Home > Alex Massie

Wednesday 16 May 2012

Has Obama Already Failed?

Wednesday, 25th March 2009

Bartle Bull thinks he has! Already! His article in Prospect is a curious thing indeed. Part of it, perfectly reasonably, is deeply concerned by Obama's economic agenda. When the numbers are mentioned in trillions, not billions it's sensible to be sceptical of some of the more grandiose and sweeping promises the new administration is making. But some of the piece is also a mash-note to the Clintons, accusing Obama of "dismantling President Clinton's economic legacy" as though nothing at all had happened in the last eight years.

Then there's this:

Thus the big question in Democratic circles today: “What does Hillary do about this?” Her supporters still feel that the election was stolen from her. With capital on strike, states rebelling against the president’s dependency agenda, the treasury secretary probably soon to be replaced, many top jobs still unfilled, the liberal press anxious and poll numbers plummeting, Hillary Clinton’s departure could sink an administration that already feels like a listing ship, leaving her a clear path to the Democratic nomination for 2012.
Her relationship with the president, inherently unstable personally, erodes every day that he takes his swinging axe to the remarkable bipartisan achievements of the Clinton presidency, especially welfare reform and fiscal discipline. While the biggest shocks of this presidency to date have been at home, in the foreign sphere Hillary’s job as secretary of state is made more difficult by a distracted and inexperienced president.

Bull concludes by arguing that " the president’s real threat is from within his own increasingly restive party." Sadly he declines to provide any evidence of this unrest let alone of the scale of its threat to the Obama presidency. And no, Kent Conrad and a handful of Democratic Senators aren't enough to substantiate this argument. Revisions to the budget are normal, not the exception.

Nor does he provide any evidence to support his notion that Clinton is desperately unhappy (and the election was only "stolen" from her if you find the notion that the Democratic party's nomination goes to the candidate supported by the most delegates at the nominating convention an intolerable, unfair process that "cheated" Hillary out of a victory that was her due).

Still, let's play this out: suppose Hillary really does still harbour presidential ambitions (not necessarily a stretch) and suppose too that she thinks Obama is making a catalogue of serious errors that risk handing Washington back to the GOP in 2012 (something of a stretch). How does she advance her position? Yes, her "departure" could well "sink" the administration but at what cost to her own prospects and reputation?

Bull's theory depends upon Hillary being seen as a saviour who can rescue the party from the predicament it put itself into when it spurned her "experience" for the feel-good promise of the young black guy from Chicago. But how likely is this? Isn't it much more likely that Democrats will blame her for torpedoing the administration? Half the party doesn't like her anyway, it's difficult to see how she could become more popular amongst Democrats by helping, say, kill health care reform for a second time, this time through malice, not incompetence. (The merits of Obama's health care proposals are a different matter.)

Here's an alternative hypothetical: suppose Colin Powell could have prevented the Iraq War by resigning his position as Secretary of State? Would that have opened the door for him to win (had he sought it) the Republican nomination in 2004 or 2008? Hardly! Republicans would have blamed him for toppling the President. As the old line has it, he who wields the knife shall not wear the crown.

Bull's thesis is all very entertaining but it doesn't add up. In any case, if the Obama presidency does fail, how likely is it that the electorate will want to replace him with another Democrat in 2012? In any case, Hillary is parked at State. If Obama succeeds then so be it, but if he fails then she is much worse placed to run in 2012 than if she had remained in the Senate. Sending her to Foggy Bottom was a way of neutering the Clintonian threat to Obama's administration. Perhaps that's why Bull seems to think it would be a good idea for her to leave it as soon as possible. But it's too late for that. His argument doesn't add up.

Filed under: Clinton (97 more articles) , Obama (365 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (17)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

ndm

March 25th, 2009 8:50pm Report this comment

-- the liberal press anxious and poll numbers plummeting, Hillary Clinton’s departure could sink an administration that already feels like a listing ship, leaving her a clear path to the Democratic nomination for 2012.

I didn't realise they had legalized marijuana in Britain but this boy is smoking some serious stuff. I started on the article itself but abandoned it on the grounds that it was an under-informed rant. There is no likelihood whatsoever of any senior Democrat running against Obama in the primaries. Bull, in fact, is full of it and seems no more congizant of the problems facing America than does the Republican Party.

porkbelly

March 25th, 2009 9:32pm Report this comment

So why then do you think Hillary accepted the post of Secretary of State in the first place - perhaps she wanted to be marginalized? No, I'm afraid Hillary placed all her chips on the bet that Obama would fail, and fail big in his first term so that the blue collar and centrist voters in the Democratic Party would turn to her as their saviour. The fawning MSM may not have seen through Obama's "post-partisan" act during the campaign but I can assure you Bill Clinton did - he saw him for what he was (and is): a hard-left "Chicago thug". Obama's shaky crew of academics, bureaucrats and ex-hacks, plus the half-senile 1960's radicals who comprise the Democratic Congressional leadership, are on a path to completely alienate the part of the Clinton coalition that Hillary still represents, and Hillary (not being in the Senate) will avoid being tarred with their failures. Nothing about this should surprise anyone outside of the true believers, but I'll wager even Bill didn't expect the cracks to start appearing so soon.

Alan

March 25th, 2009 10:14pm Report this comment

Obama will fail if his budget passes. The scariest part of it all will be an inflation rate that'll make the Carter years look mild in comparison. China is already barking about such a possibility and will no longer lend us money if we don't stop printing fiat money. We'll be in REAL trouble then!

ndm

March 25th, 2009 10:45pm Report this comment

-- So why then do you think Hillary accepted the post of Secretary of State in the first place - perhaps she wanted to be marginalized?

The ONLY reason Hillary Clinton became a Senator was to enable a run for the Presidency - she needed to gain electoral experience. I don't think anyone expected her to run again once her hopes of the Presidency had been dashed. Some commentators had suggested a Supreme Court position given her legal background and the fact that it is a lifetime sinecure. The Secretary of State is the senior cabinet position in the US - it is not as if she is stuck at Interior or anything like that.

Furthermore, when the appointment was first mooted many commentators praised Obama's foresight in taking care of his rival by parking her at State where she would, of necessity, be muted in her criticism of Obama. I think the appointment suited both Obama and Clinton. It allowed Obama to demonstrate magnaminity in victory and allowed Hillary to end her brief political career with a high-profile role. Since she had almost no seniority in the Senate, and consequently no chance of a leadership role in any committee, becoming Secretary of State was really a huge promotion.

The process of Government is always a serious business particularly in times of major crisis like this. There is no way a senior Democrat is going to try to subvert Obama in the next couple of years with the expectation of being viewed as the savior of the party. Almost everyone has written off the next year as a period when Obama will have considerable freedom to try to stabilize the economy. By then the ramp-up to the mid-terms will have started and Democrats will remain careful of how they attack Obama. Now perhaps the mid-terms will be a disaster for the Democratic Party but that would require the economy to have totally collapsed and the Republican Party to have found its mojo somewhere. Failing a total disaster in the mid-terms the Democrats will be reminded daily of the power of incumbency and damp down any threat of revolt from a senior Democrat like Hillary.

porkbelly continues:

-- The fawning MSM may not have seen through Obama's "post-partisan" act during the campaign but I can assure you Bill Clinton did - he saw him for what he was (and is): a hard-left "Chicago thug".

This is the kind of uninformed crap I expect to read on Melanie Phillips' blog. It tells us more about the political understanding of the writer than it does about its subject. I think Alex Massie suggested earlier that Obama's policies would put him on the right of the Labour Party - my view of American politics would put Obama to the right of that. He may want to revolutionize healthcare but the current healthcare model has become a parasite on the American economy consuming, as it does, 16% of GDP. Obama is right to treat it as an economic problem.

dearieme

March 25th, 2009 10:45pm Report this comment

Hillary? God Save Us All. May I just point out that Bush the Elder is still constitutionally qualified to serve another term - perhaps a desperate nation should turn to him.

porkbelly

March 26th, 2009 12:54am Report this comment

Sorry, but "right" and "Obama" don't belong in the same sentence.

ally

March 26th, 2009 11:14am Report this comment

Bush the Elder? Seriously? OK, well, Don King, Paris Hilton and Dolly Parton are constitutionally qualified too...

And I love the notion that Obama's "hard left". I look forward with relish to the evidence for that one.

Campbell

March 26th, 2009 2:16pm Report this comment

Look, can we all just recognise that for the hard-line Republican right anyone who thinks it is reasonable for a government to tax its citizens, is a left-winger.

If we can agree on that then we can all stop playing deil-speed-the-liars with the wingnuts who think Obama has been foisted on the American people by the Comintern, or whatever repalced it.

Clinton Fundraiser

March 26th, 2009 4:42pm Report this comment

The author of the article being commented on is quite incorrect, there is no possibility of Secretary Clinton resigning her position in the Obama administration. However, those of you have written off the possibility of her running for public office again are just as mistaken. She remains the favourite among DNC activists to be the VP pick for 2012, and although she will not do any political campaigning during her time as Secretary of State, I assure you from years working inside the Clinton Campaign Machine, that she will run again for a position. Never, EVER, believe that you have beaten a Clinton, they always come back, and they always win in the end.

ally

March 26th, 2009 5:52pm Report this comment

"they always win in the end."

Not if they get nominated by the President to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg they won't...

ndm

March 26th, 2009 6:39pm Report this comment

Clinton Fundraiser writes from deep inside the bunker:

-- [Hillary Clinton] remains the favourite among DNC activists to be the VP pick for 2012

I suspect Hillary Clinton remains the favourite among DNC activists to be the Presidential pick in 2008. But you know there were a lot of people in who favoured Scotland to win the 1978 World Cup. Regardless, it is time for these DNC activists to wake up and recognize that Obama won the election and picked Joe Biden as his running mate. I doubt very much that Obama would risk the acceptance of failure that would accompany any attempt to jetisson VP Biden for the 2012 elections.

-- she will not do any political campaigning during her time as Secretary of State, I assure you from years working inside the Clinton Campaign Machine, that she will run again for a position. Never, EVER, believe that you have beaten a Clinton, they always come back, and they always win in the end.

Hillary Clinton has been a Senator and quit. Whatever kool-aid she is feeding her fundraisers, there is no possibility of her running for the Senate where she would once again be at the bottom of the seniority pile. That leaves Governor of New York and dogcatcher in Chappaqua, NY. There's probably a victory there - but I wouldn't boast about it.

If Justice Ginsburg quits in the summer by the time confirmation hearings would be over Hillary Clinton would have been at State for almost a year. Bailing then for SCOTUS wouldn't look too bad especially as she would be doing a favour to a grateful nation - and putting a DNC type at the pinnacle of the judiciary. Clinton Fundraisers would need to find someone else to raise funds for - Obama/Biden 2012?

nadezhda

March 26th, 2009 6:48pm Report this comment

I used to enjoy reading Bull's poltico-travel reporting and found his quirky angles quite plausible. But he is so seriously out-of-touch with reality on the Democratic anxieties and Hillaryland that I'm going to find it hard to take any of his reporting from other lands seriously from here on out. How to trash one's professional reputation in one go!

mac

March 26th, 2009 6:55pm Report this comment

Obama indeed played clever politics by offering Hillary the Sec of State ( a golden straight jacket as one commetator put it. Had she refused she would have from day one been seen as a spoiler and that would have killed her chances of another go at the Presidency. Having accepted she has got to give it everything she has got - and that also means absolute loyalty to Obama, if she is to have a chance at VP in 2012 or President in 2016.

Ddub

March 26th, 2009 6:56pm Report this comment

Inside Bartle Bull's head there are little wingnut elves with hammers, pounding square pegs into round holes.

Kelly Scott

March 26th, 2009 7:23pm Report this comment

"...and poll numbers plummeting" ???
Republican... it's not just a party, it's a shared pathology.

BM Weber

April 2nd, 2009 7:13am Report this comment

Bull's piece in Prospect UK was the dumbest thing I've read in that journal --and there is usually something extraordinarily dumb to be found there in every issue.