Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin Rises

While Maureen Dowd has often had an edge for Obama, as she does with almost everyone, she ventures into some interesting, politically substantive and unexpected ground in her latest column.

When she writes about some major supporters and funders having doubts, she's sending a message. That's also true when opining on his seeming lack of loyalty to the ones that brung him to the dance. And with calling his re-election far from certain while also noting Palin's rise among independents, she's actually tossing a high fastball as a warning to Obama here. She's sending a message from others besides herself. The Democrat elites are not pleased. Who would have thought Angelina Jolie and Maureen Dowd would have anything in common?

There's now a growing trend of people beginning to sour on Obama that goes far beyond Republicans and the Right. They may still back him going forward, but given this, will the same intensity be there? Nope, that is most definitely gone. And it will be extremely difficult if not impossible for him to get that back. In terms of enthusiasm, he's definitely peaked and now on his way down. How far he slides is going to be up to him.

I often wondered if Craig and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, the other former Clinton official who helped undermine Hillary’s foreign policy record, would have done so if they had known that after turning on Hillary they would once more end up working beside her; if they had known that Obama can often be more interested in wooing opponents than tending to those who put themselves on the line for him.

There were complaints that Craig was out of the loop, but couldn’t Obama have walked the single West Wing staircase up to his counsel’s office and looped him in?

Craig was, after all, simply defending positions that Obama himself took during the campaign, from closing Gitmo to greater transparency.

The way the Craig matter was handled sent a chill through some Obama supporters, reminding them of the icy manner in which the Clintons cut loose Kimba Wood and Lani Guinier. But then, Obama is surrounded by many old Clinton hands (and a Clinton).

Writing in Politico, Elizabeth Drew called it “the shabbiest episode of his presidency,” saying that it had caused people who had helped Obama rise to question whether he would behave in as classy and non-Clintonian a fashion as they had hoped.

It recalled Obama’s failure to lift a finger to help Caroline Kennedy — after she had lifted him at a crucial moment — when the loopy Gov. David Paterson was dragging her through mud and refusing to announce a decision on the appointment for the New York Senate seat. Paterson was being lobbied by a vengeful Bill Clinton. Bill was still upset at Caroline for bestowing the Camelot mantle, which he had tried to claim during his campaigns, on Obama. Yet no one from the Obama camp tried to counteract Bill and straighten out Paterson.

Although a handful of donors were invited to the premiere state dinner Tuesday night — as well as erstwhile allies Craig and Hillary — many donors and passionate supporters are let down by Obama’s detachment, puzzled at his failure to make them feel invested when he’s certain to come back to tap their well soon enough.

It is especially puzzling given that Obama faces tough midterms and a less-than-certain re-election — and given that we all now know someone on the unemployment line. (A new poll shows Obama and Sarah Palin neck and neck among independents, but then it is a Fox survey.)

Bill Clinton may not have cared any more about contributors than Obama does, but he was such a talented politician that he made them feel as though they were in “a warm bath,” as one put it.

Obama is more like a cold shower.

Comments

[gary gulrud]

The danger [z]Ombie posed for the Democratic Powerbrokers should have been apparent after 100 days, but these people are evidently too caught up in their frenetic lives for reflection.

The 'recession' is now clearly a 'W', actually a better simile would be a descending staircase puntuated by landings of a quarter or two in length.

When an abysmally disappointing Xmas becomes reality there is going to be much lamenting the lost investment on the 'vaporecovery'. 2010 will be a disaster for Democrats beginning with fundraising.

I predict their walkabout in the wilderness will be an extended one.

[x11b1p]

I wonder how long it takes all of those millions of Dems who supported Hillary to start to revolt when they ponder what could have been. Even if 10% of the die hard Hillary voters who felt the primary was stolen say F-IT about Obama, this guy could find himeslf in the mid 30s by the primaries. I wonder if the only thing keeping them at bay is that she is working for him?

[Pasadena Phil]

It appears to be that unless your last name is Axelrod, Jarrett, Emanuel or Obama, the mau-mau-in-chief just ain't listening. That's how you run a ward in Chicago.

[Bob]

It'd be foolish for any Democrat to count on consistent support from the likes of Dowd, and especially, Politico. They're about as much a part of what some liberal bloggers like to refer to as "The Village" as you can get. It's always about petty beltway gossip, who's hot, who's not, who sends thrills up peoples' legs, and so forth.

But it does raise an issue that Obama is going to need to face up to. His idea of "bipartisanship," of constantly validating the disingenuous positions of "centrists" like Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson, is getting him zero support from conservatives and only alienating his supporters. People like Riehl will despise Obama regardless of what he does. Republicans in Congress will unanimously oppose him no matter what he does. These people only want failure. They root for nothing but failure even if it were to do great harm to the country, because failure, they figure, is their only way back into power, and power is all they care about.

Obama should not compromise good policy or good ideas for the sake of appeasing "centrists" or conservatives. He should focus on practical solutions that work and let the political chips fall where they will. In the end, he (and the Democrats) are only going to be judged according to whether things work or not. Smart and effective policies are the only weapon to fight the bad-faith and nihilism of his opponents. Appeasement (i.e. trying to be more like a Republican) only guarantees the kind of failure that Republicans brought us for the previous eight years.

[James]

You make good points, Bob. Unfortunately, few of Obama's policies have worked. Had the president been willing to compromise he would have more Republicans supporting his policies.

[gary gulrud]

"His idea of "bipartisanship," of constantly validating the disingenuous positions of "centrists" like Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson,"

Is this telepathy, Dadaism, what? An example for each would be nice.

"Smart and effective policies are the only weapon to fight the bad-faith and nihilism of his opponents."

Nice boilerplate, any concrete suggestions? Don't bother about the nihilism and bad-faith end, just smart and effective policies beginning.

[Dennis D]

Who would defend Caroline? She sounded like someone with no high school education.

[Bl]

Bob, and of course Democrats only act in the interests of the nation, and have little concern for more power. If the stimulus was intended to create urgently needed jobs, why has only 25% of the stimulus been spent? Perhaps to have a fresh new injection of funds right before the mid-terms?? Is that an example of distributing funds to get Americans working, or manipulating the spending of those funds for the benefit of the incumbent political party?? And now, with the backdrop of fraudulent data via 'climategate', Obama wants to compromise the American economy to the cap/trade/Copenhagen scheme. That would be seeking power for the party by paying back the environmental lobby/industries/UN, all at the expense of the Americans. Don't you wonder why CNN, ABC,CBS, NBC, and the White House have yet to cover or respond to this historic event? Great party you belong to Bob.

[x11b1p]

Bob how about your answer to my yes or no question? Or does the cat got your tongue?

[Bob]

"Is this telepathy, Dadaism, what? An example for each would be nice."

An example would be not more forcefully supporting a "strong" public option with reimbursement rates tied to Medicare. This is the kind of thing that would have had more ability to control costs under the new system, but the administration has given out mixed singles over the whole idea of a public option, preferring to try to court "moderates" like Lieberman or Snowe by downplaying the need for such a measure. It's going to end up costing more, because even if there's a "weak" public option with limited enrollment and limited cost controls, the private ensurers will end up using it as a dumping ground for sicker patients that they'd rather not cover anyway.

"Nice boilerplate, any concrete suggestions?"

I think the administration's economic policies could be more effective if they ignored the advice of Wall Street insiders like Geithner and Summers. They should have taken much firmer control of financial institutions that received bailous money that would have prevented a lot of the most outrageous abuses that have cost taxpayers. They should break up "too big to fail" institutions rather than showing undue deference to CEOs and Boards of Directors. They've tried to be too conservative and too respectful towards the status quo, and the result has been less effective policy and more political damage to themselves due to the resulting populist outrage.

[Mark Turner]

Bob's a proponent of big government, I see. However, given our government's pitiful track record on cost control and efficient processes, I think that giving it more power is the last thing on earth we need now. The Democratic/liberal elite like to look to Europe as a role model for American governance in terms of state subsidies - social welfare programs of various sorts. Sweden and other Scandinavian countries are frequently mentioned -- with focus on public sector employment (government bureaucracy) and oppressive taxation schemes in the name of social equity. While the standard of living in very high, the economic clout of most individual European states is quite low (excluding the traditional G8 countries) -- even the collectivist European Union approach as an aggregate total does not match the US, despite all its inefficiencies. Welfare states burden themselves economically in trying to ensure economic equity (outcome) for all. In contrast, Singapore, where I now live - is firmly framed around a socialist model of governance, but the government here recognizes that it is the private sector -- particularly foreign trade -- that is the country's growth engine and ultimate conduit for continued prosperity and increased quality of life. There is subsidized housing, subsidized healthcare, and a variety of other socially-focused programs, but there is one aspect that Singapore does not have in earnest which plagues European states and the US -- the entitlement mentality. The government actively discouraged dependence upon its programs, but they are there is times of need, and "perks" for its residents.

In the US, the way the political system is structured, proponents of bigger government tend to design programs which encourage a sense of entitlement. They become bleeding ulcers for the economy when they prove their long-term unsustainability, and/or the quality of service is cut so badly that they barely serve any constructive purpose that is demonstrably better than a private sector solution.

[Bob]

Mark, yours is the typical right winger routine. It's not a factual analysis, but a fictional narrative. Blah blah blah. If you notice, there are no actual facts in what you're saying, just a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions. "Big government" is just a meaningless term that right wingers use when they want to criticize Democrats but don't have any legitimate or intellectually honest things to criticize them about. So they make up fictional scenarios that use meaningless phrases like "socialist takeover" or whatever. It's just a bunch of empty nonsense.

[Mark Turner]

Bob -- what "factual analysis" have you provided here? (none!) Provide verifiable empirical data that proves me wrong.

[Bob]

I don't like terms like "big government" because it's become a meaningless buzz-word, a term for right wingers to use when criticizing liberals who "like big government." When you combine it with a concept like "bigger government tend to design programs which encourage a sense of entitlement" it becomes doubly meaningless. What is a scientific, non-ideological definition for "sense of entitlement?" Why does "big government" not apply especially to a place like Singapore, where the government provides subsidized housing and healthcare, and pretty much owns certain industries? Is there anything necessarily wrong with that, as long as it works?

"Big government" betrays a certain attitude that worships private industry and holds a "might makes right" attitude where those with the money and power deserve to do whatever the hell they want to. That's because government regulation is about the only thing to stand in the way of unlimited greed and corruption, and the big wealthy industrialists know it. The financial industry, for example, has been hankering to weaken government oversight for decades, and the mess we're now in is largely the consequence of that. Wealthy powerful people also don't need good public schools or universal healthcare because they can afford to buy their own and figure that anyone who can't is a loser who deserves to get crapped on. People who get too upser about "big government" often seem to be the ones who are, in effect, telling the rest of society to kiss their ass. It's gone to such an extreme in this country that it's now hurting everyone.

[Britt]

Bob, government can steal from you, it can lock you up, or it can kill you.

Private businesses can ask you to spend your money on their goods or services.

So of course you fear the private business, who can do nothing except annoy you with advertising, while trusting implicitly the government, which can take away your wealth, your freedom, or your life.

Makes perfect sense.

You know, you don't seem to know certainn things. Like how big government (a government which consumes a third of the wealth of a country is too big) engineered the housing bubble through a combination of Fed backed easy credit and legislation which forced banks to lend to people who could not afford to pay back the loans.

Your issue, like many on the Left, is that you do not understand the way the private sector works. See, a bank lends money in order to be repaid with interest. They would never loan money to someone who could not pay it back, unless they were forced to. Which they were, by the government. Bank of America, the admirably progressive bank, was wiped out by the huge numbers of subprime loans they made because they had assurances of a government bailout somewhere down the road.

It's a mess, and it's a mess because of liberalism. As usual, the Left had the best of intentions, to allow poor people to own their own homes. As usual they came up with a plan that flew in the face of reality, and as usual anyone who opposed it was racist and hated the poor. As usual, opponents predicted the bad effects years before the bubble burst, and as usual the Left denied this would happen and repeated slogans and ad hominems. Then the predictions came true, and of course the Left owned up and apologized.

Oh wait, no they blamed the private sector they strongarmed into going along with their scam for the failure of it. Which was predicted at the time the scheme was created. Then the Democrats in Congress bailed out their buddies in the financial and banking industries, because after all their intentions were good, and results don't matter if your intentions are good.

You people cannot be trusted with power, and more then you can trust a monkey with dynamite.

[Bob]

"Your issue, like many on the Left, is that you do not understand the way the private sector works."

Nonsense. I don't have to make up fables like right wingers do to blame all of society's problems on poor people who have little or nothing, and who get very little in the way of influence over government policies. It's been proven pretty decisively that the financial institutions that made most of the "toxic" loans were not covered by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) that is the federal statute regulating loans in certain low-income communities. These non-CRA institutions thought they were onto a gold mine in these sub-prime mortgages and set out to sell them without diligently proving that the new customers could pay them back. Nobody forced them to make these loans, but they thought they could make them recklessly and sell them off as mortgage-backed securities so someone else would be left holding the bag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Relation_to_2008_financial_crisis

"Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[65][110] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".[111] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[112] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans."

[North Dallas Thirty]

Unfortunately for the paid whore like Bob who just repeats talking points, that is not the case; the government was openly encouraging these risky loans.

"The progress of Fannie Mae's CRA transactions volume was announced today by Jamie Gorelick, Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae, at the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) Annual Secondary Mortgage Conference in Orlando, Florida.

"Our approach to our lenders is `CRA Your Way'," Gorelick said. "Fannie Mae will buy CRA loans from lenders' portfolios; we'll package them into securities; we'll purchase CRA mortgages at the point of origination; and we'll create customized CRA-targeted securities. This expanded approach has improved liquidity in the secondary market for CRA product, and has helped our lenders leverage even more CRA lending. Lenders now have the flexibility to use their own, customized loan products," Gorelick said.

From the inception of Fannie Mae's CRA initiative in mid-1997 through the end of the first quarter of 2001, Fannie Mae's CRA acquisition volume totals $10.06 billion. Within this total, highlights include: portfolio acquisitions of $4.75 billion, flow business of $1.83 billion, and Fannie Mae's Investor Trading Desk transactions of $1.86 billion. These three categories comprise 83 percent of the $10.06 billion total.

Through its American Dream Commitment, Fannie Mae has pledged to transact before the end of this decade more than $20 billion in specially-targeted CRA business and to finance over $500 billion in CRA business altogether. Over the decade, an estimated one third of loans financed by Fannie Mae will meet Fannie Mae's CRA business goal."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_May_7/ai_74223918/

But we know the paid whore Bob isn't capable of honestly evaluating such things. Paid whores like himself are nothing more than parrots, incapable of independent thought and dependent upon the Obama Party to tell them what to think. Paid whore Bob isn't getting his welfare check to be intellectual and honest; he's being paid to tell us how Obama is perfect and that the Obama Party is always right.

Too bad his whoring is so incompetent and transparent.

[Bob]

"Paid whore Bob isn't getting his welfare check to be intellectual and honest"

The unreliability of opinions expressed by sociopathic liars like North Dallas Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell speaks for itself. Making up lies about people seems to be an absolute compulsion with him. Pretty weird, huh?

[Darth Venomous]

What's weird is that you, Roberta, who have already been exposed as a lying, delusional, hypocritical racist skank, would dare accuse ND30 - all while engaging in a practice (name-calling) about which you constantly whine and offering nothing as backup except biased BS from a heterophobic site.

Not surprising, and not terribly unexpected. Just weird.

Now _dance_, my little Internet bitch! (guffaw)

[Darth Venomous]

Oh, and incidentally, Roberta, Mark, Britt & ND30 are right (as usual) on this one, and you (again, as usual) have your head up your ass. The fact that ND30 has posted a credible link on this issue, whereas you've done nothing but rely on Wikipedia (yeah, _there's_ a reliable resource (snicker)) only goes to reinforce your asshattedness.

You not only can't fathom how capitalism works, you fear and loathe those who _do_ make it work. You want what they have, but aren't willing to work for it (the guess from here is that your "way cooler" job involves a deep fryer at Burger King). You exhibit nothing but pure class envy and class hatred, and want to punish the successful because they won't give you any of their bounty without you having earned it.

You are a typical socialist, and you are pathetic.

[psp chargeur]

Good, about time Bill fought Fire with Fire. The Kennedies choosing of Obama was big, its good that Bill decided to repay the favor.