I don’t understand the fascination with Rahm Emanuel, why he’s so evil, why he’s so good, why he’s a genius, why he’s an idiot, why he’s sexual napalm to the DC press corps. He was a decent (but not great) leader of the DCCC, he’s been involved with the HCR bill, which has gone fine (better than I thought it would) but not great. He seems like kind of an asshole and I don’t like his buddies mouthing off to Dana Milbank, but it’s not like he’s waterboarding people and shooting his friends in the face.
The articles about him are coming so fast and furious that I can’t keep track of them. There was one in the Times Sunday magazine today, but I feel like people were talking about it days ago. The article is fine, focusing mostly on substance, but it also has some “Rahm looks worn out when I see him in the gym” type stuff.
I think in a way that’s good, because we could just as easily be reading “Obama looks worn out when I see him in the gym” type stuff. When Clinton was president, we were treated to endless articles about his psychological state, his Hamlet-like indecision, his temper, his betrayal of hippies and so on. I think that hurt his image in the end. If all that stupid armchair psychologizing focuses on Rahm instead of Obama, that probably helps Obama’s image to some extent.