After Tucson, the GOP's 2012 hopefuls will be feeling a bit more nervous about challenging this president. Of course, they will want to wait and see if he can sustain the small recovery he has been building in recent months, to which Wednesday's speech has contributed the biggest boost of all. But whatever happens now, Mitt, Huck, Newt, not to mention Palin, have been very powerfully reminded that Obama will be nothing like a walkover next year.
Gosh, even Karl Rove has been impressed. As a commentator, Rove has generally been as intensely partisan as he was while in politics full time. This has diminished his value, I think; for all his immense knowledge of the country's politics, voters, and history, most of the time he has seemed more concerned with scoring points or attempting tactical manouvres rather than providing his readers with insight. So his latest column, in the Wall Street Journal, is surprising and welcome. It's an analysis of the significance of Obama's appointment of William Daley, and it's full of insidery perspicacity. In short, Rove is an admirer of Daley, and of Obama's appointment of Daley. He thinks Daley will sort out the White House, and that Obama's choice signals the president's awareness of a need to move to the centre:
Mr. Obama's best chance of success 22 months from now rests on reclaiming his image as a reasonable, bipartisan and unifying figure. It won't be easy, given his track record as president. That can't be airbrushed from history. But the selection of Mr. Daley as chief of staff indicates that Mr. Obama is willing to give it a try.
Another Republican (and WSJ columnist) Peggy Noonan, perhaps the president's most eloquently devastating critic, adds the Daley appointment to the tax cut deal to the speech - which she annotates grippingly - and concludes that Obama has risen from (what she had considered to be) the political dead:
Something is going on with him. He's showing the signs of someone who has learned from two solid years of embarrassment and unpopularity. Maybe he has "not come back from hell with empty hands." Maybe he is going to be formidable.
Of course he is. Wednesday was a reminder that in American presidential contests the incumbent holds some very powerful cards versus the challenger, not least the right to speak on behalf of the nation at times like this. When you have an incumbent capable of rising to the moment, as Obama has proved himself to be, then they are bound to be difficult to take down. With the usual (crucial) caveat about the direction of the economy, I am pretty certain he will be up or around the crucial 50% mark in approval ratings by next year - he's quite close to it now, even after a very rocky two years, and even though the economy is still stuck in neutral. Remember also, that he is a fantastic campaigner; relentless and incredibly competitive. He will be beatable. But his opponent will have to fight an extraordinary campaign. I'm not sure Mitt or anyone else we've seen so far is up to it.
'He's showing the signs of someone who has learned from two solid years of embarrassment and unpopularity. Maybe he has "not come back from hell with empty hands."
How has this become the conventional wisdom of his first two years? Without wishing to sound like John Prescott, I'm sorry Lord Prescott listing Labour's achievements because he's forgotten his lines, President Obama has shown he is not just an accomplished teleprompter reader, but a hugely successful legislator.
Posted by: northbank_upper | January 14, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Noonan is "eloquently devastating"?
Surely you jest.
Posted by: t1 | January 14, 2011 at 08:49 PM
Not jesting. This, for instance, is an utterly brilliant column (which is not to say I agree with what it says): http://on.wsj.com/bNV77x
Posted by: Ian Leslie | January 15, 2011 at 12:25 AM