The Clique?

[robeiae]

Interesting article(s) in the "inner circle" of the Admin:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2010/02/core_chicago_te/

That one is based on this one:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f65c9a80-1145-11df-a6d6-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

Tidbits:
In dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington - most of them given unattributably in order to protect their access to the Oval Office - each observes that the president draws on the advice of a very tight circle. The inner core consists of just four people - Rahm Emanuel, the pugnacious chief of staff; David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, his senior advisers; and Robert Gibbs, his communications chief.

Among the broader circle that Mr Obama also consults are the selfeffacing Peter Rouse, who was chief of staff to Tom Daschle in his time as Senate majority leader; Jim Messina, deputy chief of staff; the economics team led by Lawrence Summers and including Peter Orszag, budget director; Joe Biden, the vice-president; and Denis McDonough, deputy national security adviser. But none is part of the inner circle.

Perhaps the biggest losers are the cabinet members. Kathleen Sebelius, Mr Obama's health secretary and formerly governor of Kansas, almost never appears on television and has been largely excluded both from devising and selling the healthcare bill. Others such as Ken Salazar, the interior secretary who is a former senator for Colorado, and Janet Napolitano, head of the Department for Homeland Security and former governor of Arizona, have virtually disappeared from view.

Administration insiders say the famously irascible Mr Emanuel treats cabinet principals like minions. "I am not sure the president realises how much he is humiliating some of the big figures he spent so much trouble recruiting into his cabinet," says the head of a presidential advisory board who visits the Oval Office frequently. "If you want people to trust you, you must first place trust in them."

I think it points to what I--and others here and elsewhere--have been saying for quite some time: Obama is still campaigning; he's never made the switch to actually governing.

Latest job approval averages put him right on the edge of having more unhappy with him than happy:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

That graph is a helluva statement, in and of itself.

[whistlelock]

Well, comparing this and the last President, and what I remember of Clinton- that's pretty true of them all.

Bush was routinely hitting the road to sell his latest whatever plan. IE Campaigning for what he wanted to do.

And, I think, that if Clinton had the multimedia outlets available to him like the current president does, he'd have been just as much (if not more) out there in front of everyone.

[robeiae]

Bush spent a lot more time at his ranch in Crawford than on the road.

But look: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/20/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6119525.shtml
NEWS CONFERENCES: 42
• Of which 5 were formal, solo White House Q&A sessions. Four were in prime time. His last one was July 22, 2009. (seen at left)
• Nearly all of the other press availabilities were joint appearances with foreign leaders at which as few as 1 question was taken by Mr. Obama.
• Predecessor George W. Bush did 21 news conferences his first year of which 4 were formal, solo White House sessions. Only 1 was in prime time.

INTERVIEWS: 158.
• This is a striking number of interviews and far more than any of his recent predecessors in their first year.

POLITICAL FUNDRAISERS: 28
• The events raised at least $27.25 million. (3 of the events Mr. Obama attended declined to disclose how much was raised.
• George W. Bush did 6 fundraisers his 1st year raising over $48 million.

[AMCrenshaw]

Can we use someone besides Bush, who was a lousy speaker?



AMC

[Slushie]

"I want to tell you how proud I am to be the President of a nation that -- in which there's a lot of Philippine-Americans. They love America and they love their heritage. And I reminded the President that I am reminded of the great talent of the -- of our Philippine-Americans when I eat dinner at the White House." --George W. Bush, referring to White House chef Cristeta Comerford while meeting with Filipino President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Washington, D.C., June 24, 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww&feature=related)


oops. wrong link.

[robeiae]

Can we use someone besides Bush, who was a lousy speaker?



AMCUse them for what? As a point of comparison? Anecdotally. I can't remember any President that was more visible than Obama, at this point in their term

That's not to say visibility is a bad thing, at all. But I see Obama still campaigning, by and large. And this inner circle group goes to that point, imo: that's their collective forte, aside from Rahm (who I think is very, very good at running things inside, if a tad "authoritative").

[AMCrenshaw]

Actually Rob I'm unsure how much the GWB comparison added to this particular conversation, anyway.

Really. I'd be more interested to see how Obama's air-time compared to pre-Monica Bill Clinton's. Aren't there a few familiar faces in the Obama admin from the Clinton days?



AMC

[robeiae]

I see this:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/05/obama-embraces-camera-shuns-white-house-press-corps/


President Obama apparently has no fear of the cameras -- he's spent more time speaking in front of them than George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did in their first year in office -- but lately, he's been avoiding day-to-day interaction with reporters.

That interaction typically comes at brief question-and-answer encounters with White House correspondents gathered for sessions with Cabinet members, other U.S. officials or foreign dignitaries. Clinton took reporters questions in 252 such sessions and Bush in 147, according to Martha Joynt Kumar, a political science professor at Towson University who tracks presidential communication from the White House.

Obama's total: Just 47 in his first year.

[snip]

In fact, Obama has granted 161 interviews, compared to 50 for Bush and 53 for Clinton.
That strikes me as reflective of what I am saying.

[Gregg]

He does give the impression, at least to me, that he'd rather talk than govern.
He didn't lead on the health care issue, largely letting Congress set their own agendas; he claims he wasn't involved in the decision to try the terrorists in NY - these are just some examples of his apparent lack of leadership.

But I am biased. I can't stand the guy.

[AMCrenshaw]

As in, what the reporters or anyone else want to know, the admin is deflecting in favor of campaign mottoes...I expect Obama to win in a re-election. Good! That means Obama will be President in a few years.

Is there a point beyond the point?





AMC

[Romantic Heretic]

Obama's record so far (http://www.PolitiFact.com/).

Details (http://thestar.blogs.com/davidolive/2010/01/yes-but-what-has-obama-done-for-me-lately.html).

[rugcat]

That strikes me as reflective of what I am saying.If you'll remember, one of the criticisms about Bush was that he was inaccessible to the press, and never appeared before the public without pre screened questions and questioners.

Perhaps this is just an example of noting how Obama is operating and spinning it to show him in a bad light. I have no doubt if he'd granted fewer interviews, that would have been spun in the opposite direction.

[blacbird]

The main point of this thread seems to be that it's pointless.

caw

[robeiae]

If you'll remember, one of the criticisms about Bush was that he was inaccessible to the press, and never appeared before the public without pre screened questions and questioners.

Perhaps this is just an example of noting how Obama is operating and spinning it to show him in a bad light. I have no doubt if he'd granted fewer interviews, that would have been spun in the opposite direction.
Well, the interview numbers is kinda a sideline, in response to Whistlelock. The main thing--to me--is the core group around him and how they are operating. Agian, I see it as more campaign-oriented than work-oriented. Did you read the FT piece? It's not really a hit piece and it's not ideologically driven, at all.

[robeiae]

The main point of this thread seems to be that it's pointless.

cawMore substantive input from you, I see. Consistency is a fine thing.

But I'll ask you the same question I asked rugcat: did you read the stories? If so, do you have anything to say in that regard?

You're not--you know--obligated to follow my take, at all. Say something original. Or not.

[AMCrenshaw]

PERSONALLY

I don't feel like registering with my real name and/or real email address to read a singular article. Teh-thread quotes sufficed.




AMC

[blacbird]

Say something original. Or not.

E = MC3.

caw

[robeiae]

PERSONALLY

I don't feel like registering with my real name and/or real email address to read a singular article. Teh-thread quotes sufficed.




AMC
Apoligies. I was not aware you needed to. I linked off the RCP link and thought that bypassed the need to register.

The RCP story (the first link) does give some more info in the story, though.

[Norman D Gutter]

The idea that President Obama has a small inner circle is not disturbing, nor that his next closest circle of advisors is somewhat small. I suspect every president in our history has operated this way, plus or minus a few in the circle.

What is disturbing is who is in the inner circle and who is not in the next circle. Why is the president taking advice from Robert Gibbs, for crying out loud? His job it to report on what the White House is doing. If Obama is taking advice from Gibbs, that can only be how the administration can look better to the press, and sort of proves Rob's contention that Obama is still in campain mode. The fact that Janet Napolitano and Sec of State Clinton are not in the inner circle, or at least in the next, speaks volumes on the Administration's priorities.

Good thread, Rob,
NDG

[robeiae]

Et tu, Dougie (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32741.html)?

The changes must go much deeper. Obama’s West Wing is filled with people who are in their jobs because of their Chicago connections or because they signed on with Obama early during his presidential campaign.

One problem is that they do not have sufficient experience at governing at the executive branch level.