The Teleprompter-in-Chief has always fancied himself a more transformative figure than the brilliant hick, Bill Clinton. The Bill-Obama rift began during the Nevada primary contest which saw Bam praising progressive bugaboo Reagan and trashing the Clinton years.
Normally, such heresy would have outraged Democrats, but the party establishment had its knives sharpened for the brilliant fighter, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Obamacrats would spend much of 2008 bashing the Clinton legacy in order to gift the nomination to the Chosen One.
Clintonism, they whined, required too much compromise. The hippie left would not cotton a return to triangulation, nevermind that Clinton-Gingrich bipartisanship on some issues produced balanced budgets, entitlement reform, and years of prosperity.
No, the Clintonistas had to be purged.
Until now.
As Obama threatens a one term disappointment, paeans to the Clintons – like the one in Politico – will continue to surface.
Politico calls for Obama to steal from the Clinton playbook by putting the national interest over the Democratic interest. The partisan Democrat establishment found Hillary unpalatable, fearing they could not control her and her supporters, just like they could not control Bill.
Does Obama, a classic machine insider politician, have the strength and independence to defy party barons? If so, he has never demonstrated it argues most of the commentary on Politico's piece:
[SNIP]
The first step is towards redemption is for Obama to purge his party of all Clinton-haters and Clinton backstabbers. He should then demonstrate Clintonian style hands-dirty political warfare to accomplish something, anything worthwhile.
Politico further urges Obama to follow Clinton in reeling in staff, spotlighting the economy, fighting for and standing up for a vision, communicating your values, confronting rather than spinning weaknesses, and championing working class populism.
Politico got this one right. Clintonism, an amalgam of Trumanseque policy and Jacksonian politics, is the only way for Obama to save his party – and his nation. The problem is that Obama has not shown that he has either the intuitive heft or emotional intelligence to do so.
True, yeah, I'm loosing count of how many times I have said "I told you so' in the last two months.
In the above article, the last para got my attention.
Politico got this one right. Clintonism, an amalgam of Trumanseque policy and Jacksonian politics, is the only way for Obama to save his party – and his nation. The problem is that Obama has not shown that he has either the intuitive heft or emotional intelligence to do so.
It has taken a very long time for them to see this. Obama has shown a remarkable lack of emotional intelligence all the way through. Certain key situations where he needed to exercise better judgment, he failed. He personalized politics and used his personal charm to win people over. People got caught up in the charisma, hope and high pitched hype, and forgot that there was no depth, nor substance in his talk. He often missed the intuition to know the audience reaction to his instinctive words and gestures (e.g., bird flip, lipstick on a pig, truck). When you find the need to personally put down the other person, you reduce your competitive edge only to the personal charm. It works only once.
Shifting from that hollow position to substance, a place where one has to draw upon once core principles and make tough decision.. that will test the very essence of where he stands on specific matters. President Obama's more difficult days are yet to come. And, I see no real history of any accomplishment to show that he can sail through the rough tides.
I am reminded of Jay Cost's post... Let me bump it up.