↓
 
Home » Obama: not a good politician?

Obama: not a good politician?

The New Neo Posted on by

Ramesh Ponnuru doesn’t think Obama is a very good politician:

Obama never had to fight for and win the votes of people who don’t agree with him. Both his biggest political setback and his biggest political accomplishment — his defeat by Bobby Rush in a 2000 U.S. House primary and his victory over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 — came during struggles within a liberal universe.

Ponnuru adds that Obama has been the beneficiary of good luck, not only during the 2008 campaign (particularly the financial crisis towards the end), but also earlier “in November 2004 because his first Republican opponent self-immolated in scandal and his second was Alan Keyes, a fringe figure who came from out of state to run.”

That’s certainly true, as far as it goes. But Ponnuru doesn’t go nearly far enough. As I’ve described here, that “self-immolation in scandal” to which Pnnuru refers (involving Obama’s 2004 Republican opponent Jack Ryan) was preceded by a similar “self-immolation in scandal” of Obama’s Democratic primary opponent in the same race (Blair Hull), and the latter’s scandalous revelations may have been helped along by forces in the Obama camp. Then, of course, there was the matter of what Obama did to Alice Palmer during the primary of his very first run for office, a story that should be required reading for anyone seeking to understand Obama the politician, but not widely-known even today.

So while it is true that Obama has rarely had a strong political opponent, and that he’s been the beneficiary of much good luck, it also appears that some events that at first glance appear to have been good luck were actually helped along by Obama and/or his forces in a series of rather nasty and strategic machinations. Therefore, we could say that some of Obama’s strongest political skills have long been in the realm of dirty tricks.

This runs so counter to the picture Obama presented the world during his 2008 campaign that it’s been almost universally ignored, despite the fact that it was a prominent and early part of his political history—perhaps because, until now, another of his strongest political skills has been to get the press to cover for him.

So, is Obama a good politician? Well, it depends what the meaning of “good” is.

Comments

Obama: not a good politician? — 41 Comments

  1. So while it is true that Obama has rarely had a strong political opponent, and that he’s been the beneficiary of much good luck, it also appears that some events that at first glance appear to have been good luck were actually helped along by Obama and/or his forces in a series of rather nasty and strategic machinations.

    Yep. That wasn’t good luck; that was downfield blocking by the Party. And I don’t mean the Democrat Party.

  2. I have often though Clinton was over rated as a politician. His post ’94 “success” came in large part by simply adopting the popular agenda of the Republicans. As such, he became popular, but he also failed at further pushing the Democrat agenda.

    Clinton also adopted a foreign policy that was flawed. The failure in dealing with North Korea, and the 60,000 ft bombing in Kosovo, etc., allowed him to remain popular but with few real achievements.

  3. Obama is an interesting figure. Because he is hard to figure out.

    I recall early on when neo clinged to the idea that Obama was centrist and well intentioned.

    I will also note that those who opposed him generally have had a better grasp of the man then his supporters did.

    The “dirty tricks” aspect of the man isn’t surprising given his Chicago background. But the real trick I see is how he is able to appear reasonable superficially while he is actually corrupt.

    And his corruption is not coming out, with the crony loans to “green” companies and the Fast & Furious scandal.

  4. Obama is as fine a politician as will ever come from the Chicago political machine and generally corrupt Illinois politics. No state has four of its last five Governors indicted and convicted because they’re unlucky in politics. And is there anyone who believes that being a community organizer isn’t tantamount to a protection racket — albeit of the white-collar sort?

  5. Good politician or good teleprompter reader? The teleprompter needed a good narcissist to take credit for the scrolling words! Can you imagine the look on Obama’s face when the secret service brought him the news that his teleprompter was hijacked last week.

  6. Can you imagine the look on Obama’s face when the secret service brought him the news that his teleprompter was hijacked last week.

    That brought a smile to my face!

    Obama’s is a lousy politician. He is to a politician as a model is to an actress. A good politician can get you agreeing with him before you realize that he’s turned you around.

    Obama reminds me more of Nancy Kerrigan; self-absorbed, thin-skinned, brittle in personality, none-too-bright, a cardboard cut-out product of the marketer’s art.

  7. I still find it interesting that of all the places in the US, Obama chose Chicago as his home. Perhaps because it offered the best on-the-job learning experience for crooked politicians.

  8. “… another of his strongest political skills has been to get the press to cover for him.”

    Without the media BHO would still be community organizing on the south side, hanging out at cocktail parties with Ayers, and scamming from foundations.

    “… self-absorbed, thin-skinned, brittle in personality, none-too-bright, a cardboard cut-out product of the marketer’s art.”

    You forgot to add cold hearted and arrogant.

  9. The Obama team plays for keeps. Whatever they have to do to win; WHATEVER they have to do to win: they are willing to do it.

    I suspect the Occupy Wall Street protests were strategically generated by the Obama Campaign, using Soros money, Soros media surrogates such as Think Progress, and using the broken-up-yet-undead Zombie ACORN to organize and drive the protests. A couple of months ago, Barack, twice, said something like this: the people are restless; the only thing standing between them and you is me. My ears pricked: what was this? SOME long term strategy was about to be enacted. That strategy is Occupy Wall Street. The OWS protests can be bent to the will of the organizers: can become more intense, if need be; can become violent, if need be.

    Whatever it takes: the Obama group is willing. WHATEVER it takes. They are not playing by any rules; by any commonly understood morality. Whoever opposes them … needs to understand the ruthlessness of a competition which is playing for keeps; which does not abide by traditional principles and standards of right and wrong – either in terms of politics, or in terms of being an American citizen in a democratic republic.

  10. “”… another of his strongest political skills has been to get the press to cover for him.””

    That’s sort of like saying a puppy is skilled at getting petted. The press simply can’t help themselves with an ultra liberal and a black man to boot.

  11. Obamate has never been a politician. He’s really much closer to a Caliph. His submitted subjects offer fealty, not votes. His strategy is not political, but absolute. No measure which advances him is immoral.

    His duplicity is better viewed as taqiyya. But there’s an added twist. Obama, having fooled others for so long, has fooled himself.

    His intellect is not inductive, but deductive and religiously deductive at that. His certainties stem from his belief that he is God, or demi-god, or vanguard of the elite, if you will.

    But politician. In a democracy. What democracy? The progressive democrat welfare recipient blood sucking zombie crowd? They’re not capable of democracy much less a constitutional republic. What they want, they got: Omar the great!

  12. Very good Steve H.

    I have never bought the thesis that he was a particularly talented politician. Previous posts have laid out the rationale for my opinion.

  13. No no no. He is not a politician. He is a product of all the post Kennedy cammelot’s who were searching for utopia. They just never seem to grow up. Sad.

  14. “No no no. He is not a politician. He is a product of all the post Kennedy cammelot’s who were searching for utopia. They just never seem to grow up. Sad.”

    Not sad, tragic. For the nation and for each and everyone of us, including those yet to be born, it is tragic. Sad is a puppy run over by a truck. Tragic is the death of a civilization that honors life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  16. Perfected Democrat:

    Aaaaaa….MEN! Was about to say the same thing but not as well as you.

  17. Pingback:Obama as Politician: Was It All Luck?

  18. He is a politician. But he’s not an American politician. He’s a Third World, or possibly Second World politician. Outside the US and Europe, politics includes all kinds of Machiavellian tactics up to and including the dagger. That’s the political environment Barack grew up in — the son of a third world politician, adopted son of another, schooled in a third world one-party dictatorship and then America’s closest equivalent, Chicago.

    He simply doesn’t believe that government is based on the consent of the governed. That’s not how third world politics works. In third world politics one group or coalition of groups exploits and oppresses the rest, loots them and rewards supporters. Sound familiar?

    To Barack Obama, America was a big rich country which inexplicably never had a proper strongman. He’s going to fix that. And when his two terms are up he’ll linger as the shadow boss, just like Vladimir Putin in Russia. His party machine will make sure no significant opposition ever challenges them again.

    Which is why it’s so imperative to vote him out in 2012. This may be our last opportunity. Vote him out, and vote in a Republican with balls enough to launch a comprehensive investigation of Obama’s whole administration. Unless and until Barack and his whole treasonous, anti-democratic crew are in jail, the American republic is in danger of becoming another kleptocracy like Russia.

  20. Having lived in the Third World for nearly a quarter century, I’m with Trimegistus on this question. Obama acts more like Zaire’s president Mobutu, whom I observed from very close (I was friends with one of his advisors) than he does like a typical US Democratic leader. He’s in the job for the money and the power, not to make America a better place.

    What I wonder is what Democratic kingmakers really think of him. Both our national parties have an inner circle of powerful men and women who seldom or never hold political office, but who select the candidates who will run, find support for them, and run interference when they need help. Think back to Clinton’s presidency and the names that kept coming up as golfing partners during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Many of those same people were mentioned during Obama’s primary challenge to Hillary.

    What do these people think of their president now? Do they shake their head and wonder how they ended up with someone who locks himself in his room every afternoon? Or do they figure he’s doing the best for America? I find it hard to believe anyone in America thinks Obama is good for the country, but I’m not an unbiased observer because I love this country too much.

  23. @physicsguy

    Thank you for that article. Among other things, the article documents that, from the inception of the protests, some portion of the protesters were being paid from the outside. Whatever outside force is paying those protesters .. will be able to bend the protests to their will. If those protests need to morph: become more intense or more kumbaya; become more riotous or more wonky; coalesce around timely strategic messages … however those protests need to morph … the outside forces, which are paying protesters, will be able to control those protests, will be able to morph those protests in order to help Pres. Obama.

    The Obama group are playing for keeps. Trimegestus and friends have described it well: third world dictator rules; not a question of love for America, but rather a question of acquisition of raw power, and of exploitation of raw power. What is happening is a different game from the game which American Presidential candidates have traditionally played. This is a metaphor: the third world power group will have to be slain; stabbed in the heart; head lopped off with a chainsaw. Nothing less will suffice: the third world power group will not accept traditional defeat with traditional graciousness. They must be devastated; left to trudge home while having NO DOUBT that they have been devastated and defeated to the very core of what they are about. It must be a clear vanquishing, like Japan or Germany at the end WWII. It must be a devastation of the third world power group. There is no other way for the group to be defeated. Absent devastation, absent the metaphorical lopping off of their heads with a chainsaw: the third world power group will find a way to remain in power.

    This is a moment of truth the American people. Among other issues: Obamacare is an offense against democracy. And that is just one example. The American people must stand. Now. Lest the dark night ensue.

  24. Were I writing a novel – about powerful international intrigue, i.e., a “Three Days of the Condor” type thriller – I would write THE ONE PLOT which would ensure the fundamental transformation of America:

    Powerful political forces assassinate POTUS in a way which implicates a Tea Partier. Obama is, forever, a martyr with a halo of light shining around his head. Jan 2013: Hillary, having ridden a sympathy vote, begins a two term Presidency which runs until Jan 2021. America is fundamentally transformed. And never recovers.

    The left is always paranoid that the right will assassinate the President. It is ironic that such assassination would benefit the left. At some level, conscious or unconscious, many on the left would love for such an assassination to occur. It would resolve their cognitive dissonance confusion.

    Currently, the left does not understand what is happening to their beautiful dream. Reality does not compute. For the left: all is confusion, nothing makes sense. If the President is assassinated by a Tea Partier: then everything, for the left, again becomes clear. All is in its place in the world. Bunnies hop; rainbows for everyone; mental confusion is cleared up. And, bonus: America is fundamentally transformed by a two term Hillary Presidency.

  26. gcotharn:

    An intriguing suggestion (and a scary one).

    In the scenario you suggest, do you imagine Hillary’s people will get away with it?

  29. of course, my scenario is just a novel. I do not seriously think Obama’s people will take him out. It has, however, crossed their minds! 🙂

  30. In the scenario you suggest, do you imagine Hillary’s people will get away with it?

    Daniel, it wouldn’t be Hillary or her people. She’s an cold, conniving b!tch, but I don’t think she’s fundamentally disloyal (any more than Bill is). Garden variety Dems are stupid, but not generally disloyal. At worst they’re tepid in their patriotism.

    Not to go all tin-foil hatty here, but the conspirators in this scenario would be hard-core Reds of the Ayers/Soros genus, i.e., the ones who put Obama into power in the first place. Are they capable of doing something like this? I dunno, are they capable of making and placing bombs, as Ayers has done, and organizing coups in four countries, as Soros has admitted to doing?

    One Tea Party pamphlet “found” in the malefactor’s apartment would send the media into a frenzy that would preclude rational analysis. The Reds’ hope would be to make their move in the ensuing uproar. One Enabling Act – a temporary one, to deal with this grave threat to the republic, of course – would do it.

    I truly hope that this is merely a paranoid musing, but sometimes … sometimes, I’m not entirely sure it is.

  31. I am thinking like Occam in this respect: it would be Obama’s people, i.e. big influence players, like Soros, i.e. big players who have been smoothing Obama’s path for a decade … it will be these ostensible Obama people who would take Obama out. They would do it b/c they do not really care about Obama. Rather, they care about their leftist agenda, and they care about their own power.

    However, this is just a scenario in a thriller novel. I am not predicting that, and I do not think that will happen. It could happen. It would be devastatingly effective, and it might be the Soros’ power players only hope. However, I am not predicting it. Soros is a Nazi collaborator who has blood on his hands, yet I do not predict that he would murder Obama. To predict that is just too much.

    When I say the third world Obama power people will do WHATEVER it takes, I mean something more along these lines: a strategically timed, ginned up or exaggerated racially motivated assassination threat, against Obama, which can be blamed on a Tea Partier, or can be blamed on someone who is in some way associated with the Repub Nominee.

    Or, some other strategic something … which is beyond the pale of traditional American Presidential politics, yet which is not beyond the pale of the Putins who make up the Obama team, of the Putins who are playing for keeps at a level of ruthless immorality of which Perry, Romney, and Cain have not yet fully conceived.

  32. “He simply doesn’t believe that government is based on the consent of the governed. That’s not how third world politics works. In third world politics one group or coalition of groups exploits and oppresses the rest, loots them and rewards supporters…”
    Thanks, Trimegistus … that’s pretty much what I thought of Obama also, especially after reading somewhere (?) a comparison to Obama and the “Big Man” way of running things in the Third World.

  33. gcotharn,

    “. . . a strategically timed, ginned up or exaggerated racially motivated assassination threat, against Obama, which can be blamed on a Tea Partier . . . .”

    This actually makes more sense than any other option. Easier to plan, no need to worry about an attempt gone awry, and a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth press ready to point fingers at the Tea Party (a la the Gabby Giffords shooting) just as the Occupy movement becomes less credible and more of a millstone around Dem necks. (“See, the Tea Party isn’t credible either!”)

  34. A ginned-up or exaggerated attempt does make more sense, and is certainly more likely. It doesn’t stop analysis of Obama’s performance in office, however.

    The way to do something like this isn’t to plan it and do it oneself, but to wind up one or mentally unstable people (“It’s X who’s controlling your mind, with his magic rays!”) and point them at the target, and await developments.

    My inartfully expressed point wasn’t so much a prediction or anything of the sort, but rather an assertion of the likely thinking of the hard left. Whether they’d have the nerve to actually carry it out is another question.

  35. An EMP of unknown origin would do the same thing as the scenarios you guys are mentioning. I don’t most people comprehend what a game changer that would be for the world. And in an instant.

  36. “Daniel in Brookline Says:
    October 26th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
    gcotharn:
    An intriguing suggestion (and a scary one).
    In the scenario you suggest, do you imagine Hillary’s people will get away with it?”

    It is very plausible that LBJ got away with the assassination of JFK… There probably isn’t anything that Democrats won’t say or entertain now to advance their power and authority.

  37. She’s an cold, conniving b!tch, but I don’t think she’s fundamentally disloyal (any more than Bill is).

    Dude, you need to study her background a LOT more. She was an activist of the worst Ayers sort of class, but with a smarter understanding of how the system worked and what it took to undermine the system.

    She did her senior thesis at Wellesley on Alinsky: There Is Only the Fight…’: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.

    She drooled at everything Alinsky said. Make no doubts about her “loyalty”. She has none to anyone but herself, the pursuit of power, and the destruction of the American model of government.

  38. BTW, from the above linked article:

    Hillary writes:
    “peculiarly American” tradition of democrats, from Thomas Paine through Martin Luther King.

    This is a lie. MLK was a Republican. Like he’d join a party that either committed and abetted atrocities against blacks (the south) or looked the other way as others of their party did so (the north).

  39. IGotBupkis: a person’s senior thesis isn’t an infallible guide to his/her politics as a 60-something, as you well know. In fact, not long before that senior thesis, Hillary was a Goldwater Republican, and as recently as 1968 attended the Republican convention to work for Rockefeller’s nomination.

    The only constant in Clinton’s early political life was that she was very interested in politics (as opposed to, for example, me; I was not especially interested in politics).

    That is not to say that you’re not correct in your assessment of her politics or her ruthlessness. It’s just that her senior college thesis is not a guide to her present state. My best guess about Hillary is that she is about as ruthless as most successful politicians, and about as principled, and that her politics are on the left side of liberal but not far far left.

  40. IGotBupkis: one more thing–as I read that excerpt about Paine and King being “democrats,” it doesn’t seem she means they were members of the Democrat Party capital D. Rather it’s about being supporters of democracy, small d.

    Although I’d say they were actually supporters of republicanism, small r.

  41. I’ve long researched such things as “dirty tricks”. It’s amazing how feckless the opposition party in America was. It’s like they never imagined such a thing…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑