Digby writes:

[E]ither Rahm is a brilliant legislative strategist, in which case he didn't bother to use his great powers to pass health care reform for reasons we can only speculate about, given the stakes --- or his reputation for brilliance is extremely overrated.

(Emphasis supplied.) It's the latter. What Rahmbo is actually brilliant at is self promotion. Always has been and always will be. Consider the sell job Rahmbo did about the 2006 elections. To hear Rahmbo and his Village mouthpieces tell it, Rahmbo engineered the big Dem win. The reality is Rahmbo almost blew the 2006 election by his refusal to focus on Iraq until it was obvious to anyone that that was the way to go. Rahmbo wanted to run a "culture of corruption" campaign. After the big win in 2006, Rahmbo got in front of the parade and pretended running on Iraq was his idea. It wasn't. He was against it.

Speaking for me only

< Obama: Tax Cuts for The Rich = Gov't Spending | Final OPR Report to Clear Yoo and Bybee on Torture Memos >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    As is often the case (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by robotalk on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 10:56:25 AM EST
    with obnoxious, type A personalities.

    I though the Dems were doomed. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 10:59:36 AM EST
    I say doomed if the horrible Senate bill did not pass.

    I hope the millions of people who contributed to the Dems as the result of their continuous pleas for funds to help pass health care, request their money back.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 11:06:12 AM EST
    All of the wonderful things people say about Rahm really much better describe Schumer. I've been saying so for a while.

    Krugman says..... (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by trillian on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 11:19:58 AM EST
    Cossack Rahm Works For The Czar
    ...........But don't blame Rahm Emanuel; this is about the president. After Massachusetts, Democrats were looking for leadership; they didn't get it. Ten days later, nobody is sure what Obama intends to do, and his aides are giving conflicting readings. It's as if Obama checked out.

    Look, Obama is a terrific speaker and a very smart guy. He really showed up the Republicans in the now-famous give-and-take. But we knew that. What's now in question isn't his ability to talk, it's his ability to lead.

    Krugman (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 11:31:12 AM EST
    Krugman is channelling ME! from yesterday.



    Show-off!! (none / 0) (#25)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 05:07:25 PM EST

    Yup. Brilliant at self-promotion. (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 03:05:29 PM EST
    Not unlike his boss.

    Sooner or later, though, the infatuation wears thin.  He's no George Clooney.

    Yeah, but (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 03:47:09 PM EST
    He's no George Clooney.

    Who is?  ;)


    They said Krugman was no Clooney either until ... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ellie on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 04:32:04 PM EST
    ... this explosive evidence blew apart your preconceptions.

    But what kind of movie?

     A Libsploitation flick? Straight-up Brains and Brawn of Liberalism buddy cop fare? A cautionary  libero-erotic morality play featuring a couple of Economically Broke BackMountaineers?


    I'd (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 04:40:26 PM EST
    still rather take Clooney, doncha know?  ;)

    Due to my open offer to bear Krugman's young (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Ellie on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 05:00:33 PM EST
    ... this dilemma's a no-brainer for me. Make an honest man out of Krugman and marry the guy; keep Clooney on the side as my Fancy Pants.

    They're both Liberals so no one would have a problem with the arrangement unless public transportation to and fro was crumbling due to woeful underfunding.


    Rahm is also no Peter Capaldi. (none / 0) (#27)
    by EL seattle on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 05:35:30 PM EST
    ( He says in an effort to tie this riff to Salo's earlier In the Loop mention. )

    Although I would like to see footage of R.E. saying some of Capaldi's dialogue from In the Loop, like: "Within your 'purview'? Where do you think you are, some [blank]ing regency costume drama? This is a government department, not some [blank]ing Jane [blank]ing Austen novel!"


    I'm sure they've affected (none / 0) (#28)
    by Salo on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 05:59:23 PM EST
    To borrow some of Tuckers best lines. "Lubricated Horse c**k up your a**.".



    his mates at the NYT gave him the credit (none / 0) (#4)
    by Salo on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 11:13:31 AM EST
    so it must be true.

    He's worse than Lieberman in significant ways. One being he's on the inside. At Least Lieberman has to do the dirty work in public.

    Oh and BTW (none / 0) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 11:14:08 AM EST
    Rahm has just made Ezra and all his cohorts, who spent column after column using the Dems are Doomed mantra to push the Senate bill down our throats, look like complete idiots.  

    I saw a film writen by Armando Iannucci (none / 0) (#8)
    by Salo on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 12:15:45 PM EST
    Called In the Loop.  It was a bit trite however it indicated how writers get the plum jobs. They have to sniff out the prevailing "mood" all by themselves. Ezra is no doubt a very nice guy but he's also smart enough to know that he's got to please his bosses with nudges and winks.

    Doesn't make him the voice (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 12:50:24 PM EST
    of the people though just another village voice, and I often think that is what BTD tries to point out.  There were lots of things I used to believe because I didn't know any better.  One was the Supreme Court was not political.  Another one was the magic voices in the newspaper columns that knew better than I did.

    The evil Emma's been up to ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Salo on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 01:22:27 PM EST
    ...will make Mandy and Cynical Ali look like pikers.

    His name should be... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 12:35:39 PM EST
    ...Wrong Emmanuel.

    Wrong son of God? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 12:52:53 PM EST
    Or son of Wrong God?

    Hope of all: (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    O come, Desire of nations, bind
    In one the hearts of all mankind;
    Bid Thou our sad divisions cease,
    And be Thyself our King of Peace.

    I absolutely agree (none / 0) (#10)
    by esmense on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 12:36:11 PM EST
    I remember wincing in embarassment whenever he appeared on the political talk shows during the Bush years. He was so surprisingly inarticulate and incapable of effective push back.

    He's just a bully like "Cynical" Ali (none / 0) (#14)
    by Salo on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 01:20:56 PM EST
    AKA Alistair Cambell...and the rest of the Mafia of Scotto-Geordie Press Spokesmen who actually run the British government.

    I really don't think he's as bright as he thinks (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by esmense on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 02:26:34 PM EST
    he is. I remember being shocked at how poorly he performed as a communicator the first time I saw him on TV during the Bush years. He had been a pretty effective defender of Clinton during the whole Lewinsky/impeachment fiasco. I realized that during the Clinton years he was following someone else's script. Left to his own devices, he really doesn't have a clue.

    mr. emanuel is (none / 0) (#18)
    by cpinva on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 03:44:46 PM EST
    condoleezza rice's male twin (just louder): all sound and fury, with a vacant space behind it.

    i was never that impressed with ms. rice's supposed intellectual bona fides; no doubt she's a wonderful conversationalist. aside from that, there's little there, there.

    mr. emanuel is touted as some latter-day machiavelli. not even close, machiavelli's Prince would have actually accomplished something. emanuel's, not so much.

    as for obama, i've yet to be convinced he has any strongly desired goals (aside from being elected). if he does, he hasn't the slightest clue how to achieve them, from what's supposed to be the top leadership position in the world.

    none of this comes as a surprise to me however, it was evident during the primaries and general campaign.

    Tough standards (none / 0) (#20)
    by Manuel on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 04:00:52 PM EST
    I don't really know any of these people and probably disagree with a lot of their positions (particularly Rice). However, I have a feeling that it isn't just luck that has led to their accomplishments.  Have they been overhyped?  Sure.  That doesn't mean they don't have any talent.  Just call them the Ipad of politics.

    i prefer facts to feelings. (none / 0) (#29)
    by cpinva on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 07:58:46 PM EST
    However, I have a feeling that it isn't just luck that has led to their accomplishments.

    being able blurt out spoonfed talking points, at a moment's notice, doesn't equate with "accomplishments".

    i'll take the ability to perform critical analysis, for $500 alex!


    People can be able to solve problems (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Manuel on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 11:20:15 PM EST
    and yet come to very flawed decisions.  There is more than critical analysis involved in political decision making.  Here is an interesting artcle about Rice for instance.

    Oh, Condi is a pretty decent (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 05:03:47 PM EST
    pianist. Maybe her Tchaikovsky topped off her  expertise in Soviet Cold War issues.  But then, everything she saw seemed to be an historical document.

    i remain convinced (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cpinva on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 08:01:40 PM EST
    she thought Tchaikovsky WAS the cold war. beyond that, she was baffled. then, so was her boss. contrary to math, in foreign policy, two ignorants don't combine to form an intelligent.

    Sad memories.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 05:33:06 PM EST
    The democrats ran on Iraq in 2006.
    (Obama was campaigning for Lieberman at the time.)
    The dems won.
    A solid mandate from the voters to stop funding the war and to end it.
    Pelosi and Reid soon succumbed to Bush.
    He appointed a commission.
    Pelosi and Reid went to sleep.
    We added troops. That's how the dems reacted to the mandate from the people.
    And we're still there. Still spending 800 million of our dollars every day.

    Rahm strikes me as a political hack.
    And Obama chose him as chief of staff.

    Let's not (none / 0) (#32)
    by lilburro on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 09:38:48 PM EST
    forget the stimulus either, and Rahm's self-proclaimed brilliance w/that.

    Mayor ! (none / 0) (#34)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 09:12:01 AM EST
    If he is the "go to" man for Obama, he's failing miserably. It seems Obama has been off the mark on public opinion since he came to the office.

    If the debacles of the stimulus bill and HCR are example of Emmanual's  ability, he needs to go now!

    I wonder if the rumor of his running for mayor is just am escape hatch for pushing him out? Next we'll hear he wants to spend more time with the family.