Rahm seems to be on maneuvers, but nobody is quite sure to what extent and to what end. A couple of stories have appeared in the Washington Post giving bullishly defensive, pro-Rahm narratives of the first year, with the gist of both being that had Obama and the White House listened to him more they wouldn't be in this mess (he advised against going big on healthcare in the first year, and for a more conservative line on national security issues). The question is whether Rahm is behind them and if so what, exactly, he was aiming to convey and why. During an inconclusive discussion of this, Ambinder makes a good and under-reported point: Obama is doing better with voters on national security than many predicted:
It's true that Emanuel has worried about the way the American people would accept a young, first-time Democratic president's first forays into national security, his tangles with the CIA, his decisions to override the will of the American people and try some detainees in federal courts. Even though Americans disagree with the president about specific decisions, they accept that he is a legitimate commander in chief, they give him high marks for combating terrorism, and they feel that his foreign policy has been ably pursued and executed.
Comments