Bloomberg's Albert Hunt has a great column on the White House's problems. He says he was preparing to write about the recent Rahm rumblings this week, when the phone rang...
A few hours later, a call: “It’s the love guys.” Emanuel and Axelrod were on the phone insisting the friction story reflected small-minded Washington games. “This guy is responsible for all that we’ve done here; it’s his sheer will,” Axelrod, 55, said of the chief of staff. “That character of the brand is essential; David has been the key,” was the return compliment from Emanuel, 50.
Aw, bless. Hunt didn't need much convincing - he reckons the chatter about internal divisions is overplayed and is in fact a diversion from the more serious problem:
Go back to the remarkable Obama campaign of 2007-2008. More than any of its rivals, it had a strategic sense of what it was, where it wanted to go. This provided a shield against setbacks: losing the New Hampshire primary, the candidate’s careless remarks about rural Pennsylvania voters or even the incendiary remarks of Obama’s pastor. These became speed bumps in the strategic narrative. That is missing in the Obama presidency. Too often it seems situational rather than strategic, reactive more than proactive. Thus setbacks, from minor ones, such as the handling of the Christmas Day bomber, to major ones, like the loss of the Senate seat in Massachusetts, throw team Obama off stride, and leave voters confused.
Absolutely right (and Hillary is too loyal to even whisper a "told you so"). I'd only add that although this might be a more "serious" problem than senior staff falling out with each other, it's actually more fixable. Obama has a first-rate team, and compared to many if not most White House staffs, a unified one. He needs to do less micro-managing and more direction-setting.
Ian,
I would note that it's not like these guys didn't know each other before they got to the WH -- they both have deep Chicago roots, and both had an early formative experience working on Richard Daley's successful run for Mayor in, I think 1991. Axelrod was a messaging advisor and Emanuel headed fundraising.
The real question is whether the supposed friction existed back then.
Posted by: CB | March 08, 2010 at 03:51 PM
Yes you're quite right CB. Although I don't think there is any significant "friction". My guess is that they get along just fine. As I say (well as Albert Hunt said) the whole personnel story is a distraction from a deeper problem.
Posted by: Marbury | March 08, 2010 at 04:19 PM
Although this guy shouldn't be mentioning any encounters with naked men in the showers with the rumours surrounding him, he does offer a fantastic Rahm story, one thats sure to add to the legend of Rahm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXeEJk7vGO4&feature=player_embedded#
Posted by: selfloathingreview | March 08, 2010 at 07:19 PM
best quote from the above video:
'Do you know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man?'
Posted by: selfloathingreview | March 08, 2010 at 07:22 PM