In the last few days, first James Carville spoke out against the “naive” Obama administration response to the BP oil disaster.Then Donna Brazille said virtually the same thing and accused the administration of relying too much on BP and not taking the initiative. Now a third close adviser to Hillary Clinton, Peter Daou, has come out with a condemnation of the “lame” White House response to the oil disaster over at Huffingtonpost. Writes Daou in this zinger, “leadership is virtually nonexistent.” And this: “President Obama can launch as many fact-finding commissions as he sees fit. But we shouldn’t be impressed that they are doing what we elected them [leaders] to do.”
After the blasts from James Carville and Donna Brazille, I wrote a diary here mentioning the fact that perhaps the Clinton team was getting ready for a primary challenge in 2012. Now, Peter Daou, a political consultant and former Hillary adviser, has written “The Great Shame: America’s Pathetic Response to the Gulf Catastrophe” and as its title indicates, Daou isn’t saying good things about Team Obama. “This isn’t Katrina II” jabs Daou, “it’s worse.” Or how about this line: “Democratic leaders have been blindsided by the spill, HAVING JUST COME OUT IN FAVOR OF OFFSHORE DRILLING TO APPEASE REPUBLICANS.” (emphasis added) Ouch! Note too the A-Word (Appease, about as strong a vilification in politics as one can use, it evokes an image of a timid and pusillanimous British prime minister). Double ouch!! Those are tough words directed at guess who? In another line, he calls the administration’s response “shameful”.
I think this makes it official. High political advisers around Hillary sense that this president is both weak and vacillating and not only on the BP oil response. Tellingly in her criticisms, Brazille used the phrase “one of the things” she objected to about the Obama administration was its handling of the disaster. That, of course, implies other problems like: overall weakness in trying repeatedly to get Republicans on board for legislation(even when they have shown they want to scuttle the legislation); a pathetic federal response to the economic/unemployment crisis; a shrub-like attitude towards human rights abuses and the constitution(Obama has gone beyond W. with forced renditions and the notion he has the right to kill Americans abroad); and repeated flip-flops on major campaign promises.
How would Hillary fare in a primary challenge in 2012? It’s always difficult, of course, to challenge a standing president UNLESS that president has shown himself to be inept and UNLESS that president has dissed his own political base. This is exactly what Rahm and Obama have done. Repeatedly. Like a Trojan Horse, Obama pretended to be a liberal Democrat largely to get the Democratic nomination but once he got it and once he won the general election, he began shredding campaign promises as soon as the votes were being counted. Remember FISA? His DADT and DOMA promises? Instead of health care reform he started talking about “insurance reform” and pushed not only single payer but the public option “off the table”. On financial regulation and economic matters, Obama’s in bed with Goldman Sachs and BP having taken in record sums from both.
In fact, what Hillary predicted in 2008 has come true. She said “this man is not a fighter” for average Americans and that has been proven correct again and again, on health care, on financial regulations, and now on the environment.
If she challenges Obama in 2012, she will once again get an overwhelming majority of the female vote– maybe a larger percentage than in 2008 because Obama will no longer be an unknown entity that people poured their hopes and dreams into. He cannot play the “change” card again since he has failed to bring about significant change (and doesn’t even talk about it anymore). Hillary will also sweep the gay vote and the Latino vote. As for one of the mainstays of the Democratic party, the labor vote, Obama dropped organized labor’s main legislative aim and he has a pathetic record on creating jobs. He’s essentially run a Republic administration with Republican economic ideas. Then, there’s the African American vote. What really has Obama done for them? They have the worst unemployment numbers in the country. Moreover, Bill Clinton was not called “the first Black president” for nothing. Note too that Bill has cleaned up his act and would not be the perceived threat in 2012 that he was in 2008.
Looking at the tea leaves as shown by these 3 criticisms (in virtually 3 days) by top Clinton advisers, I’m seeing a Hillary primary challenge in 2012. If Paul Begala comes out next with a another stinger of a commentary on the Obama administration, we’ll know for sure. And a Hillary challenge just might be the only thing to get this bumbler of a president off his butt. And out of office after one term.
Here’s a link to Daou’s hard-hitting article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/the-great-shame-americas_b_586377.html
That’s an interesting possibility you posit!
To say I’m extremely disappointed in the Obama Admn is a huge understatement.
None of serious issues inherited from Bush regime have been dealt with in any significant way, to my thinking.
And the government’s behavior with regards to this BP environmental disaster could well be the end of any chance for more than one term for Mr Obama.
Obama did indeed endorse offshore drilling to appease Republicans.
And why don’t you refer to the president as “Barack”?
We’ve seen in the diary above that 3 former close associates/advisers to the Clinton’s have had unusually harsh words for the Obama White House regarding its dealing with the BP oil disaster.
Another individual closely associated with the Clinton’s, is also weighing in with unusually harsh criticism of the White House. Robert Reich, now a professor at Berkeley, was the Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton and he was highly regarded by most people.
In a recent column at Huffingtonpost (odd too how many of these missives seem to be over there) Reich has some harsh words for Barack Obama and his presidency. Not over the oil disaster, to be sure, because Reich is not an expert in that area. He takes on the White House for its weak financial reform bill.
That bill, notes Reich, omits two critical ideas for changing the “structure of Wall St’s banks so they won’t cause more trouble in the future” and leaves a third in limbo. Writes Reich, “The White House doesn’t support any of them.” In other words, Reich is saying that the financial reform bill isn’t really reform at all and that the White House again has missed the boat.
Reich lays the problem directly at the feet of Obama: “The interesting question is why the president, who says he wants to get “tough” on banks, has also turned his back on changing the structure of American banks… .”
Here comes the interesting point because after those harsh words Reich says that Obama’s actions are similar to what he did with “health care reform”. Here are Reich’s words: “It’s almost exactly like health care reform. Ideas for changing the structure of the health-care industry — a single payer, Medicare for all, even a so-called “public option” — were all jettisoned by the White House… .”
In other words, in two significant policy areas, health care reform and financial reforms, Reich says the White House acted timidly and more in favor of the industries being “controlled” than in the public interest.
Reich himself underlines this point:
So once again, someone with close ties to the Clinton is leveling charges at the president of his party that he has acted weakly and was unwilling to take on vested interests. Pretty much the same thing said by the three other Clinton advisers in my diary.
Coincidence? Like Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot, I’m not a big believer in coincidences.
Source for Reich’s quote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-the-finance-bill-wont_b_587427.html
Obama HAS “acted weakly” and IS “unwilling to take on vested interests”. And he DID endorse offshore drilling in an effort to appease Republicans. These statements are true whether they are said by Clinton advisors or Norwegian bachelor farmers or my Aunt Tillie.
And you didn’t answer my question about why you don’t refer to the President as “Barack”.
What is my point, Ed? Try reading the last 3 paragraphs of the diary it should be obvious even to you.
Ed J: PUMA is as PUMA does.
Oh, and just wait until Lanny Davis chimes in. It’ll be glorious, like when he said this:
“I salute him — and wish we had more Lindsey Grahams serving in the U.S. Congress.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/ode-to-the-purple-senator_b_255516.html
Or this:
“Shocking, just shocking, that Rand Paul may actually be a real, authentic “Mr. Smith” who is ready to come to Washington to stick to his principles, come what may. Come to think of it, he does remind me of Jimmy Stewart and Mr. Smith.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/lanny-daviss-strange-take-on-rand-paul/57440/
And not to mention Lanny was a paid PR flack for the military coupistas in Honduras. Yes, this most prominent of Hillary spokesholes would currently be in the White House right now if PUMAs had their way.
Ah, the halcyon days of “Hillary advisers” running the show. The esteemed writer of this post seems to be suggesting Clintonistas would really be socking it to BP and friends right now, when history shows nothing would be further from the truth. Primary away, losers.