Which Obama Aides Get Axed?

by: Matt Stoller

Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 23:06


I've noted before that the Obama campaign is being culled.  Three extremely bright members of his team - Samantha Power, Austan Goolsbee, and Susan Rice - have been undermined by recent statements (or non-statements) they have made.  Both Power and Rice represent in one form or another the more liberal side of the foreign policy establishment, and Goolsbee is simply an outsider to policy-making.

Guess who isn't being culled from Obama's advisory staff?  Powerful foreign policy and intelligence advisor John Brennan, who said the following.

There is this great debate over whether or not the telecom companies should in fact be given immunity for their agreement to provide support and cooperate with the government after 9/11. I do believe strongly that they should be granted that immunity, because they were told to do so by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context, and so I think that's important. And I know people are concerned about that, but I do believe that's the right thing to do. I do believe the Senate version of the FISA bill addresses the issues appropriately.

A good interview with Brennan is here.  Let's just say he's a creepy man who refers to America as 'the homeland'.

But it's Rice, Power, and Goolsbee who get nailed.  The adults are in charge in DC, apparently.

... This is not an argument for or against Obama's election, it's just an observation about how his inner circle is being retooled by the press and DC elites.  

Matt Stoller :: Which Obama Aides Get Axed?

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Which Obama Aides Get Axed? | 55 comments
While .. (4.00 / 2)
I'll be voting for Obama in a few weeks .. I wouldn't put Goolsbee in with the other two ..  he's obviously not a Progressive .. in fact .. Goolsbee is the one out of the three I don't feel sorry for .. if Brennan is as bad as you imply .. pressure has to brought on Obama to dump him
Why would he do this after you vote for him? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Because Clinton is worse (4.00 / 2)
Hillary Clinton has advisors who have advocated War with Iran. Lesser of two evils, I'd say. As well, with a more bottom-up campaign, there is a higher chance, even if it is slim, that we can influence his, rather than Clinton top-down campaign.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
I don't think you will have much influence (4.00 / 1)
I  am not trying to be negative. Just real about politics. I like catch phrases, but let's be frank. Presidencies aren't bottom up affairs. As  practical matter they can't be. Once he's the nominee and if he becomes President, the influence will be minimal and will probably only include what is CW about the circles of influence that got him there. The time to have pushed for this was when he wasn't this far up the ladder. People will do what they do- make attributions about his policies and the people surrounding him based on his sucess.  I said this to Bowers- its ironic that the places that used to say "elections have consequences" are now arguing that "we will convince him after he's in office. How exactly do you think this will happen if it becomes CW it was the post partisan Obama that won? I don't personally get it. But then I didn't get the dot com or real estate booms either.  
[ Parent ]
I have no candidate, but this Clinton is worse is getting old. (0.00 / 0)
Besides being DLC and married to Bill, there isn't any difference between Barack and Hillary.  Both are establishment, centrist Senators who won't support single payer (one big thing we can do to stop job loss}, support even more trade deals, and have no intentions of getting our of Iraq to any real degree anytime soon.  Point is they are two peas in a pod and neither of them talking about policy - like, what do they intend to do about the huge trade deficit that is taking all the money out of our country and putting nothing back in and destroying our jobs and our economy in the process?  
[ Parent ]
Agreed, but... (4.00 / 2)
But only one of them has at least shown us with a real pay off that they can deliver additional seats in Congress.  My only hope now is that we increase our majorities in the Congress and they drive our policy farther to the left than what either of these two have on the table.

[ Parent ]
Goolsbee, the DLC and NAFTA-gate (0.00 / 0)
After NAFTA-gate, Goolsbee and all DLCers should be viewed as highly suspicious. Goolsbee is the one who allegedly passed a message to Canada's ambassador in Chicago that Obama's sentiments about NAFTA reform were insincere. What Goolsbee actually said hasn't been publicly reported, but if he spoke to the Canadian ambassador at all without Obama's approval, he should be fired.

Goolsbee, as a DLCer, has dual loyalties. The DLC is pro-Iraq War, pro-telecom immunity, and pro many other right-leaning policies. The Progressive Policy Institute, which is the policy-making body of the DLC, is headed by a guy named Will Marshall, who served on the Committee to Liberate Iraq with Joe Lieberman and John McCain. This committee was created in 2002 to grease the wheels for a U.S. invasion of Iraq, and then disbanded shortly after.

The Will Marshall-Joe Lieberman-John McCain-DLC connection is a little too close for comfort, and for that reason, any DLCer should be considered suspect. (Hillary Clinton is a DLCer too.)

The fact that the DLC's Goolsbee is the one who derailed the Obama campaign before the Ohio and Texas primaries is suspicious. If Goolsbee contacted the ambassador without Obama's approval, Obama is absolutely right to get rid of him.

If I were Obama, I'd get rid of all DLCers -- that group has as more to gain from a McCain victory or a Clinton victory than one by Obama.

[ Parent ]
Sam (0.00 / 0)
Well, she just blew it, that's all.  She had plenty of reason to know better.

I sure hope he locates the rest of his weak links quickly.  He doesn't need another week like last one.

As for Progressive?  I believe it's not poltically possible to be progressive in this country any more.  Certainly not liberal either.  The sooner liberals who hope for a recovery of their status get used to that, the better.

However, I also believe it's completely important for the Obama campaign to win PA.   The punditocracy will be put off their story line completely if you guys can pull that off and it will be best for the country to get this competition over with.  Going to make the Clintonians pretty upset, but necessary.  We gotta get out of the late 20th C.  Been there too long.

I refute (4.00 / 3)
the idea that it isn't possible to be Progressive/Liberal in this country anymore. The vast majority of people, as shown by polls, are left-wing in their views, but simply view themselves as Moderate, and dislike the word "Liberal," because it isn't PC to be called such. I think what is more important is to put pressure on Obama to include more Progressives in his campaign, through emails, phone calls, and such. As well, we mustn't forget, Clinton's team is much, much worse, so Pragmatically, it is still better to support Obama in this race. Nonetheless, this is overall disappointing, and so we should continue to push him to the left.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
Well I am glad to see this (4.00 / 1)
and will rate you a 4 because of it. Because the other post made me think this is just trinagulation by another name.
[ Parent ]
It's not triangulation (0.00 / 0)
That's just how I am, as well as most Obama supporters, especially those who are former Edwards supporters. It is a pragmatic in our reasoning to support Obama, because for all his problems, with the exception of UHC, Hillary Clinton is worse, in this case with her Hawkish advisors (and even with UHC, Obama has said he would consider a mandate once the costs came down, so he is at least workable on his one major disadvantage). If we are going for purists here, we might as well go with Nader, but I happen to agree with Chris's Progressive Realpolitik, so I'll stick with the one major outlet for the Progressive movement, the Democratic party, and work to get the MOST Progressive people in office (if it were Obama vs. Edwards, I would still be fighting for Edwards).

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
Rorshach Test (0.00 / 0)
I know you don't want to hear this, but that's what this is. One of the reason I am now agnostic is the choice is between someone who clearly triangulates and someone with whom I have no idea what he means by what he says. He gives mixed signals so that voters such as the one you just responded to can feel perfectly valid in their interpretation of what he means, but you can too. He covered this up by talking in generic terms about hope. Recently he's become more concrete but even this is mixed. Ultimately you have no idea what he will do, and, frankly, neither do I. Some of my friends say they are willing to take the gamble but at least they acknowledge that he's being kind of  a Rorschach. I don't fault people who don't want to take the risk because as they say Clinton is a known quantity who people will hold accountable and I don't fault people who do because they argue that we need a new direction or at least the chance at one. They are our two choices right now. That's the reality, but I am not going to push a  square peg into a circle.  
[ Parent ]
Interesting how you define 'worse'... (0.00 / 0)
Progressive Punch 'Chips are Down' ratings:

Clinton 29th

Obama 41st

You might wanna put the Kool-Aid down pal. It's affecting your judgment.


Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
And the National Journal (4.00 / 1)
http://time-blog.com/real_clea...

Obama 1st

Clinton 6th

Of course, this is rather subjective, but if you want to play that game, it can be played. The problem with the Progressive Punch score, and the reason for the disparity between the two rankings, is because PP counts absent votes as negatives, while the National Journal does not. As a result, since Senator Obama has been absent more, as he has been campaigning more, this means a higher percentage of votes have been missed, and so his percentage has gone down. In the liftime score, he is behind Clinton by only 2.3 (explained by the fact that he has been in the Senate less time, and so these negatives impact his lifetime score more intensely). In fact, this actually shows that he has been more Progressive in his actual votes, since this Congress, a rating of 82 only brought him down to 89, meaning it averaged out with his score from the last congress, 96 (since that represents half his time in the Senate). Thus, when he had more time in the senate, he actual had a more Progressive voting record than Clinton, and this explains the disparity between the National Journal, which doesn't account absences as Negatives, and Progressive Punch, which does.

Does this excuse him for missing some critical votes on Progressive causes? No. BUT, this does not make him less liberal in ideology. It also doesn't make him more liberal, since for all we know, the votes he missed, he may have taken the conservative position. But, the fact is, we don't know, so it is silly to assume the worst of it. As a result, neither of these rankings really show who the most Liberal, but if we are going to go off his voting record, as you are doing, the fact is, when he votes, he votes more Progressive than Hillary Clinton, and thus more likely to put forth a Progressive agenda in the White House.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

[ Parent ]
National Journal (0.00 / 0)
did not include any missed votes in their rating. That means people can cheat and miss the tough votes and just make the Liberal votes they want to in order to look good for an election.

Progressive Punch on the other hand does include missed votes and applies a negative number to them so the person being rated can't 'game' the system.

So Progressive Punch is a much more accurate rating than National Journal is.

[ Parent ]
Did you even read my post? (0.00 / 0)
I pointed that out, and showed that it doesn't actually show how Liberal ideologically a person is. In fact, when Obama wasn't campaigning and so was missing less votes (which he did do the last congress, and didn't skip votes just to "game the system"), he had a more liberal score than Clinton. As well, if you read my P.S. (as you obviously didn't), I point out how the absence=negative thing is just as bad, since people like Tim Johnson, because of his stroke, are now less Progressive than several Republicans, even though his Lifetime average shows he is much more Liberal when he has a chance to vote (and a stroke isn't exactly gaming the system).

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
Yeah I read your spin (0.00 / 0)
I was just emphasizing a point in my post. Progressive Punch is pretty much the gold standard in progressive ratings and has been at it for many years. As such their ratings carry much more weight without the need for spin or explanations or re-engineering.
[ Parent ]
Not spin (0.00 / 0)
But rational argument with which you don't agree. Do you think Tom Johnson is less Progressive than Ben Nelson, or for that matter Allen Specter? If not, then you have to admit their ranking system is messed up.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
Get Real (0.00 / 0)
Johnson obviously has a legitimate excuse for his absences which I am sure Progressive Punch would agree. To compare Johnson's absence to Obama's absence with a straight face totally negates any of your arguments in this thread as far as I am concerned. Like I said Progressive Punch is the gold standard and is pretty damned accurate and always has been. There is no older or better gauge of Progressivism than Progressive Punch.

You forget to mention that Obama's missed votes don't all fall into his campaign schedule - not that a campaign is any excuse to not do what you were elected to do. "Obama has missed 196 votes (40.6%) during the current Congress." 40.6%!

http://projects.washingtonpost...

He also has many missed votes going back to '05 and '06 prior to his campaigning.

http://projects.washingtonpost...

And he has a history in the Illinois State Senate of missing the tough votes also. Every informed objective person knows that.

I really don't get what spinners get out of trying to misrepresent the facts or leaving our inconvenient facts.

[ Parent ]
see below (0.00 / 0)
I mis-posted a reply to you.

http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

[ Parent ]
The National Journal study was total BS (0.00 / 0)
They cherry-picked votes they deemed important with no discernible criteria. If you look at the details of that study, it's just a complete arbitrary mess.

I have no idea if the Prog. Punch study is any better; it very well might be just as bad. Studies that try to quantify something that is inherently subjective are invariably misleading.  

[ Parent ]
Read my full post (0.00 / 0)
It shows that both are just as bad. I honestly think both are worthless, but if you actually compare it, and throw out the absences, Obama is more liberal than Clinton (and you can throw them out, since he has been campaigning, and had a more Liberal record last congress when he wasn't on the road so much, meaning he isn't just skipping controversial votes).

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
P.S. for the last post (0.00 / 0)
Just wanted to point out that because of the "absent=negative' rating, the least Progressive Democrat, less Progressive than several Republicans, is Tim Johnson (D-SD), who was gone for quite a while because of his stroke. But, if you look at his Lifetime score, you'll notice that even with the lower percentage because of this horrible year, he still has a higher Lifetime score than many of the people rated above him. Honestly, the system of absent=negative is really silly, as shown here, when a guy who because of stroke is suddenly less Progressive than Ben Nelson!

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
Quibbling over BS... (0.00 / 0)
These stats are just pure BS when you are talking about real "Progressive Punch."  Neither of these yahoos have done a damn thing this past year that was progressive.  Neither of them took a stand on FISA.  Neither threatened to filibuster any of the BS that our currently compromised majority has foisted upon us. Neither of them have presented major progressive legislation.  At this point to have progressive punch you better damn well be out in front of things like impeachment, damning the GOP right and left for SCHIP, voting against any and everything to support the quagmire in Iraq, and creating legislation to end our torture of prisoners and make private companies accountable for their wrongdoing when being paid with our tax dollars.

These rankings are just minor sign posts.  The difference between 29th and 41st is nothing.  If there were a real 'punch' index only Feingold and Dodd would likely even make the list in the Senate.

[ Parent ]
It's funny how the arguments to support his candidacy keep (0.00 / 0)
shifting through one's fingers like sand. I have felt for a while he's a centrist like Clinton, but that's not the argument that he's been making. He's the community activist who will bring change, the post partisan guy who brings up hope (hope for Democrats=progressive values, although he never says that), the progressive who is more progressive than Clinton, and was against the war etc. Now that argument is slowly morphing into what you just wrote. What's the difference between what you just wrote and triangulation? I honestly don't see it. Maybe you can explain it.
[ Parent ]
The sooner people with your attitude get use to the (0.00 / 0)
idea that we liberals aren't going anywhere, the better.  The last thing I want is a candidate who is adored by Republicans, conservatives, and Bill Kristol.  

You Obama supporters are entitled to your candidate and your cheerleading; but please, leave me and the rest of the liberals who have a healthy dose of sketicism towards him and Hillary out of your campaign.  You may not have meant this with your comment, but its tone implied it.  

[ Parent ]
Opportunity knocks (4.00 / 1)
If Goolsbee is a victim for being a human being in a Presidential campaign where even a face tick is turned into some sort of significant derogatory slam against all people who have ticks in their facial expressions as some sort of identity subgroup....

Opportunity knocks.  Perhaps some true objective economists coming from the new schools of strategic trade (they exist but they are not well paid!) can be brought on board.  I can think of several right off the bat.  

(From Goolsbees other papers, backgrounds I completely believe the story frankly, it matches actual Obama published policy positions on trade).  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

Operating in a Legal Context is What? (4.00 / 1)
The "telecom" companies at issue are really just the dual telephone monopoly (sort of like the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary) -- AT&T (formerly SWBell) and VERIZON (formerly GTE) -- dealing with the world through their bankers, and their union.

These already operate outside the regulatory forces of competitive markets. They are territorial monopolies in their own rights and now dominate the digital industry and commerce. Those have to compete in world markets. These two monopolies (duopoly) do not operate in any market other than bribing Democrats through the CWA and Republicans through the Fed or, when push comes to shove, blackmailing both parties through the NSA/GCHQ.

Granting the duopoly immunity is really granting them sovereignty.

 

::JRBehrman

Are you feeling OK, Matt? (0.00 / 1)
Conspiracy or even near-conspiracy theories bore me. Sometimes things just happen and there is no overriding guiding hand.
Yeah.... (0.00 / 0)

.....like McCain for President.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.
[ Parent ]
It is funny how (4.00 / 1)
no responsibility for the remarks made by Power, Goolsbee and Rice are not being attributed to the actual people who made them. Instead the blame is being put on the so called "DC Adults"? Sorry I don't buy that. No one put the words or actions in the mouths of the three of them.

Conspiracy indeed.

[ Parent ]
What did Rice say (0.00 / 0)
That was so bad that she needs to take responsibility?

Power resigned. Is that not enough responsibility for you?

Goolsbee, whatever the comments were, has seemingly helped his candidate lose OH and TX, for what it's worth.

I think if anyone has been taking responsibility for EVERYTHING they say, it's the Obama campaign, more than any other campaign I can think of.

[ Parent ]
Don't worry (0.00 / 0)
they will all return shortly, and I'm sure are still speaking with him as "friends"... they just have stuck their foots in their mouths, so have to go sit in the corner for awhile.  It isn't like they will vanish, or he'll wake up and say Oh Samantha is gone, lets replace her with a NeoCon.
Thanks, Matt, but... (0.00 / 0)
It's good to be aware of this kind of thing, and to hold candidates accountable when such a conflict between stated position and policy advisor statements exist.

BUT.

It does nothing to make me want to vote for Hillary Clinton. She and/or her campaign have tried to bully their way to a victory, and frankly, it's nothing near charming, and that's not what America wants this time around.

It's an image thing, on the surface, that runs much deeper.

Say the candidates were daytime television shows. America sees Hillary as Martha Stewart, and sees Obama as Oprah.

With Hillary, in the sense that you've just got a really good feeling that there's something beneath the surface that is really unpleasant, that just rubs you the wrong way. And her methods of attacking and belittling her opponent rather than driving a positive, constructive plan reinforces that impression. You know she can get the job done, and probably done well, but she's irritating and there's just something about her superior attitude that makes you want to puke.

On the other hand, I can hope that Obama will reconcile the difference between what he has said about immunity and what his advisor says about immunity, because he projects a message of inspiration and positivity. I could not say the same about Hillary, regarding hope -- she gives me no hope for a high ground. Like Oprah, though, you wonder about the underlying motivation for the outward altruism, but at least you see the good, especially compared to Martha.

Matt (0.00 / 0)
I found the axing of Ms. Power the most depressing.  Of the three you mention, 4 if you include Brennan, she easily had the most potential reshape the discussion in her sphere.  

Gooslbee is a economic wonk and, in truth, you want someone pretty grounded to guide economic policy.  Fiscal policy isn't a science project.  And simply having a rogue economic adviser to the President could have damaging effects to the economy.

Rice and Brennan are foreign policy lifers.  The difference between them and their Republican counterparts is measured in small degrees.

Power, otoh, was a person who seemed to understand the real problems of the world.  

I really hope she is able to get back on the staff should Obama win in November.

Powers (0.00 / 0)
I felt much better about Powers "resigning" when I realized she didn't have any position to resign from.  She wasn't a paid member of his staff and wasn't officially representing him anywhere that I know of.  Perhaps she was in on some of those conference calls, but not that I've heard.

But nothing prevents her and Obama communicating every bit as much as they were before.

Now the other two are still in the campaign, though, aren't they?  I haven't heard any news that the quit, only that Hillary was complaining about them.

[ Parent ]
I didn't know that (0.00 / 0)
she wasn't getting paid.  Hopefully that means she can get back involved.

She is the only one who has had to leave the campaign.  

[ Parent ]
Wasn't she just insulting us liberals? (0.00 / 0)
I feel like I'm in the middle of some multiple personalities thing -

Yesterday she was insulting liberals, see Samantha Power Memories, now you're sad to see her go!  

Wow, wonder which Matt will show up tomorrow?

Obama did the right thing (4.00 / 2)
Rice - said her boss wasn't ready for the job he was applying....confirming a storyline his chief rival for the job had been pushing.

Power - said of her boss's chief rival that she was a monster.  Let's not forget that the reason said rival has any chance of catching up is her utter dominance among the woman vote, but also that his rival has a history of victim politics which this plays into.

Goolsbee - who survived it appears, went to a foreign government and made Obama look like a hypocrite, playing into another storyline pushed by his chief rival that he was just telling people what they want to hear.

All of you reading this...if you did this to your boss, what would happen?  No matter how talented you are....if you cause irreparable damage, you're out so the company can save face.

This is big boy politics on a big boy stage. These people aren't supposed to make these kinds of mistakes.

Unlike the Clinton campaign 'gaffes', these weren't planned.

Even though I like Rice and Power very very much, and hope they'll be in the administration, I am very glad Obama doesn't prize loyalty over competence like Bush and Clinton.

Brian
http://www.politicalinaction.com

Susan Rice is NOT gone (0.00 / 0)
She is one of his strongest .....and even though the Clintons went after her for her "truthiness"......so what! She so called "got-nailed"...but she is still on board! Not only that she fired back and called them on the editing of the video sent around...I say that is ONE for her  0 for the Clintons.
Samantha Powers will be back...give it a while...
The Clintons will TRY and undermine every progressive(is that news?)......look at what they have done by having Peter Daou a ONCE respected progressive blogger do....anyone who doesn't think that it is Daou feeding the Larry Johnson, SusanHu, Taylor Marsh ilk with the toxic bile they spew ...isn't living in reality. Pretending that these people ARE or WERE progressives...LMAO......Part of the Clinton strategy using Daou was to muck up the blogs too(whether he knows it or not)....they may think it is working....and there is alot of fighting, but there is a part of the sphere that is getting strong throughout this ordeal, because ..of what they are doing......
I would point to this site....I think the posts here)even the ones I think are over the top)...have been thoughtful,provocative....hey ...progressives are critical thinkers, they need to be pushed around...LOL....My not so smart .02 cents!
OK (0.00 / 0)
So what do we do after this election?

vodamusic.com
Oh, man... (0.00 / 0)
if that interview is any indication, Brennan came right out of the GOP central casting when it comes to philosophies of fighting terrorism. Bad, bad stuff, and Obama needs to put this guy on the bench as soon as possible.

Thanks for posting this, Matt. I'm an Obama supporter, but this is a strong reminder that he is not the progressive candidate by any means, and we need to put pressure on him to make him so.  

So, where's the change Obama is speaking of? (0.00 / 0)
Just another example of politics as usual. Nothing has changed  so far. But some still believe electing Obama will change the world. Yeah, sure...
|-(
At least he helped get our hands on Denny Hastert's seat! (0.00 / 0)
At this point all I can expect from Obama is long coattails.  If he can help get people like Foster elected to Congress, then  it is likely worth it compared to the lesser coattails of Clinton.

Even if either of these two were really progressive they would get nothing done if Congress looks like it does today.  Between the Bush Dogs and the Republicans, nothing will change for the positive no matter what the President promises.

The only positive I can maintain out of our current situation is the hope of more and better Democrats.

[ Parent ]
What are you talking about? (0.00 / 0)
What would "change" have meant? Giving the middle finger to Hillary Clinton? That would've been change for sure!

Really, what are you saying here?

[ Parent ]
Its about time! (0.00 / 0)
Many strong Obama supporters (who mostly seem to hate Hillary) say they dont like the people around Hillary yet i never hear them talk about the people Obama surrounds himself with.

It would be wonderful if the people who hated Hillary so much, actually took the time to look more at Obama...like...look at his actually voting record and which votes he missed. Maybe they are scared they might not actually like what they see.

Yes, Virginia, Obama really is a politician...and human.

Which Obama Aides Get Axed? | 55 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox