Comments on: Suskind: Unkind or Untrue? Assessing the Obama White House

By: Michael Cohen

Michael Cohen — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 16:34:30 +0000

Again well reasoned. I haven’t read the book but listened to Suskind Talk on Amy Goodman… I think what was said was correct. Obama was extremely adept for his time in raising funds and winning an election but very inexperienced in governing. His Presidency was business as usual for mistakes much like Clinton’s first term. While circumstances for Obama at the start of his administration were not as favorable as Roosevelt’s, the economic collapse which insured his election made them very favorable at least for recent Presidents. In Obama like Roosevelt had an election victory the first time around which was a forgone conclusion. His fumbling and choice of advisers who were responsible in large measure for creating the conditions which lead to the current economic debacle insured in my view a lackluster recovery at best. This is in strong contrast to Roosevelt’s 100 days in which he admittedly under much more favorable circumstances made very significant programmatic changes.

I cannot see how Obama can win a second term. Unlike the Punditry who are largely intellectual snobs I hope Obama runs against Palin. She at least was adept in getting the oil companies to pay taxes in Alaska and very well might be individual who could force a righting of our lopsided regressive tax code. It would not be the first time in American Politics where a politician says one thing and does another and it would not be the last. The U.S. since Reagan is devolving into third world status and it would be nice to have a leader who actually reversed this or prevented further progress.

By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 01:38:10 +0000

Jason – You make an interesting point regarding the speed with which presidents adjust to governing. Neustadt argues that the typical president, and advisers, spend much of the first two years in office learning which levers connect to what mechanisms. Obviously that learning curve depends on many factors. An important one is the degree to which an incoming administration takes the advice of those with previous White House experience. It may be telling in this regard that, if Suskind is to be believed, Obama was advised by former Clinton aides not to surround himself with campaign operatives from his “Chicago crowd”. No doubt the Clinton aides were remembering Clinton’s own difficulties with his Arkansas loyalists, including Mack McClarty and the unfortunate Vince Foster. Obama largely ignored this advice, with the conspicuous exception of Rahm Emanuel. One president who did “hit the ground running” was Reagan, largely because the triumvirate of Baker/Deaver and Meese learned from Carter’s transition mistakes. But even they made some initial staffing mistakes, most notably the failure to integrate the NSC position fully into the White House orbit. By and large, most modern presidents have struggled during their early months to develop a smooth White House staff system. There’s almost always a shakeout period that often involves significant personnel turnover.

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 19:07:03 +0000

Well-written and well-argued as usual. I’m curious whether you think the Obama administration is behind the curve in realizing the need for or making these adjustments. It’s one thing to say that such adjustments are par for the course. But presumably presidents are more or less quick to realize the need for tighter administrative structure. Are there any you would point to that have been particularly astute in this regard?