Obama's Chicago Machine Vs. Capitol Hill: Recipe For Political Disaster

As The 2012 Elections Approach Us, Once Again Pres. Obama Looks To His "Chicago Political Machine" For Another Victorious Ride.

Here's Why This Strategy May Or May NOT Work This Time..

Upon Pres. Obama's Election In 2008 He Felt Obligated To Bring Along Most Of The Members From His "Chicago Political Machine" To Help Govern In The White House.

What Was Wrong With This Plan?

Chicago Style Politics Don't Work Well On Capitol Hill.

For Example: Valerie Jarrett Was NOT The Right Person To Work With Business Leaders From D.C. & Wall Street.

Why?

Did Pres. Obama Really Think A Black Woman From Chicago Would Be Totally Respected & Accepted By White, Extremely Wealthy CEO's From Wall Street & The American Business Community?

NO!!!!

Please Don't Get It Twisted.

As A Black Woman I'm All For Diversity But Come On Pres. Obama!

Although Valerie Jarrett Is Well-Educated, It Doesn't Mean She Was The Right Individual For That Particular Position.

You See Diversity On Such A High Level Takes Time.

Such A Bold Move Has To Be Made Gradually NOT Forced In The Faces Of Wall Street CEOs!

Especially NOT New Yorkers!

Dealing With New Yorkers Vs. Mid-Westerners Is Like Oil & Water!

In Addition I Don't Think Ms. Jarrett Cared Two Cents About Middle Class & Lower Income Blacks & Hispanics Constituents.

Just As Most Chicago Politicians Don't Give A Darn About Middle Class & Lower Income Blacks & Hispanics Voters There Either.

Another Example Is Bill Daley.

Daley Was NOT The Right Person To Become Obama's NEW Chief Of Staff.

Why?

The Daley Family's Relationship With Blacks & Hispanics In Chicago Has NOT Been A Successful One. NOT EVER!

Including How Poorly Old Man Daley Treated Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Years Ago.

Thus After Hiring Bill Daley Obama Lost Respect From Many Black Voters.

Black Voters Are NOT Stupid!

We Still Support Pres. Obama But We Do NOT Respect Bill Daley Because We Remember How The Daley Family Has Treated Blacks In Chicago For Decades.

Newly Elected Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel Appeared To Be Effective In His Former Role As White House Chief Of Staff.

But Rahm's Harsh Language (Profanity) & Bull Dozer Personality Wasn't Well Received By Many Congressional Members Who Were STILL Experiencing Culture Shock By The Election Of A BLACK President!

There's Nothing Wrong With Being Tough, Especially When Dealing With Some Of Those Hard-Nosed, Racist GOP Leaders On Capitol Hill.

However There Is A Time To Be Tough & A Time To Just Out Think Your Opponents Via Practicing Reverse Psychology.

To Avoid Appearing Like A Weak Coward Among One's Peers, Actually A Combination Of Both People Skill Sets Are Preferable.

I Now Firmly Believe That Had Pres. Obama NOT Placed So Much Trust In His Chicago Buddies & NOT Hired So Many Of His Chicago Buddies To Become Senior Advisers, His Presidency Would Have Been Much More Successful.

So Going Forward It May Be Alright For Pres. Obama To Seek Advice From His "Chicago Political Machine" For Re-Election, However AFTER Being Re-elected He Should NOT Hire Those Same People To Help Him Govern.

Except.....

Perhaps David Axelrod!

Axelrod Would Make An EXCELLENT Chief Of Staff!

Just My Opinion. You Don't Have To Agree.

VOTE OBAMA IN 2012!!!







Obama-Chicago Relationship: Long-Distance Love Affair About To Get Closer


President Barack Obama's relationship with his hometown may be best described as a long-distance love affair. He lavishes attention on it from afar and proud Chicago pines for its hometown hero, though the two rarely see each other.

That looks like it's about to change.

Obama is returning to his roots as he embarks on his re-election race for 2012. He's setting up his campaign headquarters in a downtown high-rise near Grant Park, the site of his victory celebration on election night in November 2008.

He's coming back Thursday to raise money, a week after launching his second White House bid with an understated email and online video.

The president is putting Chicago in the spotlight again as he tries to recreate the grass-roots, start-up flavor of his first campaign and do what no incumbent president has done in decades: try to win re-election from a location outside Washington.

A Chicago base also could reinforce a connection to a city that aides say keeps Obama grounded while he lives in the nation's capital.

"Nobody is more eager to be out and nobody is more eager to be here than him," said David Axelrod, Obama's chief political strategist who left the White House this year to return to Chicago to work on the re-election and be closer to his Chicago-based family. "The conversation in Washington is completely different than the conversation you hear out here."

Obama's advisers hope a Chicago location could insulate his campaign from some of the Washington chatter and news leaks that often plague campaigns. A beyond-the-Beltway headquarters could allow them to offset the notion that Obama, who campaigned as an outsider above the partisan fray and promised a new approach to politics, has become the ultimate political insider.

"Basing it in Chicago says, 'I'm not of Washington,' but if he doesn't spend time in Chicago, he is of Washington," said Paul Light, a public service professor at New York University.

Obama's relationship with his town has evolved over the years.

He was a community organizer, worked on a major voter drive and practiced law in his early days in the city. When he entered politics, he focused on the state capital of Springfield, and cast himself as above the brass-knuckled nature of Chicago politics, whose history is pockmarked with corruption and scandal.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama was a fixture in Chicago when he wasn't crisscrossing the country for votes. He took his wife, Michelle, around town to dinner at some of the city's best restaurants. He hung out with his daughters. He worked out at the gym. He played basketball with his buddies. He attended meetings at his campaign office, all under the watchful eye of reporters and Secret Service agents. His family, friends and neighbors talked openly about the candidate and his lifestyle.

As president, Obama has made only about a half a dozen visits to Chicago, often to raise money for candidates. He's made only a few overnight trips to his South Side house.

His neighbors don't seem to hold it against him.

"He's got a whole world to deal with," says Hosea McKay, a 73-year-old retired substance abuse counselor, who lives several blocks away. "Chicago . we can't be so egotistical that we think he's supposed to pop in every three or four months and hang out with us."

The area around Obama's house looks much like it did during the last campaign when extra security measures were added. Even when Obama isn't there, guards and barriers – both metal and concrete – restrict access to his street. His house can be seen through some trees from a nearby busy thoroughfare.

But the neighborhood has changed somewhat since the Obamas left. They're getting new neighbors because the home next door to theirs was sold last year.

While sharing a neighborhood with the president has its share of hassles, Prince Ella Murphy, who lives about a block away, doesn't mind, especially when it comes to the security that increases when Obama is in town.

"I love it. I feel protected because, I mean, they have police everywhere," said Murphy, a 61-year-old retired hotel worker.

Over the past two years, the Obamas have devised ways not to be homesick. They've brought Chicago to them in Washington.

They tapped into their network of hometown connections when they moved into the White House. Among those who relocated to Washington with the Obamas were friend Valerie Jarrett, now a White House adviser, and the family's personal chef. Obama's Chicago buddies, Eric Whitaker and Marty Nesbitt, are constant vacation companions. Countless Chicagoans have visited the White House over the past two years.

The president hosted the 2010 Stanley Cup winners, the Chicago Blackhawks at the White House, last month and put the city's other professional teams on notice. He said: "Let me just say to all the Bears fans, Bulls fans, White Sox fans, and Cubs fans, I want to see all of you sometime soon, as well."

In another nod to their hometown, the Obamas dyed the water in the White House fountains green to celebrate their first St. Patrick's Day in the White House. The city colors the Chicago River that cuts through downtown to celebrate the holiday.

He also swapped one chief of staff from Chicago for another. Rahm Emanuel is Chicago's mayor-elect, while Bill Daley, the current mayor's brother, joined the White House as part of a staff reshuffling aimed at getting ready for the campaign.

While Axelrod said more presidential visits are likely, given that the campaign headquarters is in Chicago, just how much time Obama and his family will spend in Chicago this time is unclear. The duties of the presidency don't lend themselves to much down time.

His team is setting up shop in a downtown high-rise not far from offices the Obama operation used in 2008. Campaign manager Jim Messina, a former White House deputy chief of staff, is directing the effort, and Axelrod is certain to be a constant presence.

"It's nascent group and it's going to grow," said Axelrod, who stopped by the offices recently. "You could sense, you could feel some of that old excitement coming back and you know people are really eager to get going."

Some are hoping to see Obama, himself, more.

Says Freddie Fitch, 53, who lives just a few blocks from the Obamas, "We love him here."



Obama and the Illinois Political Machine

Democrat Barack Obama piled on the praise last month as he stood beside Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and embraced the mayor's bid for a sixth term.

"I don't think there's a city in America that has blossomed as much over the last couple of decades than Chicago, and a lot of that has to do with our mayor," Obama said, supporting Daley ahead of Tuesday's city election.

It was a switch from a year earlier, when the Illinois senator brushed off questions about endorsing Daley and said reported corruption at Chicago's City Hall gave him "huge pause."

What happened in the meantime? Obama decided to run for president.

The endorsement is one example of the sometimes complicated relationship between Obama _ who offers himself as an untainted, non-traditional alternative _ and Illinois' sometimes tarnished political establishment.

While Obama prides himself as an independent-minded Democrat, he's maintained relations with important parts of the establishment, from remnants of the legendary Chicago Democratic machine to the city's leading black politicians.

Yet as an outsider who came to the city as an adult, he doesn't owe his political fortunes to ward bosses and can claim distance from the political corruption for which the city is famous. He's ruffled feathers in the past by taking on incumbents or bucking his party's anointed candidate in a statewide race, but he has also mended fences and now has Illinois' most important politicians lined up to support his run for president.

"He understands ... about politics and how you make friends in politics," said Rep. Bobby Rush, who Obama unsuccessfully challenged in 2000 for his seat in Congress.

Rush said Daley, for one, can be helpful to Obama because of his national reputation. Daley's brother, William, who headed Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000, has already signed on as an Obama adviser.

Rush is also backing Obama's bid for the White House.

Growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia, Obama didn't come up through the ranks of traditional Chicago Democratic politics.

Obama writes in his book "The Audacity of Hope" that he got into his successful first race for the Illinois Senate at the encouragement of friends who thought his work as a civil rights lawyer and experience as a community organizer made him a good candidate.

That 1996 election put him in conflict with the incumbent, Alice Palmer. She planned to run for Congress and endorsed Obama as her successor. But when Palmer lost the congressional primary, Obama would not step aside so she could keep her state Senate seat.

Once he got to the state Senate, Obama was no radical. He became a political protege of current Senate President Emil Jones, a 35-year veteran of the legislature and one of the state's most influential black lawmakers.

Obama was in the Illinois Senate just a few years when he went after the congressional seat held by Rush.

In his book, Obama calls it an "ill-considered race," and he and another state senator who challenged Rush were trounced in the primary. Rush had the support of the powerful Cook County Board president and widespread support in his district.

Obama also was viewed as a long shot in his 2004 bid for the U.S. Senate. He decided to run even though most party leaders were backing the state comptroller, who was the son of a powerful Democratic leader. Other candidates included Mayor Daley's former chief of staff and a millionaire who had helped elect the Democratic governor. Obama's candidacy gained momentum when the millionaire businessman, who had once led in the polls, acknowledged striking his ex-wife and calling her names.

Once Obama's fortunes started rising with his starmaking address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and his Senate win, he found almost uniform support from Illinois Democrats.

Yet Obama still didn't always stick to the party line, most notably last year when he rejected the party-backed candidate for state treasurer to support a political newcomer, putting him at odds with the state Democratic chairman, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan of Chicago.

Over the summer, Madigan derisively referred to Obama as "the messiah" in a published report. But by early this year, Madigan was proposing moving up the state's 2008 primary from March 18 to Feb. 5 to give Obama more momentum early in the presidential race.

For his part, Obama has lined up with party leaders in some recent local races. He supported the party's choice to become the new Cook County board president, despite allegations of political nepotism surrounding the man, who was the son of the previous board president.

Obama also endorsed Daley, saying he was still concerned about City Hall corruption but thought Daley had taken steps to clean it up. And he supported the November re-election of Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose administration is under federal investigation for hiring fraud.

Attorney Gery Chico, the Daley former chief of staff who lost to Obama in the 2004 Senate primary, said Obama has been under increasing pressure to play a role in local races and it's smart for him to get in the mix.

"You don't want to go the route of Al Gore," Chico said. Gore famously didn't win his home state of Tennessee in his failed bid for president in 2000.

But the Daley endorsement in particular _ featured in one of the mayor's campaign mailers _ isn't sitting right with some people in this city known for its legendary political machine.

Daley's father, the late Mayor Richard J. Daley, built the once-mighty machine that doled out jobs and favors in exchange for support for Democrats on Election Day. The courts have mostly dismantled the machine by outlawing political patronage, but the city's powerful Democrats _ like Daley _ can still turn out the vote.

Obama's decision to support Daley turned off voter Alan Dobry, who's part of a Chicago independent-voters group.

"He's trying to play with the machine," Dobry said. "I'm very unhappy about it."


View Larger Map

Sources: Huffington Post, NY Times, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama's 2012 Secret Weapons Against GOP: Centrism & Civility

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama’s Positions Himself For 2012


President Obama this month has sustained the momentum he gained in December by playing the role of Political Strategist, world leader and, in the last week, the nation’s healer.

He’s avoided engaging Republicans in debate over the difficult choices ahead, allowing the opposition to come under pressure and preserving himself for the State of the Union Address on Jan. 25.

The chess moves began the day after Obama returned from a two-week vacation in Hawaii. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs announced he was leaving the day Republicans took control of the House.

The following day, Obama announced the arrival of a New White House Chief of Staff: Bill Daley, a Centrist Democrat and CEO.

The changes appeared somewhat unscripted, but the White House had been some time in planning them. The effect of the timing was to keep Republicans from dominating the news cycle at a time when they expected to get their best, and easiest, coverage.

But the changes also kept the White House press corps from pressing the administration on the kinds of questions that Republicans began facing immediately after the New Year, such as what spending they intended to cut, and what they planned to do about the nation’s deficit and debt.

The personnel moves positioned Obama in the eyes of Politicos as a political force, already maneuvering to set up his reelection team for the 2012 campaign. And in the eyes of the general public, the hiring of Daley moved him closer to the center.

Besides that, the White House successfully kept its head down, leaving Obama to assume his role as world leader. Prior to Saturday’s shooting in Arizona, this week was set to be a contrast between House Republicans holding a symbolic but toothless vote to repeal the president’s health-care law, and Obama hosting a series of heads of state for visits.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy came Monday, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri visited on Wednesday, and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari is set to arrive Friday.

Vice President Joe Biden made a surprise visit to Afghanistan and Iraq this week.

Then Chinese President Hu Jintao is set to come next Wednesday to the White House for a highly anticipated state visit.

The White House, and congressional Democrats, were prepared to start hearkening back to Obama’s words on Air Force One en route back to Washington about the new GOP majority: “They are going to play to their base for a certain period of time, but I’m pretty confident that they’re going to recognize that our job is to govern.”

Once through next week, Washington’s attention would turn to the upcoming State of the Union speech, and the White House could begin playing the expectations game without really saying much about the contents of the address.

But then a 22-year old gunman shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others outside a Tucson super market, nearly killing the Democratic congresswoman and taking the lives of six others who were there to meet their representative on a Saturday morning.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The incident – as horrific and as unwelcome as it was – has had some political impact. One of the biggest is that it pushed the president forward into a difficult but broadly appealing role of national unifier.

Obama’s speech Wednesday in Tucson was widely acclaimed by conservatives as a master stroke, a moment of true political leadership. The president’s approval rating became higher than his disapproval rating this week for the first time since July, standing at 49 percent in favor and 46 percent against, according to the Real Clear Politics poll average.

The White House on Thursday was clearly viewing the speech as a potentially seminal moment for the nation, and by extension for Obama’s presidency.

“I think there are moments in our history — Oklahoma City, the Challenger accident, what happened in Arizona — that are important for the president to talk to the nation about, and to help be part of the process of celebration and healing. I think that’s how he approached – that’s how he approached this,” Gibbs told reporters.

Conservatives, when asked about the turn of events, downplayed the impact it will have on the inevitable showdowns between the president and Republicans over spending cuts, raising the debt limit and reforming entitlements. These are all things that have to happen to one degree or another. But each side has different visions for what those actions will look like.

Like the president, Republicans in Congress have attempted to make it through this prelude period in January without putting much skin in the game. They have tried to do this by subsisting mostly on the pomp of a new Congress and by putting forward a few PR-savvy measures, such as cutting congressional office budgets.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, attempted to put some of the pressure for fiscal decisions on the president.

“Once we get to the State of the Union, I can tell you, I expect this president to put some action behind the words that he has been using. Number one, I am looking to see some significant spending cuts proposed by the president that we can work on together,” Cantor said the day before the GOP took control of the House.

But it is clear that Obama has been more successful so far than Republicans — who suffered a series of gaffes their first week before the Arizona shooting — in positioning himself for battles ahead.


View Larger Map


Sources: Chicago Mag., Daily Caller, Huffington Post, MSNBC, White House.gov, Youtube, Google Maps

Desiree Rogers Irked, Pushed Away Elite DNC Donors

Elite Donors Dodge The DNC


Former White House social secretary Desiree Rogers took plenty of blame for the gate crashers at President Barack Obama’s first state dinner and for posing for fashion shoots in glossy magazines.

But a previously undisclosed gripe about her provides another explanation for her abrupt departure last month: Some of Obama’s biggest fundraisers, already chafing at not getting enough love from the administration, didn’t even get Christmas cards last year.

“The donors rose up, and that was another reason Desiree got pushed out,” said a source close to the White House.

While such a slight may seem insignificant, it can carry major repercussions in a year when the Democratic National Committee is going to need every possible resource to help the party’s congressional committees stave off major losses in the midterm elections.

According to an analysis by POLITICO, only 15 — or just 10 percent — of the 150 biggest fundraisers for the Obama campaign gave the maximum $30,400 to the DNC last year.

“I have not had that much contact with the DNC in the last six to 12 months since the election. It’s very strange,” said Alan Patricof, a New York investor and longtime Democratic donor.

To be sure, the DNC’s fundraising is humming along at a record pace, bringing in about $30 million more than it did in 2005, the last midterm election season, and giving the committee a small (less than $1 million) but rare cash advantage over the Republican National Committee.

Still, the committee lags behind the records set by Republicans when they controlled both the White House and Congress.

As of the end of January, the DNC had raised $93 million and had about $10 million in the bank. In January 2006, the last midterms when Republicans faced tough reelections, the RNC already had nearly $40 million in the bank — and the party still went on to lose its majorities.

DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan acknowledged that the committee may not be keeping pace with President George W. Bush’s RNC, but it is doing very well, he said, compared with RNC Chairman Michael Steele’s operation.

“This isn’t an exercise that should be seen in isolation,” said Sevugan. Not only is the DNC raising money at about the same rate as the RNC, “the Republicans have set themselves up for a series of bloody primaries. They are going to be bleeding early cash in a number of places.”

In addition, Sevugan noted that the committee is keeping pace even as it complies with Obama’s ban on contributions from lobbyists and political action committees — challenges the Republicans don’t face.

Still, one of the quickest ways to fill the Democrats’ campaign war chest will be re-energizing Obama’s major donors.

Mark Gilbert, a Florida fundraiser who now serves as a DNC deputy finance chairman, said some of his colleagues are simply taking a break after an exhausting presidential season and will become more active as the midterms near.

“There is the knowledge that winning the presidency was just the first part. The second part is governing,” said Gilbert. “To allow the president to do the things he wants to do, we need to continue to raise money to support candidates and the president.”

The White House recently sent what could be a rallying call to its donors when it appointed Julianna Smoot, the president’s campaign finance director, to replace Rogers as social secretary.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Smoot brings a variety of strengths to the job: She’s detail-oriented, she’s a strong manager, and she knows both the political and the donor worlds.

While the White House rejected the notion that Smoot’s arrival would spring open doors to donors, insiders said she can at least be a familiar point of contact for them — and she’s unlikely to leave anybody off holiday card lists. “A lot of things need to be fixed,” said one person familiar with the White House decision.

The care and treatment of big donors can take many forms. As his predecessors did, Obama rewarded some supporters with ambassadorships. Boston investor Alan Solomont is in Spain, Colorado businessman Bruce Oreck is in Finland, and Chicago investor Louis Susman is in England.

For those who don’t go abroad, perks can vary. President Bill Clinton’s administration was notorious for White House sleepovers and getaways at Camp David. Bush offered donors updates on legislative progress and policy discussions going on inside the White House.

A review of White House visitor logs by POLITICO and interviews with donors suggest that many of Obama’s backers aren’t getting much of what either of his predecessors offered. A few donors have been granted tours, some were invited to last year’s St. Patrick’s Day party, and some have won face time with the president after being appointed to various commissions.

But the state dinner in honor of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was so short on donors, one sniffed it was more “a big staff party” than a chance to recognize those who had labored for two years to raise the millions Obama needed to get elected.

Most Obama donors contacted by POLITICO said they aren’t looking for a lot of attention. “We didn’t do it for that reason. I think most people who helped Obama early on just believed in the guy,” said Stewart Bainum, an Obama backer from Maryland. “But we are all human, and it is nice to be recognized, too.”

Still, Bainum and others said the White House’s lack of attention only reinforces the reasons they decided to back him over other Democratic candidates. Andy Spahn, a Hollywood-based fundraiser for Obama, said the White House’s distance from donors “doesn’t make fundraising easier, but it is all for the good of the nation.”

While acknowledging that “this sounds goody-goody,” Peter Buttenwieser, a Philadelphia philanthropist and Obama fundraiser, said, “What would make me happy is if we would pass health care and an expanded jobs program. I’m much more concerned about what the administration does with that than whether they are appropriately grateful or not grateful to donors.”

The challenge for the DNC is that it now has the burden of both picking up the costs of maintaining portions of the president’s campaign apparatus and raising enough cash to help House and Senate candidates in the fall.

Organizing for America, for instance, which ran Obama’s vast grass-roots operation in 2008, is now operating out of the DNC. While OFA has boosted the DNC’s payroll costs, it also is a revenue generator. With the Obama small-donor list at its disposal, the DNC saw contributions from donors who gave less than $200 jump from $35 million in 2005, when Howard Dean ran the committee, to $46 million in 2009, according to a Federal Election Commission analysis.

The president’s polling experts, on the other hand, don’t generate new cash, but they do drain from the committee’s treasury. They collected nearly $3 million last year, FEC records show.

That puts the DNC under added pressure to raise record sums, even as it adjusts to Obama’s self-imposed limits on contributions.

For instance, Obama’s ban on donations from lobbyists and political action committees eliminated roughly $5 million every year from the committee’s treasury.

In the 2006 midterms, the Washington metropolitan area, home to many lobbyists, delivered $3.3 million to the DNC, which made it the second most lucrative metro area for the committee, just behind New York.

In this cycle, Washington ranks as just the fourth top metro area, with donations of about $1.9 million. Los Angeles is now first on the list, after delivering nearly $4 million to the DNC so far. New York and San Francisco are sandwiched in between in the second and third slots.

“Typically, the ‘money in the know’ — the Washington-based money from the PAC and lobbying community — is the most accessible money in the early part of an election cycle,” said Anthony Corrado, a campaign finance expert.

The economic downturn is also taking a toll. It’s diminishing some donors’ ability to give and discouraging the White House from putting the president or vice president in settings where they are surrounded by wealthy political contributors.

That’s particularly so in New York, where donors are already disgruntled over proposed financial reregulation and the president’s vilification of Wall Street.

Since his Inauguration, the president has attended 33 political fundraising events, generating about $32 million for party committees and candidates, according to CBS News Radio correspondent Mark Knoller, who has kept track of presidential travel for more than a decade.

In contrast, Bush attended just 13 political fundraisers in 2001 before the terrorist attacks in Washington and New York that September, raising about $53 million. Bush canceled the rest of his fundraising events that year, according to Knoller’s records.

And it hasn’t helped that until he left office in January, DNC Chairman Tim Kaine had to split his time over the past year between the committee’s work and his job as governor of Virginia. But he gets good marks from donors.

Kirk Rudy, an Obama fundraiser based in Austin, said that on Kaine’s first trip to Texas as DNC chairman, he spent days traveling the state and wowing surprised donors with his fluent Spanish.

“I really haven’t in the past been a contributor to the DNC,” said Kirk. “But I was very involved in President Obama’s campaign and felt it was counterintuitive to walk away, because that’s really when the work begins.”

Ping your blog


View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, MSNBC, DNC, WSJ, Google Maps

Obama's Re-election Campaign Strategy Already In The Works

Obama White House Privately Plots 2012 Campaign Run


President Barack Obama’s top advisers are quietly laying the groundwork for the 2012 re-election campaign, which is likely to be run out of Chicago and managed by White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, according to Democrats familiar with the discussions.

The planning for now consists entirely of private conversations, with Obama aides at all levels indulging occasionally in closed-door 2012 discussions while focusing ferociously on the midterm elections and health care reform, the Democratic sources said. “The gathering storm is the 2010 elections,” one top official said.

But the sources said Obama has given every sign of planning to run again and wants the next campaign to resemble the highly successful 2008 effort.

David Axelrod, White House senior adviser, may leave the West Wing to rejoin his family in Chicago and reprise his role as Obama’s muse, overseeing the campaign’s tone, themes, messages and advertising, the sources said.

David Plouffe, the Obama for America campaign manager, described by one friend as "the father of all this," will be a central player in the reelect, perhaps as an outside adviser.

"The conversations are beginning, but decisions haven't been made," a top official said. "If you look at David Plouffe's stepped-up level of activity with the political organization [as an outside adviser on the 2010 races], that is obviously the beginning of the process."

Anita Dunn, former White House communications director, will be intimately involved, too. Brad Woodhouse, the Democratic National Committee’s communications director, has rising stock and is a logical choice to be communications director for the reelection campaign, the sources said.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett are likely to remain at the president’s side in Washington, while exercising major influence over the campaign. Pfeiffer, communications director of the last campaign and always a trusted insider, has a higher public profile every day.

Other central figures are likely to be DNC Executive Director Jennifer O'Malley Dillon; her husband, Patrick Dillon, who is deputy White House political director and is likely to bring his extensive gubernatorial contacts to Chicago; Mitch Stewart, executive director of the DNC's Organizing for America; Jon Carson, national field director of Obama for America; and White House political director Patrick Gaspard.

The DNC sees Republican challengers ramping up earlier than ever and has decided to begin defining potential opponents early. Operatives are already assembling research and drafting unflattering narratives to push about the leading possible 2012 candidates.

Even though the planning is still very preliminary, the campaign is likely to launch in just over a year. President Bill Clinton opened his second presidential campaign in the March after his first midterm congressional elections, and President George W. Bush opened Bush-Cheney '04 a month later in the political cycle.

Aides expect Obama to hew to a similar schedule. A president’s re-election campaign — “the reelect,” as Obama intimates are already calling it — is a massive, lavishly funded machine that hires hundreds of people and spends hundreds of millions of dollars to carry out the mechanics of a national campaign, while the candidate and many of his top aides continue their day jobs of running the free world.

Obama's campaign will get a head start from the large machine he has built at the DNC, including Organizing for America, the successor to his campaign grassroots operation.

OFA is now a DNC project with staff in all 50 states and has worked to keep Obama's army active through engagement on health care and other issues.

Messina, the likely manager, largely ran the operations part of the 2008 campaign after joining in June, while Plouffe focused on the big picture. Advisers said Messina is valued for his relationships on Capitol Hill, where he was chief of staff to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), and advised others on their campaigns, including Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.).

“Jim can bring the bare knuckles, and he can make sure members are advocating for the president,” a colleague said.

The question of where to locate the campaign has not been decided by the president, and is the subject of much internal speculation.

Top sources say they will be surprised if the headquarters is not in Chicago, which will always hold a certain magic for the president and first lady Michelle Obama.

Obama for America senior staff felt there was a huge advantage in having distance from insiders in Washington who were constantly giving advice and asking for things. And Obama advisers see the advantages George W. Bush reaped by basing his original campaign in Austin, Texas, giving it a beyond-the-Beltway aura.

"We were able to focus on nothing but the campaign," said one Obama for America veteran who plans to saddle up again. "We didn't play the inside-Washington game, and that's a huge piece of who we are.''

However, some top advisers are skeptical that running the campaign from Chicago would have the same advantages that it did last time, since face-to-face contact will be necessary between top officials from the different arms of Obama’s operation.

''It was hard enough to get people to move there in 2007," said one Obama for America alumnus.

A compromise might be to follow the example of the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign and put the office in Virginia, a swing state.

The themes for Obama’s campaign are not yet chosen, but a top adviser said not to expect a radical surprise: “He knows who he is."


View Larger Map

Sources: Politico, Google Maps

Joe Sestak Offered An Obama Bribe To Exit Penn. Race

Sestak Says Federal Job Was Offered To Quit Race



Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) said yesterday that the White House offered him a Federal job in an effort to dissuade him from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in the state's Democratic primary.

The disclosure came during an afternoon taping of Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a Sunday news-analysis show on the Comcast Network. Sestak would not elaborate on the circumstances and seemed chagrined after blurting out "yes" to veteran news anchor Kane's direct question.

"Was it Secretary of the Navy?" Kane asked.

"No comment," Sestak said.

"Was it [the job] high-ranking?" Kane asked. Sestak said yes, but added that he would "never leave" the Senate race for a deal.

A White House spokesman this morning strongly denied an offer had been made to Sestak. Before the spokesman issued the denial, a senior Pennsylvania Democrat said Sestak's account was met with anger by White House officials yesterday.

After yesterday's taping, Sestak said he recalled the White House offer coming in July, as he was preparing to formally announce his Senate candidacy in August. He declined to identify who spoke to him or the job under discussion. Sestak also would not say whether the person who approached him worked for the administration or was an intermediary for the offer.

"I'm not going to say who or how and what was offered," Sestak said in an interview. "I don't feel it's appropriate to go beyond what I said," because the conversation was confidential.

Sestak, 58, a retired Navy admiral, has said that some Pennsylvania Democratic leaders have tried to entice him to drop his campaign with promises of support for other offices in the future. He also has said that Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, urged him to run when Specter was still a Republican, then tried to force him out after Specter switched parties.

But Sestak has brushed aside talk of White House pressure.

"He asked me the question, and I had to answer it honestly," Sestak said of his exchange with Kane. Sestak said he had declined the job offer immediately and added, "The person said, 'I knew you'd say that.' "

It's no secret that leading Democrats are backing Specter, a five-term incumbent who switched from the GOP last spring, soon after providing the critical vote for President Obama's $787 billion stimulus program.

Obama endorsed Specter at the White House and has raised money for him. Gov. Rendell has been vocal in calling Sestak's challenge harmful to the party, as has state chairman T.J. Rooney.

Party leaders are worried that an expensive primary could weaken an incumbent Democratic senator in what is shaping up to be a Republican year, and also about the possibility of losing the House seat that Sestak won in 2006. He is only the second Democrat since the Civil War to represent the Delaware County-centered Seventh District.

An added concern: possibly losing the seat in Harrisburg occupied by the leading Democratic candidate to replace Sestak in Congress, State Rep. Bryan Lentz. Democrats have a 104-99 majority in the state House; control of the chamber is crucial with Pennsylvania expected to lose a congressional district next year in the reapportionment that follows the census.

Still, Sestak's account was startling.

"Clearly, the offers are made," said Ross Baker, a Rutgers University political science professor who specializes in Congress. "When a White House wants to preempt a challenge, they'll dangle something. But it is almost never uttered."

In addition, Baker said, conversations in such cases are nuanced, and savvy operators know not to use explicit quid pro quo language.

He said he could not, off hand, think of another instance in which a candidate has divulged an approach from White House officials. Baker said that, in theory, that might be an advantageous gambit for a candidate who, like Sestak, is positioning his campaign as an outsider and wants to demonstrate that "the big guys" are worried about the challenge.

Nachama Soloveichik, spokeswoman for former Rep. Pat Toomey, the leading GOP candidate for the Senate seat, said she had no information on Sestak's story but added: "It's just like Arlen Specter to get an insider Washington deal to try to save his political career."

Christopher Nicholas, Specter's campaign manager, declined to comment on the report or the Toomey campaign comment.

Last week, after Sestak received nominating petitions for the House from the Pennsylvania secretary of state, talk buzzed in political circles that he would give up the Senate race and run for reelection.

He says he is running only for the Senate, and volunteers are circulating nominating petitions for that office.

Legally, Sestak could circulate two sets of petitions, and experts say there is no prohibition on running for two offices simultaneously.

Larry Kane: Voice of Reason is set to air Sunday at 9:30 p.m.; audio of the interview will be on the KYW NewsRadio Web site tomorrow. The show will be rebroadcast at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday.


View Larger Map

Sources: Fox News, Philadelphia Inquirer, TPM, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama's Loyalty To His Chicago Team, Summers Killing Dems

Replace Rahm


President Obama desperately needs a sweeping staff shakeup to save his presidency. Leslie H. Gelb on why he must reassign Rahm, dump Larry Summers, and get rid of National Security adviser Jim Jones.

The negative, even dismissive, talk about the Obama White House has reached a critical point. The president must change key personnel now. Unless he speedily sets up a new team, he will be reduced to a speechmaker. It’s mostly a matter of relocating the Chicago and campaign crowd who surround the Oval Office and inserting people with proven records of getting things done in Washington and the world.

To be fair, it’s not clear whether the bad judgments on priorities, practicalities, and steadiness come from Mr. Obama or his White House team. Maybe he overpowers them in discussions, or maybe he gives them a role in policy making far beyond their experience in that realm. Unless you’re there, you don’t know. But Mr. Obama is the president, and except for the right-wing crazies, most Americans still recognize his great talents and promise. It is he who’s got to be helped. So it is they who’ve got to go.

One may quarrel with my sense of urgency here. But it’s hard to have a conversation with opinion leaders anywhere—and especially in Washington—that doesn’t descend into ripping Obama’s White House team. The refrain of complaints is always the same:

• Obama is forever taking strong stances only to backfill and trim. Most recently, he said he did not “begrudge” Wall Streeters their big earnings because that was part of the market system. This, in the face of his saying only a couple of weeks ago that such big bonuses were “shameful.”

• Obama doesn’t know what’s really going on. Regarding the Middle East, he recently said that “I think it is absolutely true that what we did this year didn't produce the kind of breakthrough that we wanted, and if we had anticipated some of these political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high.” He had to be totally out of it not to realize that the Palestinians and Israelis were nowhere close to sitting down with each other and dealing.

• Obama wants to get along with everyone so badly he doesn’t recognize real opposition when he sees it—let alone know how to deal with it. He emerges from a meeting with congressional Republican leaders on health-care reform and says he is “an eternal optimist”—when those very same Republican leaders just told the press that they don’t see any common ground and believe the administration has to “scrap the bill and start over.”

• It’s even hard to follow his latest Afghan policy. He calls Afghanistan a “war of necessity” and orders more than 30,000 new troops there, coupled with an announcement that he’ll begin withdrawing some of them in a year plus, only to see some of his advisers say he will start withdrawals and some say he won’t.

I’ve scribbled similar points in recent months in The Daily Beast. And last week in The Financial Times, Edward Luce provided a thunderclap on Washington’s negative consensus about the incompetence of Obama’s Chicago-laden team. Luce named names in the White House, and a number of journalists and bloggers strikingly failed to link to the Luce story. They were said to fear the wrath of the Chicagoans. Steve Clemons, author of The Washington Note, essentially endorsed the Luce finding and slapped his fellow Bloggers’ wrists for hiding from this issue.

The situation is as serious as it was during the Carter administration. There, two very capable political campaigners—Hamilton Jordan and Jody Powell—moved into critical White House positions without knowing very much about doing business in Washington. And they were, quite naturally, too busy to learn. They also added to the “them” versus “us” (Washington insiders and bureaucrats versus the regular guys from Georgia) mentality that plagues most administrations.

The Chicagoans and others “guarding” the President create their own “us versus them” world. It’s hard to imagine a policy conversation between the president and the Chicago crowd, since none of them, except Rahm Emanuel, has Washington or policy experience. And there isn’t much evidence that they bring in strong-minded outsiders to challenge the president on a regular basis either. The result is an inexperienced president advised by an inexperienced team.

Here are the personnel changes being bruited about in political and policy circles: First, remove Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff and move him to a senior political adviser slot. No one I’ve talked to believes he has the management skills and discipline to run the White House. But he is a terrific political mind and a fighter and should be given the new job and the time to do his thing. Proven pros who could step right in include the following: Erskine Bowles, president of the University of North Carolina and former Clinton chief of staff; Leon Panetta, now CIA director and formerly White House chief as well under Clinton; Sylvia Mathews, a former deputy chief of staff also under Clinton; and John Podesta, another former Clinton chief who now heads the Center for American Progress. All four are tough and know how to manage.

Replace Lawrence Summers, director of the White House's National Economic Council, with Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve. Summers is brilliant and highly controversial; he’s been beaten up and is said to want out anyway. Volcker has unmatched stature, practical experience, and the courage of a lion. He is the only one now in a position to get down to step-by-step brass tacks on the economy and stop Mr. Obama’s weekly gyrations.

Others with proven track records who can help as inside or outside advisers are: Stephen Robert, formerly head of Oppenheimer, Vincent Mai, former leader of AEA Investors, and Tom Hill of Blackstone. There are also two economic stars in Washington who’d improve both policymaking and public combat: Sheila Bair, chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel. One outside adviser above all would help the president see the economic hard choices ahead: Peter G. Peterson, accomplished businessman and policy head.

David Axelrod, the senior political adviser to the president, needs to concentrate on the next presidential campaign, wherein his expertise lies, and not on domestic and foreign policy, where he is just another smart unknowledgeable voice. Good replacements who do know the politics of Washington would be the aforementioned Podesta; and Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Senate Majority Leader. As for David Plouffe, another senior campaign aide, now in unofficial residence at the White House, he should be lodged in the nearby Executive Office Building. Senior adviser and Chicago buddy Valerie Jarrett is too much a part of the inner circle to move, but she should be given a more limited role in making policy.

Mr. Obama’s crowd appears to think that getting things done means his giving another speech. It’s nice, but not nearly enough.

Robert Gibbs needs a rest from being press secretary. Let’s put it this way: He wasn’t born for daily jousts with pithy Republicans. His job calls for memorable and pointed phrases and attacks, not circle-the-wagon circumlocutions. Possible successors? Try Doyle McManus of the L.A. Times, Jake Tapper of ABC News, or Helene Cooper of The New York Times.

Last but not least, James Jones, the National Security Adviser, has to move on. The career Marine was greatly admired and respected as Commandant of the Corps and as NATO’s military chief. He handled those duties with great skill. But by wide acclamation inside and outside the White House, he has not emerged as a strategist—perhaps the key requirement of this key position.

The person in that job has to pull everything together—laying out achievable objectives and precise plans to dispense carefully packaged carrots and sticks. One Democrat who could step in now, despite his age, is Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national-security adviser. He has a first-rate strategic mind—a rare quality—and knows how to deliver results. Obama will need to iron out Zbig’s lack of sympathy toward Israel and Russia.

Also available are a boatload of first-class retired diplomats with the judgment and background needed to perform the National Security Council job effectively. They would be greeted with applause both at home and abroad. Try former ambassadors Thomas Pickering, Morton Abramowitz, Frank Wisner, Reginald Bartholomew, and Winston Lord. They have it all. At a minimum, they and others like them should form the core of a group that meets regularly with Obama on strategy.

Yes, many of the pros suggested above have reached their golden years. But 70 and even 80 are the new 60. They all possess the necessary energy, experience and rare skill in delivering results. They are also shovel-ready. As a critical bonus, they could and would mentor the next generation down, a very talented one indeed, to succeed them in two or three years. To lead America and the world, Obama has to grow far beyond his present propensity to treat problems as intellectual puzzles—to collect facts and hear the arguments.

The great tasks of governing demand proven intuition in sensing what’s achievable, which buttons to push when, how to buy the time for power to take hold, how to make adjustments without flagrantly foolish rhetoric, how to avoid failures that only diminish power, and how to succeed in small as well as large ways. With a team versed in such arts and skills, President Obama and America would succeed.



View Larger Map

Sources: The Daily Beast, ABC News, Newsweek, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama's Sham "Bi-Partisan" Health Care Summit; GOP Set Up

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama's Sham Bi-partisanship



Bi-partisanship is the word of the hour in Washington, and President Obama's teleprompter seems to be stuck on it. This is nothing new for him. The president came to town promising a new bi-partisanship, along with openness, transparency, responsibility and a number of other hopes and changes he immediately dumped overboard.

At his impromptu press conference on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said, "Bi-partisanship can't be that I agree to all the things that they believe in or want and they agree to none of the things I believe in or want." That, however, has been his working definition of bi-partisanship since his first day in office. This was evident a year ago when the White House labeled the stimulus bill a "Bi-partisan Victory" after it had passed with support from just three Republicans in the Senate and none in the House of Representatives. Opposition to the bill, which included 11 Democratic House dissenters, was more bi-partisan than the support. All told, the primary feature of Mr. Obama's definition of bi-partisanship is that he gets his way.

There was little need for Mr. Obama to include Republicans in his legislative calculus. The Democrats enjoyed super majorities in both houses and, armed with what they thought was a political blank check, went on a spending and regulating rampage. They exhibited the worst aspects of old-style politics: Favoritism, cronyism, unrestrained spending, backroom deals, arrogance, conceit and extreme partisanship.

Mr. Obama's freshman year left the country with astronomical deficits and not much else.

When the public objected to this irresponsible and reckless behavior - exhibited at town-hall protests and Tea Party demonstrations - Mr. Obama responded, "I don't want folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to just get out of the way so we can clean up the mess." Shut up, sit down and take your medicine - that's bi-partisanship Obama-style.

Now Mr. Obama is talking up bi-partisanship again, but nothing has really changed. His proposed bi-partisan fiscal commission will have no authority and will serve only as a political fig leaf. The planned Feb. 25 televised bi-partisan gathering on health care obviously is intended as a made-for-TV spectacle. Mr. Obama claims he wants to use the event to hear the best ideas for pushing forward the stalled health care legislation, but those ideas have been available since the beginning of the process. It's not the Republicans' fault the Democrats ignored them.

Republicans are right to smell a rat. Serious matters of public policy are not hashed out during one-time televised extravaganzas. Mr. Obama said, "The people who sent us here expect a seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics," but there is nothing serious about his proposed meeting. It will be rigged to make the Republicans look like obstructionists and cast Mr. Obama as the conciliator trying to rise above politics. As the president demonstrated at the Republican retreat in Baltimore last month, he will not feel restrained by facts when making his case.

It is evidence of Mr. Obama's political weakness that he seeks to blame his legislative failures on obstructionist Republicans. The reasons for his failure are more rooted in his hard-left orientation, his lack of executive experience, his inadequate understanding of the legislative process and his apparent belief that no one rightly should disagree with him on anything, ever. This combination of ideology, ignorance and arrogance is the root cause of the collapse of his legislative agenda and the public's growing discontent with his presidency.

A truly bi-partisan approach means treating the opposition as partners in a spirit of inclusion, cooperation and respect. That is not Mr. Obama's style.

Sources: Washington Times, MSNBC, Meet The Press

Democrats & Obama Using "Bi-Partisanship" To Destroy GOP Victories

Democrats now have a new strategy to erase the GOP's edge and destroy Republican chances of winning in November.

Bi-Partisanship!

That's right Bi-Partisanship is now the new killjoy for Republicans in Congress and Republican Candidates.

How can this be?

I'm happy you asked, allow me to explain.

Democrats including Pres. Barack Obama invite Republican Leaders to share their ideas and draft Bi-Partisan Legislation.

Democrat Leaders (Harry Reid) keep the good, commonsense ideas from Republican Leaders and use those ideas to make the Democratic Party look competent.

After the legislation is drafted Congress tells the Mainstream Media that a Bi-Partisan bill will be passed.

What's wrong with this approach you ask?

Well after keeping good ideas from Republicans, Democrats than scale back the proposed Legislation and pass a much smaller version of the original legislation.

Slashing the bill is done so without notifying any Republican Leaders who shared their good, commonsense ideas which of course causes Republicans to complain or try to defect.

Once the Republicans start complaining or attempt to no longer participate, Democrats (actually Pres. Obama) than reports to Mainstream Media organizations (MSNBC & CNN) that Republicans don't want to work with Democrats and their still being uncooperative "Obstructionists".

This is the exact SAME sneaky, shady tactic Harry Reid used to draft the Health Care Bill when he brokered deals with Ben Nelson ("Nebraska Compromise") and Mary Landrieu ("Louisiana Purchase").

So in essence when Pres. Obama defined his version of Bi-Partisanship ("Bi-Partisanship is not just Democrats accepting all Republican ideas and rejecting Democrat ideas) he lied and flipped everything around to benefit his party.

Pres. Obama is using this familiar "Unity" strategy ("Keep your friends close and your enemies closer") to win.

Remember Pres. Obama is a Professional Politician without any real convictions.

His inexperience (18 months in Congress prior to his election) has been exposed in his inability to effectively govern our nation.

This is exactly why many, many American citizens are now suffering from Voters' Remorse.

He doesn't really care about helping other people as widely proclaimed on the campaign trail.

(Has anyone noticed he seems to care nothing at all about America's Middle Class, Low Income or Senior Citizens?
All he does is give them Food Stamps and Welfare as if that's all they are worth.)

Instead he ONLY cares about being in Control and Winning!

Apparently its more important for him to not offend Wall Street Bankers in order to keep those huge Campaign Donations rolling in, than assist citizens with keeping their homes from Foreclosures.

Pres. Obama will also throw ANYONE under the bus who gets in his way or disagrees with him.

If Republicans soften their edge or allow Pres. Obama to fool them into this fake Bi-Partisanship game, they will continue to lose.

Wake up Republicans!

If it looks like Bi-Partisanship but smells like a dirty "chicago politics" trick, believe me it probably is.

I caution Republicans not to abandon their Fiscal Conservative Principles and don't be fooled by wolves in sheep clothing or you will all be led astray to early political graves.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Republicans Don't Need To Follow Obama's Script


The president has invited congressional Republicans to sit down and talk through health care at a big "bipartisan summit" on Feb. 25. Some think it's a little late for such a conversation. After all, the Democrats have built their health care palace from the ground up, using only Democratic labor and Democratic input; they just can't get it to pass inspection. So general contractor Obama invites Republicans to debate the blueprints, and just the blueprints. Oh, and he wants to debate them, not change them. Not really.

"The president doesn't think we should start over," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer explained. President Barack Obama himself has said he's committed to the existing bill(s) in the House and Senate. He just wants to hash out ideas with Republicans, in front of TV cameras, at a much-hyped summit because he thinks it would be good for America, or something. The Republicans can get whatever fixtures they want in the guest bathroom. Beyond that, they should just co-sign ObamaCare and shut up.

The best you can say about the effort is that it fits into the White House's universal answer to all of its problems: "We just need to explain to these confused Americans how we've been right about everything." To that end, the White House wants to use Republicans as a skeptical prop-audience in one last infomercial for the ShamWow of ObamaCare.

The worst you can say is that it's a cynical trap, designed to make the GOP look out of touch, ill-informed and ideological. Indeed, there's a bipartisan consensus growing in Washington that the whole thing is a setup. Obama is going to say "nice doggie" to Republicans right up until the moment he smashes them with a rolled-up, 2,000-page health care bill.

Liberals like the idea because they want the Republicans to get brained. They believe the GOP either doesn't have real ideas on health care, or that conservative ideas won't go over well with voters. They hope that Obama the law professor and community organizer will expose all of this, forcing the American people to come to their senses and support legislation they've been hearing about nonstop for a year. Again, liberalism is never wrong, it just has a problem explaining to the mule-headed electorate it's right about everything. Liberalism is always one more tutorial away from sunshine and lollipops for everyone.

Even so, the GOP should go.

Boycotting the event, as some have recommended, would rightly be seen as a sign of cowardice. Although there's no reason why the GOP has to play to the White House's script. Republicans should be respectful and serious, but they should also designate one or two representatives to speak for them. That's what Democrats did when they designated then-Senator Obama as their sole voice in the White House meeting on the financial crisis in September 2008. Sen. John McCain had conceived that meeting as a grand showcase for his statesmanlike leadership. That didn't work out too well for McCain, and there's no reason to expect that Mr. Obama's plan is any more foolproof.

That's the great irony in this whole stunt. Since he took office, Mr. Obama has been trying to use Republicans as one kind of foil or another. He started by castigating them as mindless drones of Rush Limbaugh. When Republican leaders opposed Obama's hyper-partisan stimulus, the president chastised them. "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told them.

Then the White House and its supporters started casting the GOP - and the burgeoning tea party movement - as a Hieronymus Bosch scene of racists and gun nuts. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid compared opponents of ObamaCare to opponents of civil rights legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi flatly questioned the patriotism of anyone who objected to Mr. Obama's policies. And so on.

At every turn, Mr. Obama's agenda became less popular, his support among independents cratered, his promises to change the tone in Washington looked ever more transparent, and his magic spell over the press weakened. Gallup now has Mr. Obama in a statistical dead heat against a generic Republican opponent, and the Democratic Party is in near total freefall, despite the fact it still has almost total dominion over Washington.

Now the president has another brilliant plan. Once again he has Republicans exactly where he wants them. Only someone who thinks Mr. Obama is one explanation away from total victory should think the GOP has reason to worry.














Obama Says Bipartisanship, But What He Wants Is GOP Surrender



Unannounced, President Obama took to the lectern in the White House briefing room today to give a personal readout of his meeting earlier with congressional leaders of both parties.

"Despite the political posturing that often paralyzes this town, there are many issues upon which we can and should agree, he said.

It was more a plaintive plea than a political observation. His top legislative priorities are going nowhere and he's searching for a way to get them out of lockup.

In this 13th month of his presidency, he's anxious to pass a jobs bill and be seen addressing an unemployment rate that only last week declined from double digits. And his efforts to enact bills on energy, financial regulatory reform and especially health care are stuck in Congress despite the solid majority his party holds in both chambers.

He's appealing for a spirit of bipartisanship - urging Democrats and Republicans alike "to put aside matters of party for the good of the country."

It's a familiar refrain from U.S. presidents who can't get their way in Congress.

"We must put aside our political differences if we're ever to set our economy to rights," said President Reagan in 1982.

"It is time to put aside partisan rivalries and work together for our nation's future," said President Reagan in 1987 in trying to get Congress to enact deficit reduction

"We must put aside partisanship for the sake of our nation," said the first President Bush in 1990 in appealing for congressional cooperation on the budget.

"We must now put aside bitterness and rancor, move beyond partisanship," urged President Clinton in 1993 in trying to get Congress to pass his economic plan.

What these presidential appeals for bipartisanship always mean is: do it my way.

Mr. Obama said he "won't hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party." But he wants his way. He wants his energy policy enacted along with his jobs bill, his financial regulatory reform and his health care plan.

And if the opposition continues to block his objectives, he said he "won't hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that's rooted not in substantive disagreement but in political expedience."

When a sitting president calls for bipartisanship by the opposition – he really means surrender. And if they block his proposals, its "obstinacy" and not political views they hold as strongly as he holds his.

Mr. Obama again said the American people are frustrated by the political stalemate in Congress. And he can be counted among the frustrated as well.

He wants to be seen calmly pursuing his legislative goals – and he told reporters today that his meeting with congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle went well. So well, in fact, he joked that the Senate leaders, Democrat Harry Reid and Republican Mitch McConnell had gone out to the South Lawn to make snow angels – together."


Sources: MSNBC, CBS News, Politico, NY Times, Baltimore Sun