By Damozel | According to The Politico (via Alegre). relations between Obama and Capitol Hill are a leetle strained. Apparently, some Dems aren't feeling so much Obamamania anymore.
The article describes them as 'miffed.'
*Please don't email me. I know it really isn't a word. I just think it should be.
It seems that suddenly, now that the 'Clinton machine' has been vanquished, the dread phrase 'sense of entitlement' and the dread adjective 'arrogance' are being applied to Obama's people in the secret corridors of power.
One Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity, compared the Obama campaign unfavorably to President Bush’s administration.
“At least Bush waited until he was in the White House before they started ignoring everybody,” the aide said. (The Politico)
The Director of the DSCC (who need to stop sending emails to my inbox with Donna Brazile's name at the top) made a telling slip, when trying to explain that when people complain that the Obama campaign is arrogant, what they really mean by 'arrogant' is competent. But what he actually said, according to the article, is:
'Arrogance is sometimes mistaken for competence.' (The Politico)
Heh. That's is pretty much what I've been saying about the Obama campaign from the get-go. (Note to any overly-caffeinated Obama supporters: I'm not having a go at Barack Obama. He is more than the sum of his strategists and operatives.)
Anyway, the article lists plenty of complaints that Dems seem to be writing out on little slips of paper and passing to one another when the campaign's back is turned, or writing under 'OBAMA CAMPAIGN' in their slam books. The Politico lists the following (paraphrased) miffening acts and omissions:
Obama hasn't really pulled his weight on fund-raising for Democratic candidates in the Senate and the House.
When he's appeared in candidates' districts, his campaign hasn't bothered to alert them, so they aren't getting to be photographed etc. with the presidential nominee.
They also took longer than optimum to coordinate with candidates who are asked to comment on the Obama/McCain fencing in the press. And there's more along the same lines.
Since he's still being the 'Change' candidate, he doesn't want to be seen with Reid and Pelosi. [No wonder.]
The whole 'no [official] lobbyists' stance means he isn't reaping the advantages of working directly with lobbyists. [Get this: 'Without lobbyists involved, hotel rooms and tickets for the convention are harder to come by, spurring protests and leaving bruised egos among congressional Democrats used to being treated like VIPs.' Hey, I'm on Obama's side there. Don't weaken, Obama campaign! Set an example!]
Response of the Obama campaign: 'Naaah.'
Anyway, so less Obama love in private, though they continue to enthuse publicly.
Eh, that's probably par for the course. No honeymoon lasts forever. Eventually, the disillusionment always sets in. It's like my all-time favorite Sylvia cartoon:
Page 250. 'He pulled her roughly toward him and said, his deep voice choked with anger and passion, "Now you're mine, totally, totally."
Page 253. '"Do you know that you make a weird noise when you eat soup?" he asked.'
Obama and the Dems are most likely just at the 'weird-soup-eating-noises' stage of their affair.
The Obama campaign -- having learned well from the Republicans -- apparently blame the Clintons for their not being up to speed on strategizing. (The Politico (If Hillary hadn't insisted on staying in the race and making the DNC count up all the votes when Obama had already won, etc. etc.). Man, it looks like the Clintons can go on being the scapegoats for yet another administration.
Meanwhile, a Rasmussen poll [here] shows that whereas Obama does great against Bush, Hillary is stronger than Obama against McCain. I don't put that much stock in polls, but this is about what I'd expect. I'm surprised that some of the Democratic powers-that-be didn't realize that the inexperience/experience riff is going to be a big factor for your average voter.
So will the still-angry members of 'Party Unity, My Ass' ('Where can I join?' asked my formerly Hillary-hating mom, cackling strangely, at which point the seventh seal was broken and the moon turned to blood) succeed in getting the longed-for floor fight at the convention?
The next part is me speaking for myself ONLY. We are not marching in lock-step at this blog. Like Pamela Leavey at The Democratic Daily, I have decided to give my support to the nominee and deal separately with my fury at the DNC.
Let's just imagine for a moment that Alegre and others prevail, which I doubt is possible under optimum circumstances. I certainly preferred Hillary to Obama, and I have hard thoughts against the DNC, but there's a time to stand down, and that time is when your actions would be detrimental in the long run to the person you support.
In the hypothetical scenario where this could happen, Hillary would have the same trouble Obama is facing now: a deeply divided and very angry set of voters who doubtless would refuse their support. I'd vote for her, of course, but would any Obama supporter?
As for the whole unity thing....it's what she said she wants. If she was lying, as some PUMAS claim, in order to get campaign debts, political advantages, etc., etc. cleared up, I am afraid that would make me think less of her. So this is not something I am willing to believe.
I also think she's in a better position remaining in the Senate or perhaps negotiating for some other sort of appointment. As a presidential candidate, I think she'd be in such an ugly position that it would make the primary look like a lovefest.
Assuming she could somehow yank the nomination away, can you imagine how she'd be portrayed? It would be treated as proof that everything that the media said about her was true. She'd be bashed uniformly by right and left.
So if I think through all the ramifications, setting aside the fact that the GOP and the Bush administration (many of whose legacies J Mc has revolved to fit) deserve a rebuke EVEN MORE than the DNC and Obama campaign, I still come out the same way: No.
I must say, I don't understand a Democrat who would vote for John McCain. If you're one of them, I'm sorry. I think you should stop and take a good long look at where we are and what's happening in the world beyond this campaign. Think about the power of the president to appoint federal judges, and take a look at this decision.
That's tantamount to saying to the GOP, 'It's not your principles or your platform or your ethics or your tactics, it's just Bush and Cheney.' There are other choices: one of the third party candidates or staying home. Why help give the GOP the sense that they have some sort of mandate from the people?
Memeorandum here
OTHER POSTINGS
The Flip-Flopping Label Has Jumped the Shark
Is U.S. Foreign Policy for Sale? Undercover Reporter Tapes Bush Pioneer Selling White House Access
IndyMac & The Apocalypse of Banks (for the Banking-Challenged)
Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions (With Bonus Jon Stewart Video)
Tracking the Course of the Bush-Cheney Juggernaut As It Lurches Toward Iran
Iran's Position Unchanged Despite Offered Incentives Package
Comments