Obama’s Stinky Fish
by Scott Darnell on November 20, 2008 in Opinion
On January 20, President-elect Barack Obama will become the least known, least experienced, and least tested president in the modern era. It’s worth remembering that just four years ago he was a state senator in Illinois, and the largest executive role he has ever played was as the leader of his political campaign.
Those realities, however, did not lose him favor with voters. In fact, his fresh face bolstered his message of bringing change to Washington, and many felt the discipline and stellar organization of his campaign was admirable and counted as relevant experience. But the challenge he now faces is one of expectations. The feats of his political campaign, while important, will pass, and his ability to govern will begin to have far greater weight. With the possible exception of extremely partisan Democrats, Americans expect him to deliver most of all on his promise of bipartisanship, and to continue his steady, unifying, and civil demeanor in the tasks of governance ahead.
The selection of Rahm Emanuel as Obama’s chief of staff undermines the credibility of his message of unity and change, and it immediately raises questions as to just how partisan this administration will be. It’s strike one for Obama, and the election has only been on the books for little more than two weeks.
The chief of staff makes decisions everyday on the president’s behalf. He is the president’s most trusted advisor - one might say his “sentence-finisher” - and he oversees more than 2,000 employees while orchestrating the activities of an ever-expanding and fragmented executive branch. Presidents tend to choose effective facilitators to play this role, who think like they do and reflect their demeanor. The person most responsible for advancing the president’s agenda, next to the president himself, is his chief of staff.
If Obama’s central promise is to change the tone of relations in Washington, his choice for a chief of staff is a disappointing start. By all accounts, Emanuel is an energetic, fiery partisan, with a penchant for expletive-laden rants against those with whom he disagrees. Just two years ago, at a post-election celebration, he exclaimed to a crowd of people, “Republicans can go f*** themselves!” And yes, he once mailed a dead fish to a political opponent.
Paul Begala, a prominent Democrat who knows Emanuel well, referred to his personal style as a “cross between a hemorrhoid and a toothache.” The Associated Press described him as a “foul-mouthed practitioner of brass-knuckled politics who relishes both conflict and publicity.” And, according to the New York Times, he plotted with other Clinton advisors about how to exact revenge against members of the media and other officials who were unsupportive during the 1992 campaign.
“Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long,” Obama remarked on election night. Emanuel’s selection is highly incompatible with the transformational change Obama has pledged to bring to the White House.
First, Emanuel will undercut bipartisanship in an Obama administration. He will be hard-pressed to stay civil toward congressional Republicans, and if these conflicts become public, it could harm the administration’s standing with Republicans in general.
Second, though Emanuel is a master of political strategy, exhibited clearly in his former role as Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman, Obama doesn’t need another political strategist in the White House. I doubt David Axelrod is going anywhere, and it’s time for Obama to govern.
Third, Emanuel is a publicity hound who is unlikely to follow the lead of past chiefs of staff by retaining a low profile and relative anonymity in deference to the president as the singular elected head of state. This is especially problematic. If the nation comes to question Obama’s claims of bipartisanship and civility, it should be due to a fault of his own, not his chief of staff.
Furthermore, if you don’t believe me on the publicity point, simply ask why a twenty-month-long campaign notable for its discipline and tight-lipped nature was forced to deal with two major media leaks just days after the election regarding Emanuel being offered his position and subsequently accepting it. Obama was campaigning on his own terms prior to November 4 and was issuing unintended written statements in reaction to media leaks immediately after.
What had changed? Rahm Emanuel.
Could Obama have avoided these issues? You bet. He could have chosen a chief of staff who was less partisan, more civil, and more unifying. He could have selected someone whose divisive character wouldn’t compete with his own favorable post-election media coverage. And, if he aims to change the politics of Washington, he could have selected someone other than a top Democratic Party attack dog.
Sure, Obama’s the president-elect, and regardless of the symbolic consequences, he can select whomever he wishes. But, in all that he does, Obama must project and provide the presidency he has promised the American people. It was his greatest campaign promise, and it is by that standard, and those expectations, that he will ultimately be judged.
Comments
6 Responses to “Obama’s Stinky Fish”
Got something to say?
I noticed in your comments those who considered Rahmy a wise choice such as Lindsey Graham (R SC) were explicitly excluded………….
Just wondering why………..
You fail to realize that OBAMA sets the tone and is the boss. Rahm will follow suit. Dumb article….
To further add, Scotty one of your main themes in your piece is Obama needs to halt partisan traits, yet in your whole commentary, that is exactly what you are oozing…….heavy duty partisan rhetoric. Kind of self-defeatist in its merit don’t ya think…….
Where were you when Bush picked his neocon partisan group?
Per your very first sentence, everyone in the world knows President-Elect Obama(how is he the least known)…did you NOT see the world reaction to is November 4th win. How is he the least known President(have you not checked out his Myspace or Facebook page to see Bio, record and views…lolol)? When he threw his hat in the ring back in February 2007, it was warned by pundits that HE was the candidate to beat. Also Obama has more elected official experience than four out of the five previous Presidents had when they ran for President. Only 22 U.S. presidents had more experience than Obama has when they ran for President. Out of all the front runners in the primaries, only John McCain had more elected official experience than Barack Obama. Obama’s experience exceeded that of Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Rudy Gulliani, and John Edwards. Obama will not be perfect, he will make mistakes. However he is not the least experienced President to take office. He has more experience than Bill Clinton had..more than Ronald Reagan, more then John Kennedy, more than Jimmy Carter, more than George W. Bush…more than Harry Truman…more than Abe Lincoln. Check research article on previous Presidents and their experience before taking office, and record of decisions while in office.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/only-22-presidents-had-mo_b_132475.html
Zzzzz…
Oh, sorry…partisanship puts me to sleep.
“Zzzzz…
Oh, sorry…partisanship puts me to sleep.”
It’s too bad dumb asses like you didn’t sleep through the election.