To me that says “(Democratic) readers are failing,” more than anything.

My original posts were certainly hyperbolically insulting. That being said, I see nothing in your original post but name-dropping, question-begging, and concern-trolling. And I see the name-dropping continues in your response to me, where you can’t help but mention that you are great personal friends with Josh Marshall.

So, anyway, to be more specific, here’s what irks me about your post. Firstly, you start by assuming something not clearly in evidence. “We know,” you say, “that Obama’s presidency so far has been a horrific failure, and now Luce explains to us why.” Well, I don’t think this assumption is based on much of anything. If health care passes this year, as it still very well may, then Obama’s first two years will have been pretty hugely successful, I think. (If health care doesn’t pass…well, we can talk about that if it happens, but I’d be more inclined to accept your premise then).

Beyond that, to the extent that Obama hasn’t gotten everything he wants, it makes little sense to blame this on his Chicago advisers. In terms of Obama’s domestic legislative agenda, the obvious obstacles are the lock-step Republican opposition and the difficulty in corraling the votes of “moderate” Democrats in the Senate like Lieberman and Ben Nelson. Nothing in Luce’s article, much less in your gloss of it, even acknowledges it. Nor does it acknowledge the even more basic problem of the terrible economy, which was not Obama’s doing.

The specific claims in Luce’s article are pretty much all anonymous sour grapes. They all read like whining by people who feel like they haven’t been consulted as much as they’d like to be. If you change the names around, I’m sure most of them could apply to virtually every administration ever. People have been complaining since at least Andrew Jackson’s day that the president has an inner circle of advisers who he listens to while ignoring his formal cabinet. There’s just about nothing in Luce’s “revelations” that really feels like it does much of anything to explain events in this country over the last year.

None of this is to say that Obama’s been perfect. He certainly hasn’t been (what president could be?), and there’s specific areas where I certainly feel disappointed – he’s not been great on civil liberties stuff; I don’t feel like he’s pushing hard enough on health care right now; the decision to let Max Baucus spend six months doing nothing was awful. Some of this, I’m sure, can certainly be put on Emanuel, Axelrod, Jarrett, and Gibbs. But, really, in the larger scheme of things all of it is pretty minor compared to the much larger problems of “terrible economy,” “obstructionist Republicans,” and “asshole centrist Democrats,” none of which any of those four have any real control over.

Just beyond that, the tone of your piece was infuriating – all the name dropping; the lengthy introduction about why other outlets are afraid to run with this awesome story; the ridiculous suggestions for who Obama should really listen to, the unfair characterizations of innocuous remarks that Doug highlights in his update. We basically have a totally useless inside baseball sour grapes article whining about Rahm Emanuel being reported about breathlessly as the explanation for Obama’s “failure” by someone who proudly proclaims being buddies with Mike Allen. I think it’s hard not to read that as concern trolling.

I can say “John Cole is a great guy” and if I twist my tone just right, it will come out as completely contemptuous. My read of that is that he’s trying to get that tone across about how Rahm said what he said.

Now, Steve, I could be wrong and I see you’re yakking, so tell me if that’s the case.

Cheers!

Heh!

Well, I’m sure that Cafe Milano has its charms… :)

My spouse is annoyed that she misses it on Fridays since she works late. I have to shut up until it is available at SciFi the following week. Check it out when you can.

Slainte!

AnneMarie D.

Me too. I’ve been reading Steve’s blog as long as I’ve been reading this one (a while now).

Steve has a lot of good foreign policy analysis on his blog and I have always appreciated his take on that area.

I don’t always agree 100% with his view on some things, but he’s somebody I see as an ally to the cause (to keep rightwing lunacy in check with facts).

I just wish I didn’t always feel so inferior to the other commenters on Mr Clemons’ site. Tiens, that’s just me…

(Changing the subject) I remember that you are a BSG fan. Have you been following Caprica? :)

But then Steve gets a few emails from his pal Tommy Vietor saying it was all a completely innocent mistake and so Steve comes to the conclusion that okay, it was just a mistake after all. I think this is the kind of thing that makes us weary of all the insidery BS… Vietor is telling you an obvious white lie, maybe he’s your friend so you don’t want to call him any names, but do you really have to believe whatever crap he tells you? Obviously your friend at the NSC did not have advance knowledge that an innocent mistake was about to take place.

For those of us on the outside, trying to figure out what’s happening inside Washington is a constant battle between this guy’s friends and that guy’s friends. And I’m sure we all have great taste in friends, but some of our friends are misinformed from time to time and some of our friends are spinning from time to time. When their stories are in conflict, they can’t all be right! It sure does get exhausting trying to keep up with all the self-contradictory yet unimpeachable info, from way out here.