The Obama Administration Takes Shape

As happens every four years in Washington, the city is fixated on the parlor game of guessing cabinet appointments. But if you want to gauge the direction of the Obama Administration, pay closer attention to who the President-elect chooses to staff his White House. New Presidents often begin by thinking that they can delegate policymaking to their cabinets. It rarely works out that way. As the Brookings Institution noted in looking at the early days of the Bush Administration:

President Bush’s reputation as one who likes to delegate authority, along with the impressive resumes of some cabinet members, led observers to expect the cabinet to play an enhanced role in the administration. According to one early forecast,

With their golden resumes, long years of public service, strong personalities and close ties to Mr. Bush, Vice President-elect Cheney, and the Republican establishment-in-waiting, the men and women of the emerging Cabinet can be expected to exert just as much influence over the administration as the staff in the White House exerts, if not more. (Kahn, 2000, 1)

The supposition was that these department heads would need little direction from the White House, particularly on day-to-day matters. But students of American politics remembered Jimmy Carter’s failed attempt to form a “cabinet government” and how his White House staff rejected this approach in favor of centralizing control, maintaining the authority to rein in cabinet members when necessary.

What seems to be different about the Obama Administration is that it is signaling from the start where true power will be. That began with the pick of Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff. And at yesterday’s transition news conference, transition co-chairman John Podesta confirmed it further:

The policy direction process, particularly at the beginning of the Admnistraiton, needs to be well-coordinated at the White House level, through the National Economic Council, which is a creature of the White House staff that the Clinton Administration began. President-elect Obama intends to continue the Domestic Policy Council and the National Economic Council. The important policy coordination role will be maintained in the White House. … There’s a central function of policy development coordination that takes place at the White House in conjunction with OMB. What he’s looking for in a cabinet is people who are very strong, who can carry out the mandate, the missions of those agencies, and do it across the priorities that he’s laid out to get the economy moving again, to get jobs moving again, to get wages growing again.

UPDATE: (After the jump) A dissenting point of view from Podesta’s Center for American Progress colleague Scott Lilly:

As recently as the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, Cabinet members were strong, independent forces in setting policies within the realm of the departments they oversaw. But since then, their power and independence has been steadily marginalized. In the current administration, few Cabinet members have meaningful input on their own budgets, and most are aware that public expression of their views about how OMB decisions will affect the agencies they supervise could easily result in their termination. Increasingly over the last 25 years, Cabinet members have seen their activities directed by White House staff, whose members are often less than half their age and with little life experience other than working in political campaigns. In some instances, the real work of the department is actually handled by deputy or assistant secretaries who are directed by the White House without consultation with the actual Cabinet member.

The Obama transition needs to think very carefully about how much power it is willing to invest in Cabinet officials and, conversely, how much power the White House will be willing to relinquish. In my mind, the current distribution of power in our executive branch makes it difficult to recruit qualified people to key positions and squanders Cabinet members’ talents once they are recruited. Hopefully, the Obama administration will strike a better balance, but I will be surprised if it is willing to transfer enough authority out of the White House to make a Cabinet post attractive to people with the position and standing of either Schwarzenegger or Clinton.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Image: Mark Halperin interviews Mitt Romney

    Romney Defends Bain Record, Hits Obama on Economy: ‘He Just Doesn’t Have a Clue’

    Mitt Romney lashed President Obama’s economic stewardship in an interview with TIME’s Mark Halperin on Wednesday, deflecting attacks on his years as a private equity executive and laying out how he hopes to take control of the economy as soon as he’s sworn in, should he defeat Obama in November.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Image: Presidential candidate Mitt Romney

    Mother of Mitt: How Lenore Romney’s Failed Campaign Shaped the Presumptive Republican Nominee

    This week’s TIME cover story, “The Mother of the Mitt Campaign,” tells the tale of how Lenore Romney’s 1970 run for U.S. Senate may have made a bigger impression on the Republican presidential candidate than his years spent as the son of a governor. Mitt’s father lost his own presidential bid, but it was the lessons from his mother’s loss that are more instructive as Romney enters the campaign stretch.

  • Andy from MA

    KT — So tell me if this puts the new adminstration on a path for success or for failure?

  • sgwhiteinfla

    KT
    .
    people is misspelled in the block quote section

  • teresakopec

    I’m glad they are being so organized and hope it portends well for the future. I think the real thing voters want is some sense of competence again in D.C.

    Secretly hoping they don’t put Kerry as Sec of State. You need someone who is better at using the bully pulpit than Kerry. Sec of state is usually a go to person for shows like Meet the Press. Not sure Kerry can rally public opinion effectively.

  • Karen Tumulty

    KT here–

    Andy: I think it’s smarter than focusing on the Cabinet, especially when your party also controls Congress. SG: Will fix.

    Also, keep me posted on the moderation filter. High Sheriffs have been doing some tinkering.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    This is consistent with Obama’s statements regarding Petraeus, which can be paraphrased as “I lead. He follows.” Ambinder files a concurring opinion with an emphasis on lessons learned from past failures.

  • Andy from MA

    OT but NY TIMES spoof now has a link. I really thought the TImes was handing out free copies this am.
    .
    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/pranksters-spoof-the-times/?hp

  • Paul-no not that one

    “High Sheriffs have been doing some tinkering”
    .
    KT, There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.

  • Andy from MA
  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Great post– thanks for helping us see the big picture.
    -
    It’s a little easier to gossip about who’s going to end up where, but no one really knows anything about that, and this is much more edifying.

  • Andy from MA
  • Andy from MA
  • Andy from MA

    Yeah well I tried to post a link to the NY Times site and it evaporated. Please check the filter KT.

  • Andy from MA
  • sgwhiteinfla

    hooray we can now say assume!

  • Andy from MA

    That’s classy!

  • Andy from MA

    grapes of wrath

  • Andy from MA

    VP Dick Cheney

  • Andy from MA

    Hat’s off HS nice job.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    I’m beginning to think Obama’s biggest challenge/threat may be of the control freak variety. I hope he doesn’t become upset if things get out of order.

  • Andy from MA

    Maybe this will work instead. This was a fun read.

    http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=13699

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    But can we say gay

  • davemc321

    PNNTO – The Who are from Tennessee?

    As for the Obama White House, I’m going with organization, intelligence and competence until shown differently.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    Pourme — I think Obama strikes the right balance. In his campaign he didn’t micro manage which is the fatal flaw of the control freak. He simply established goals, chose staff, created organizational culture and then let his people get the job done. that is a very competent management style. It means you now what you want and you trust your people to get you there as long as they follow established rules of the road.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    Dee – Agreed, but things just got less subject to his control by an order of magnitude. I’m sure he gets that in his head, but still …

  • centfan

    pourmecoffee Says:
    Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 12:40 pm
    I’m beginning to think Obama’s biggest challenge/threat may be of the control freak variety. I hope he doesn’t become upset if things get out of order.


    You mean darken out the White House windows, grow his hair down to his knees, and obsessively measure the distance of every chair leg from the edge of the rug? Another Howard Hughes?

    He’s still be better than Bush.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    pourme
    .
    Falling Down is a CLASSIC. I think everybody could relate when Michael Douglas went off at the burger joint about how the burgers never look like the pictures.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    Pourme–
    .
    Frankly, I hate to use the Bush administration as a model for anything but we did learn as a result that it’s possible to maintain organizational discipline from the white house. Now imagine if that kind of discipline has been used for good?

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    I think it’s worth watching. I’m a big supporter, but I’m not blind – there is an element of truth the arrogance/control meme that permeated the election. No, he doesn’t get ruffled. He doesn’t like to get ruffled. It’s just one thing to watch, but I’m finding it interesting.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    KT
    .
    Did you catch the Lee Atwater special? I have to find someone to discuss it with.

  • kathy

    Who’s the butt of the moderation joke?

  • kathy

    Huzzah. Very good news about the moderation fix.
    .
    Re the White House Staff: The 2005 roast that C-SPAN ran several times gave a good picture of how close Emanuel and Axelrod are, and to Obama even then. Being surrounded by people you trust really matters, if they’re also competent. I feel good about those folks.
    .
    sgwhite – KT’s of an age with me, and she’ll remember anything you want to say about Atwater.

  • kathy

    TK –
    Good point about the need for the SOS to be MTP-ready.

  • Karen Tumulty

    KT here–

    High Sheriffs sent me a list of the words that will still wind you up in limbo. Anyone who uses them deserves it. I’m now officially announcing my retirement as Swampland Commenter Liberator.

  • txandy

    So if the cabinet is going to be totally controlled by the White House staff, why is there such a fight to get those jobs? I’d think being an independent Senator is a better job than just following Rahm Emmanuel’s orders.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    kathy
    .
    Some of the stuff is kinda speccific to the special so I don’t know if she would know all of it. For instance Atwater tried to make Dukakis into a ….wait for it…wait for it…liberal elitist. And he had a comment about eating “quiche out the can” which would be the equivalent of the whole “arugula” thing with Obama. Seriously there are so many parallels that its unreal. As a matter of fact I think that if this special had run a month before the election Obama would have probably gotten 60 percent of the popular vote because it would have been apparent just how outdated the attacks on Obama were and just another page from the republican playbook.
    .
    Taking Guns
    .
    Big Liberals
    .
    Communism
    .
    patriotism.
    .
    taxes.
    .
    It was unreal

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    me a list of the words that will still wind you up in limbo

    I’m assuming that these aren’t common subsets of larger inoccuous words – eh?

  • JJ

    Obama administration taking shape? Not too early to cue the Freak Show:
    .
    http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CNN_Conservatives_declare_war_on_Obama_1112.html

  • usesherbrain

    Thanks, KT, for your tireless dedication to liberating every “ass” for our viewing pleasure.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    SG– not to mention that its okay to tell bold face lies to the media because once they are out there who cares if they turn out not to be true.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    KT – Your life turned out such that you had to be given a printed list of filthy words. Not judging, just saying. Heal.

  • stuartzechman

    Awards for “Above and Beyond” again go to Tumulty.

    Thanks so much for your dedication, KT.

  • usesherbrain

    @JJ
    .
    Do you ever laugh when you see FoxNews with its headline of “Only on Fox!”?
    .
    I just nod my head and think to myself, “Yup, only on Fox.”

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    I’m feeling really compassionate today.
    .
    I won’t check to see whether typing the acronym for French Connection UK will get through. (I do recall my surprise at seeing teenaged girls wearing tshirts with the logo.)
    .
    Cabinet officials are almost always advocates rather than advisors, or even administrators. But there always seems to be an exception or two, like Robert Rubin or Rumsfeld. Not Paul O’Neill. Nixon didn’t use his cabinet at all, until he made Kissinger Secretary of State. Kennedy did use them, which didn’t work out well for him.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    Dee
    .
    EXACTLY!! Atwater was a true master of the dark arts. After seeing that special i have to say that McCain’s campaign would have been a lot dirtier if Atwater had never gotten cancer. I am sure he would have actually really had paid bloggers to go on different websites like conspiracy theorists kepts saying Obama and McCain were doing this year in order to further scurrilous smears and all manner of misleading statements. What might have been most incredible to me about the story was how none of the opponents every fought back. I just can’t imagine why anybody would think that it was a good idea to let the other guy say whatever he wants. It is AMAZING looking back on it that Bush 41 was able to get elected at a time when Iran Contra was a dominant news story. Karl Rove had nothing on Atwater and in fact the trick they used on McCain in 2000 was done by Atwater against Clinton while Clinton was still a Governer. Who knows what Atwater would have come up with by now

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    SG–
    .
    Part of had to do with the fact that in certain respects liberals are elitists, of course not necessarily in the same sense that the GOP uses, but liberals generally felt that defending themselves against scurrilous charges was akin to getting down in the gutter with the GOP. They wanted to take the high road to their won funeral I might add. the Clinton’s saw it and fought back valiantly but because no one trusted them it seemed calling the right wing a conspiracy by its name was just another far fetched excuse by a distrusted political family. the good news is that the GOP has maintained the Atwater doctrine but all creativity ended with him so they haven’t come up with any new tactics.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Hey KT.
    .
    A question.
    .
    one thing the Clinton white house shared with the Bush white house, although not to the same insane degree as the Bushies, was a sense of a permanent campaign, that policy had to be politically vetted, and that the political team could never stand down. this meant worrying, a lot, about winning the daily news cycle, and, imo, interfered with effective policy-making. (Bush, of course, took this to extreme Mayberry Machivelli levels.)
    .
    There’s a feeling I’m getting from the long view the Obama campaign took, and from the apparent seriousness of the policy teams working the transition that Obama may mean that an Obama administration may be different in this regard.
    .
    OTOH, his pandering to the clean coal and ethanol forces is evidence in the other direction.
    .
    Are you getting any sense of the way the administration expects to work, in this regard?
    .
    Also, one reason Clinton got into permanent campaign mode was a combination of extreme and false attacks from the Republicans and a pretty strong sense of animosity for the administration from what we our here call the Village. Do you have a sense of whether the republican attacks will get as much traction? Or how the new first family will be seen by the Dean and by Sally Quinn?

  • sgwhiteinfla

    Dee
    .
    But Dole was a republican and they went after him with zeal also. The funny thing is that when most Republicans hearken back to the age of Reagan they are really saying they miss the days of Lee Atwater when smears always worked and nobody really had to debate the issues.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    My daily obligatory 2 minutes Lieberman hate
    .

  • Karen Tumulty

    KT here–

    Jayack: Clinton was in a permanent campaign mode in large part because that is just his metabolism. Obama has had a very different style on the campaign, where it served him well. As for the attacks: Count on them. This is still Washington. As much as anything, this is how people raise money. Also, I’m not sure that it matters any more how the Georgetown set views people. They kind of had their day in the Kennedy Administration.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    @sgw – Dude, what if Lieberman gay-married the ghost of Lee Atwater and moved right next door to you. You’d be ALL CAPS posting on that day, my friend. Nate Silver has that at 99.9% chance of happening.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    SG–
    .
    But Dole was old school. I know its hard to remember but there was a time when Republicans and Democrats worked together and debated policy rather than practice the politics of personal destruction. He was a gentleman and therefore was an impediment.

  • dumdedumdum

    As for any administration, there are a lot of political posts to fill throughout the guvment — see this go round of the Plum Book:

    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/2008/index.html

  • sgwhiteinfla

    pourme
    .
    I am sorry but I can’t let it go. I have a thing about loyalty. Lying is pretty much the price of doing business when it comes to politics but if you can’t be loyal then no one should show any loyalty to you in my opinion. I take more issue with what Lieberman did for Coleman than what he did for McCain. To put it in plain terms Lieberman hedged his bets. If McCain wins then he keeps the dems from getting a filibuster proof majority that could fight McCain’s agenda. If McCain loses then Coleman can help him fight Obama’s agenda. Punishment must be meted out!

  • sgwhiteinfla

    Dee
    .
    Thats true. But still it was crazy to see them tear him down like that and also to see him take it. He!! from the special it seemed like Dole would have been able to beat him if he just lied and said no new taxes just like Bush did. That was the epitome of taking the high road and getting your teeth kicked in for your efforts.

  • dumdedumdum

    KT, it might be informative (interesting, not so much) for the dead tree edition to include some mention of the existence of the Plum Book (and its heft) — all the media attention goes to the high profile cabinet and EOP picks, but just the political network/infrastructure of the executive branch is a great big thing with lots of cubbyholes (never mind the career civil service folks). The general public may not be so aware of that.

  • JJ

    As for the attacks: Count on them. This is still Washington. As much as anything, this is how people raise money.

    I wonder how cognizant they are that these days the audience is always watching, is no longer atomized, and can constantly repurpose your content in ways you didn’t foresee

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    @sgw – Opposite for me. I wish Powell, McLellan — all these guys with Sudden Onset Morality had chosen to shuck loyalty for veracity.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    pourme
    .
    You misunderstand me. Loyalty is going out in public and holding your tongue. Its NOT holding your tongue behind closed doors. Someone who is truly loyal will be willing to say exactly what they feel and challenge the president behind closed doors to keep them from making mistakes. Powell was silent in public AND behind closed doors and thats why I have some contempt for him. He did try a little to warn Bush off from invading Iraq but he had the power and the reputation that could have made a difference had he chosen to draw a line in the sand. But Lieberman on the other hand has been disloyal behind closed doors AND in front of everyone else. I will not turn away from my orewellian hate of him until they strip him of his chairmanship.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    @sgw – Memo to myself: do not piss you off.

  • JJ

    my orewellian hate

    That allusion–I’ve seen people use it in some strange ways lately. If someone uses it about themselves, there’s kind of an irony. I like to see myself as *countering* propaganda, not participating…

  • sgwhiteinfla

    pourme
    .
    lol
    .
    Lieberman has done sh!t for years that p!ssed me off but that wasnt the problem. The problem is he doesnt consider himself a Democrat anymore, he has nothing good to say about the Democratic party anymore, he has voted against the Democratic party on major issues in the last two years and now he is basically trying to hold the Democrats hostage by saying he will leave the party unless he keeps his chairmanship. Thats some bullsh!t Geraldo and I just don’t think it can be tolerated.

  • Karen Tumulty

    kt here–

    dumdedumdum writes: As for any administration, there are a lot of political posts to fill throughout the guvment — see this go round of the Plum Book:

    As of yesterday, more than 144,000 people had applied for jobs with the new administration over the website alone. I’ll have more about this kind of thing in dead tree.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    JJ
    .
    It means I don’t really “hate” him but I will keep bringing it up on pretty regular intervals so that his transgressions are not forgotten even when the subject isnt even slightly about Lieberman. It also means that if the Dems don’t strip him of his chairmanship I will seamlessly shift that hate to Harry Reid and try to get him bumped from his leadership position.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    @sgw – I love me some good harmless hate. Don’t stop believin’. Hold on to the feelin’.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    SG-
    .
    What happens if the Senate votes to keep him. Can you still blame Reid even though he’s on record as wanting to strip Lieberman but following Obama’s wishes left it up to a vote.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    Dee
    .
    HELL YEAH I will still blame him. First off it shouldnt even go to a vote. Harry Reid is the majority leader. Dammit its time to LEAD! But even if its put to a vote then Reid should be the one who people follow as to how he votes. If they won’t follow Reid to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship then obviously Reid is not worthy of being the majority leader and should step down immediately! Again these roles mean something. If they didnt there wouldnt be any majority leader. There would just be a bunch of chiefs running around doing their own thing.

  • sgwhiteinfla

    Dee
    .
    Let me clarify. I want him stripped of his chairmanship. He can still caucus if he wants in my opinion. Its LIEberman who has threatened to leave if he doesnt get to keep his chairmanship. I say call his bluff!

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    SG —
    .
    Alrighty then…

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Also, I’m not sure that it matters any more how the Georgetown set views people.
    .
    You’ll never convince the DFHs that this was not a problem for the Clintons. The Sally Quinn column about how the Clintons weren’t right for our town is pretty good evidence.
    .
    The most outrageous falsehoods about the Clintons, from coke dealing to accusations of murder were printed in traditional media outlets.
    .
    And the most outrageous policy failures (eg see MS post below on military procurement, and his comment on contractor cronyism) and outright flouting of the constitution (No, Joe, we haven’t forgotten) of the Bush administration were not treated with anywhere near the same attention.
    .
    So I’m hoping that Obama’s cultivated manner, his time in Washington, and his and Michelle’s panache will help ease the way into a lengthy press honeymoon.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Oh, and thanks. that’s a nice way of describing Clinton–campaigning is in his metabolism.

  • Karen Tumulty

    KT here–

    Note my update from Scott Lilly, who disagrees with his boss Podesta about how this should be done.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    @jay – If her HuffPost columns are even half honest, Nora Ephron wants to do him, and I’d say she is the demographic you are pegging.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    On Lieberman.
    .
    When you lose a primary, you get out of the way. No, you don’t merely get out of the way. You work actively and forthrightly for your opponent. You only can have been in that campaign you lost because of the party apparatus that put you there. Part of the price you pay for access to that apparatus is support for the party.
    .
    See: Clinton, Hillary.

  • jarais

    I want preview back. Without it, I type stoopid things!

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    If her HuffPost columns are even half honest, Nora Ephron wants to do him, and I’d say she is the demographic you are pegging.
    .
    [chuckle] The “once you go black you never go back” joke takes on a whole new cachet when you’re talking about the president.
    .
    It’s actually the gang of 500 I’m talking about, though. Clinton lost them in month 1. digby and others believe this is not about personality, but about politics. atrios would say that Washington is and always has been a Republican town, where Democrats are tolerated at best, and generally abused.
    .
    I don’t know about that. I do know that an overwhelming repudiation of Republican policymaking is being treated as more evidence that the US is a center right country, and needs a coalition cabinet.
    .
    I’m hoping that this trope will give Obama the courage to be transformative. If it doesn’t matter what he does, if David Broder is going to tut tut about the need to bring McCain and Lieberman into the circles of power, if Fred Hiatt is going to cluck sadly when he appoints a democrat to SecDef, well, why mess around? If they’re gonna do it anyway, put Jack Reed in there. If they’re gonna call any kind of health care plan dangerous and socialist, well, hell, go for it.
    .
    The guys who are up on Rushmore weren’t timid. And the postwar President who had the most positive effect on this country and its future, LBJ, acted boldly.
    .
    The Villagers are pantywaists, cowed by Bush, for heavens sake. Obama can do what he wants. I hope he sees that and acts boldly.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Lily has a good point. I said above that cabinet posts are usually filled with advocates. But nowadays these are public advocates for white house policies, like campaign surrogates. In the past, they were advocates for their departments within the policymaking apparatus.
    .
    As with so much else, this changed with Nixon.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    I’m standing pat: Ephron is the demo. I think it’s about cosmopolitan-i-ness, and the Clintons didn’t fit in because they where Ozark hicks. Obama is attracting the sophisticates like Peter Pan.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    heh heh. I said “hell.” Heh heh.
    .
    prepare for a brief whatchacallit-storm as people test out the filters…
    .
    Seriously, thanks for finally getting this fixed. Now, paragraph breaks and preview are the other two things that are really essential to implement.
    .
    The folks here are pretty thoughtful and can hold an idea through three or four paragraphs. But it’s hard to read in one long screed, and it’s hard to write that much error free.
    .
    And, you know, the moderator could warn you about your potty mouth in a well designed preview feature.

  • trifecta

    Until David Broder is tarred and feathered, we are stuck with the Gang of 500 we have.
    .
    The american people are majority pro-choice, pro health care reform, anti Iraq, but this proves the Republicans are right! One of the useful statistics I learned, was about the disparity between the general citizenry and the “press” in free trade. Reporters who were polled happened to love it, the citizens, not so much.
    .
    Just because reporters tend not to hate blacks and gays because they work in urban environments, does not make them populists in the least bit. The elites should be scared if somebody with Obama’s skill ever gets tv time and shows the bottom 70% how much they were being abused. The greatest trick in american life is convincing the have nots to give stuff to the wealthy.

  • kathy

    sgwhite -
    .
    Re the Atwater special having made a difference. I promise you that anyone over 50 remembers Willie Horton and has already discounted attacks since then – except for the demographic that believed Atwater anyway. If you were right, then the over 50′s would have voted for Obama more than the under 30′s, who don’t know the history of Atwater. N’est-ce pas?
    .
    But it’s Atwater’s history that has made so many in the MSM say that McCain really didn’t run a dirty campaign. And by Atwater’s standards he didn’t. And before we had Atwater we had “tricky Dick” Nixon, who conducted the scurrilous campaign stuff himself, before he got high enough up to hire others to do it for him.

    See for reference this list of Nixon’s “enemies list”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_list_of_Nixon_political_opponents

    And he called his opponent Helen Douglas “pink to her underwear” in making up a communist connection
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Gahagan_Douglas

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Here mere existence on the National stage pi$$es off everybody with a college degree

    wrong thread above. Internet went down.
    .
    1) Preview would prevent some typos like this.
    .
    2) You don’t need the dollar mark on that one any more, sg.
    .
    3) Out of the ten, I think this is the key. It’s like chanting “drill baby drill.”
    .
    elvis–
    .
    The thing is that Little Debbie and her ilk internalized the conservative demand for balance, irrespective of truth or accuracy. It’s not that they get it from her. She got it from them.
    .
    In a very interesting debate about the media between Eric Alterman and Tucker Carlson, I found out that the roots of this lies in, naturally enough, abortion. Pew or somebody like that did a study sometime in the eighties and found that, indeed, the language used by the media in news stories was biased against people opposed to choice. The newspeople freaked out about this, and implemented policies to enforce greater balance. Rightly so, IMO, when I looked at the stuff they were referring to. The anti-choice people WERE being portrayed as ignorant yahoos. Moreover, this reinforced the point the media critics were making–that reporters personal background (from the coasts,college educated, professional) was consistent with personally liberal views.
    .
    But that has turned into not pressure to be more accurate, but pressure to be more “balanced” at the expense of accuracy. We want accuracy. They want lies to be printed to balance truth. This is a problem for Little Debbie. When the truth has a liberal bias, how can she enforce balance?

  • JJ

    Wow. There really is something to this whole “dirty hippie” critique on the part of Atrios et al:
    .
    ***Business… had much to fear from this powerful new class, according to Kristol, as:
    .
    … they are acting upon a hidden agenda: to propel the nation from
    that modified version of capitalism we call ‘the welfare state’
    toward an economic system so stringently regulated in detail as to
    fulfil many of the traditional anti-capitalist aspirations of the
    Left. (5)
    .
    According to the neo-conservatives, the new class has its origins in the radicalism of the ’60s. The radicals hoped to bring about a revolution in US society, but the decade ended, as Norman Podhoretz writes, ‘not with a revolution but with the election of Richard Nixon’. (6) The new class resulted from the confounded expectations of the student radicals who subsequently changed tactics and pursued their revolutionary ends with renewed vigour, ‘this time working within the system’. (7)
    .
    Ironically, the roots of the neo-conservative manifestation of new class discourse are located in the debates within the Fourth International around the time of the Second World War. (8) It was in and around US socialist politics of the 1930s and ’40s that many neo-conservatives began their intellectual life. And it was the break with Trotskyism and the Fourth International which began the journey right-ward for a number of intellectuals.****
    .
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7043/is_16/ai_n28127660/print?tag=artBody;col1
    .
    Paul Krugman recently on Nixonland:
    .
    ****Here’s what [Nixonland] *doesn’t* say, which isn’t a criticism. What happened, very crucially, was that Nixonism got institutionalized. The creation of a set of institutions – think-tanks, media organizations, all of it funded by a relatively small number of sources (it really comes down to about six angry billionaires, when all is said and done), creating a structure which perpetuates the political style and political goals that were created during these years. Rick has written a lot about the American Enterprise Institute, but not here – AEI was transformed into what we know today towards the end of the period that Rick covers here. The Heritage Foundation is founded in the last two years covered in this book. Those things create an institutional basis for maintaining this style of politics, and then what happens thereafter, is that although the objective reality of urban riots and hippies and anti-war protesters is gone, they are able to find, to conjure up the appearance of equivalents thereafter.****
    .
    http://www.henryfarrell.net/nixonland.pdf

  • JJ

    An old joke a professor of mine once told me went like this:

    Midwestern Senator: It says here, sir, that you’re a communist!
    Sopenaed Witness: But I’m not a communist, I’m an anti-communist!!
    Midwestern Senator: I don’t care what kind of commie you are!!!

blog comments powered by Disqus