Leon Panetta boiled down Democrats’ criticism of Barack Obama to one sentence

[AdamSmith]

Leon Panetta boiled down Democrats' criticism of Barack Obama to one sentence

By Chris Cillizza, Washington Post

Former CIA director Leon Panetta was on "Andrea Mitchell Reports" on MSNBC on Thursday for an extended interview about the critiques he lobs at President Obama in a new book entitled "Worthy Fights". The most cutting -- and perhaps most insightful -- portion of the interview was when Panetta told Mitchell about his disagreement with Obama's approach to politics. "Too often in my view the President relies on the logic of the law professor rather than the passion of a leader," said Panetta.

That simple sentence encapsulates much of the criticism that I've heard from Congressional Democrats (as well as many in the activist community) about President Obama for years. (That similarity is not an accident; Panetta spent almost two decades in the 1970s and 1980s in Congress as a House member from California.) There is a sense that Obama believes that simply proposing his argument is enough to carry the day. That the nitty-gritty horse-trading of the sort past Democratic presidents like Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton were legendary for is simply anathema to how he views politics and his role in it.

Take the Affordable Care Act. Once it -- finally -- passed, Congressional Democrats kept waiting (and waiting) for President Obama to take the message reins and sell the hell out of it around the country. While Obama did do some barnstorming in support of the law, it was never to the extent -- or with the intensity -- that Democrats on the ballot in 2010 thought it should be. The losses they incurred -- especially losing control of the House -- were laid at the feet of Obama by many of the people who lost their seats and those Members of Congress they left behind.

Since that debacle there has been an ever-present sense that the passion of Obama on the campaign trail in his 2008 election has never been matched while he has actually been in the White House. Obama as diffident -- or indifferent -- to the differences between what is good for him and what is good for the party has been a continuing source of frustration for Democrats in Congress. Not only, they believe, has he not been willing to really fight for his priorities but he also seems to not grasp that when he says things like "every single one" of his policies are on the ballot this fall, it makes their political lives that much harder.

Some of this tension is natural -- and transcends parties. Presidents always have a certain way of doing things that they believe works because, well, it got them elected president. And Members of Congress always feel as though the president of their party isn't paying enough attention to them and their needs because he is too focused on his own political life.

But, Panetta's comment does strike at the core of what many Democrats don't like or don't trust about Obama. They simply don't believe he understood/understands how Washington works -- Panetta said almost exactly that later in his interview with Mitchell -- and has never truly grasped that a single compelling argument alone isn't enough to change minds.

What's fascinating about this gripe with Obama is how much it plays into a) the argument that Hillary Clinton made against him in the 2008 presidential primary and b ) the argument Hillary Clinton will likely make when (sorry, if) she runs for president in 2016. That argument, in short: I have been there and done that. I know what it takes to move the levers of power in Washington -- and I am willing to do whatever it takes to make them move.

That's a message that will appeal to many establishment -- and activist -- Democrats who feel as though they have spent the last six years with a Democratic president who didn't understand -- and didn't want to understand -- the realities of getting things done in D.C.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/07/leon-panetta-boiled-down-democrats-criticism-of-barack-obama-to-one-sentence/

[AdamSmith]

Barack Obama: the end of a love affair

Six years after offering hope and change, polls show the American public has fallen out of love with their president so where did it all go wrong?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/11150023/Barack-Obama-the-end-of-a-love-affair.html

[lookin]

Obama's no PR guy, that's for sure. If he were, I think he'd have some pretty good material to work with. When he took office, it wasn't a sure thing that:

- our economy wouldn't still be in the tank

- the stock market would get out of the 8000's

- unemployment would go down

- we could bring troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan

- the auto industry would survive

- we'd stay out of default

- we'd have millions more folks with affordable insurance

- Social Security and Medicare would still be intact

- we'd have a coalition in the Mideast with Mideast members

- DADT would be abolished

- gays could marry in thirty states and DC

If a PR company couldn't find something to work with in that list, top-of-my-head as it is, they should take down their shingle.

Even his failures in immigration reform and economic equality have been stymied by an obstructionist Republican Congress. I think Obama can be forgiven for thinking that folks must be able to see that with the naked eye. But it wouldn't hurt to remind them.

The Democratic Congress, in my opinion, is getting nearly as dysfunctional as the Republican Congress. Why they think it's up to Obama to do all the heavy lifting is beyond me. It wouldn't hurt them to get out in front and talk about the accomplishments they've all shared.

The fact is, more of us are a hell of a lot better off than we would have been with any of the 2008/2012 Republican presidential candidates and, to my knowledge, no one is saying that. At least not that I can hear.

I don't see it happening but, if the 99% of ordinary folks in the U. S. want to see their lives get better in the next little while, they'd vote to continue the things Obama's got done and get him some more Democratic help in the Congress. On the other hand, if they want to see wealth continue to get concentrated at the top, they'll vote in some more Republicans.

If voters need someone to tell them that, then it wouldn't hurt the President to be that someone.

Although perhaps he's saving it for the book.

[RA1]

Regretfully, I think most of the things you mention (some of which didn't happen exactly the way you suggest) happened in spite of BO and the Congress critters. I realize we have somewhat divergent political view points on some things and that the same situation can always be observed to be at least two different things. However, I do not understand why up to 40% of the population still believe in change and hope from BO nor why up to 2% still believe in the Congress. It does appear that BO is working more on his "legacy" than the many problems still confronting the country.

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

Regretfully, I think most of the things you mention (some of which didn't happen exactly the way you suggest) happened in spite of BO and the Congress critters.

What would be really helpful, to me anyway, would be if you would share just how you think those things got done and just who did them.

In spite of his healthcare initiatives in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney wasn't planning to extend them to the nation at large. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary.

John McCain wasn't trying to figure out ways to reduce our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and shift some responsibility to Middle Eastern partners. Unless you know something I don't.

Rick Santorum wasn't working to let gays get married, or even serve openly in the military. Unless he shared those plans with you and I just missed it.

Paul Ryan wasn't suggesting that insurers cover preexisting conditions and he sure wasn't backing away from handing out vouchers to Medicare recipients and letting them figure out how to make up the difference. Unless he's changed his thinking and forgot to let us know.

I know it's a lot easier to say "Obama's awful and has not done a single thing for anyone in the Country!" but, when it comes to pointing to a specific Republican initiative that would have worked better, the voices seem to get much quieter.

Believe me, I am not averse to learning something new. It's just that I still have this old-fashioned desire to base that knowledge on something with even a tinge of specificity.

All lines are open.

[RA1]

I think you are accusing me of being a Republican or at least a supporter of same. Far from it. However. Bush II may eventually be perceived as being better at some things than now perceived and likely so will BO but years into the future. The trillion dollars allocated by Congress and still somewhat unspent by BO did very little to "jump start" the economy. Independent businesses (as independent as they are) spurred most of the recovery. However, all too many of the "new" jobs are burger flipping or lower wage service jobs. Nothing wrong with honest toil but those are supposed to be "starter" jobs, not jobs where the workers think they have to strike to pass laws for higher minimum wages. The out of work numbers are regarded by some as 50-100% higher in actuality because some have stopped looking for work and some have taken jobs below their skill and experience level.

From looking at Romney's history he may or may not have passed health care initiatives but what he would have done was be an executive. Good or bad that would have been far different from what we have now.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

To comment on one thing I actually know a little bit about, wonders never cease, Romney is stridently on record as opposing the auto industry bailout. Even after it demonstrably worked, he argued GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy without any federal meddling.

Steve Rattner, who ran the bailout under Obama in its crucial early stages, demolished that argument in a withering piece in the WSJ, detailing how he and his team scoured the earth for private financing to support restructuring of the car companies, but came up empty-handed -- understandably so in the investment climate of early 2009. Without government intervention, GM and Chrysler would have gone into liquidation.

Besides the hundreds of thousands of job losses at the two companies, the knock-on effect would have pulled down much of their supply chain. Those suppliers being in turn crucial to many other industries besides, the damage to the entire U.S. manufacturing economy would have taken decades to repair, and would have eliminated us as competitors altogether in many segments.

As Bush himself defended the bailout to a Republican gathering after leaving office, "Sometimes reality gets in the way of philosophy."

/ End of rant.

[RA1]

AS-

I think it likely you are correct but you are commenting on a political decision rather than a business/corporate one. Who knows how either one will eventually pan out? It will be years and, yes, in the meantime, there are jobs saved, but at what cost?

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

If I remember right (not always something I would bet on), the GM bailout will wind up costing the Feds 10 to 15 billion at the most which sum has likely already been largely offset by additional taxes paid by the supply chain and dealerships.

Chump change on the scale these sorts of thing are measured on.

[RA1]

A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon it is serious money. Often attributed to Senator Dirksen but not confirmed. What I did find interesting was the debt ceiling was 328 billion in 1965. Even though that was 49 years ago, I do not believe "inflation" should have ballooned this to 18 trillion. But, here we are, fat, dumb and broke; we just don't seem to know it yet.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

[Guest callipygian]

Maybe we just need the "Fixer-in-Chief to run in 2016:

[RA1]

AS-

The numbers in that graphic are sadly out of date. BO (and the do nothing Congress, praise be) has added at least 30% to those numbers. Please remember, I am not defending Republicans. All Congress critters share in the blame as well as the recent administrations. They ALL suck. And, we are the suckees.

Best regards,

RA1