....he is the only Positive Force we got in Play

He dovetails with the DEM PARTY who is the only Pos Party around...thus, if we Americans want Pos...we gatta go with President Obama...

Them Negative Cynical GOP ain't gonna lead us outta the desert, forest, or Gulf....thats for sure...jus lookit their horrid record....

The Pubs have a proven record of Lie Cheat Steal...they even vote as a bloc just to block the Dems...never mind Nation...

[Politics_Guy25]

46. I should add

He could nail his GOM trip tommorrow and Tuesday, deliver a stunning oval office address on Tuesday with concrete actions, get Kagan confirmed, get the Gulf under somewhat control, and get a strong financial reform bill passed and things will be looking up again.

The key is the economy though.

[vaberella]

49. ~SIGH~ Then the next incident happns and he's enemy no.1 on this site.

This site blows hot and cold. And when shit goes down the first to blame is Obama.

[amborin]

50. K&R (invisible rec)

[Beacool]

52. Thank you.

It's the thought that counts....

;-)

[madamesilverspurs]

51. ...

-

[Bobbie Jo]

56. !

[polichick]

53. More and more the Obama brand is "Talk one game, play another." nt

[Enrique]

54. the democrats should stop protecting Obama

they had the right position on drilling. Pelosi should say, I should have stood up to Obama, he was wrong on drilling.

[ClarkUSA]

57. Looks like Walsh copied her title from Brendan Nyhan's "Protecting the Clinton brand at all costs"

Nyhan says:

Todd Purdum's long inquiry into the http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807?printable=true¤tPage=all">various questionable aspects of Bill Clinton's post-presidency in Vanity Fair... to me, the most outrageous part of the article is this response to Purdum from Clinton spokesman Jay Carson, who suggests Democrats should refrain from criticizing Clinton to "protect a strong brand for the party"...

Link: http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2008/06/protecting-the.html

[AtomicKitten]

58. Yahtzee. nt

[CakeGrrl]

65. Heh. Fancy that!

I knew that term "brand" sounded familiar...

:evilgrin:

[Uzybone]

59. complete punditbabble

type of piece that is good for long lunches in nice restaurants but in reality is rubbish.

[dionysus]

60. "good for long lunches in nice restaurants but in reality is rubbish"

:spray:

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[treestar]

68. Exactly

It is pitiful how some people attach themselves to certain pundits.

I've never heard of this one and don't give a shit what she thinks. I can come up with my own opinions.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

64. "...pushed my growing unease with his recent moves into full-blown anxiety"

Lost me in the first sentence with rhetorical twitterpation.

[hulka38]

66. Kick for a brand new day.