Exhibit A:
The front page article in the Washington Post. Above the fold.
Obama's 'enforcer' may also be his voice of reason.
Jason Horowitz wastes no time informing us there is "a contrarian narrative emerging" that conflicts with the prevailing view (common in places like Dkos, coincidentally) that Rahm Emanuel is a "prime target for the failings of the Obama administration."
Sounds fair and balanced, and possibly insightful. But when you follow the story inside (where it gets about 90 column inches) all pretense of objectivity disappears and it's simply inciteful.
Exhibit B:
Emanuel is voice of reason, and Obama should listen, insiders say. [emph added]
Given the option of Obama or Emanuel, the Post says "the voice of reason" is who? Really?
The Back Story
Following his victory, Obama, in what is starting to look like an Achilles Heel of epic proportions, bends over backwards to find common ground between the warring factions of the Democratic Party. The result? Dean is shown the door. Emanuel is brought in as Chief of Staff. Clinton gets a cabinet position. Former Clinton soldiers like Panetta are brought in, but not independent thinkers like Reich. Some new faces from Chicago also show up, along with some new faces from the Ivys.
This is not a real shock. In fact, it sounds pretty damn reasonable. The new guy in town had a mandate but no real clout. The smart move would be to avoid the mistake Carter made by remaining an outsider once he arrived. So far, so good.
But then the tail starts wagging the dog. Political setbacks lead to bickering internally and it's only a matter of time before people start looking for a fall guy. That's when Rahm Emanuel goes from hatchet man to lightning rod to Cassandra. The vapid hit piece in today's Post shows how one player has managed to play the media and manage his image.
When the famously acerbic Emanuel was first brought in, the guy was going to be Obama's Cheney. He was going to be the guy who knew where all the bodies were buried and which arms to twist so his BOSS could get his way. For some reason, that didn't happen in the legislature. Even with leaders willing to help.
The Drama
Rahm's boss said he wanted his centerpiece legislative victory on his desk to sign by August. Remember the summer? The noise? The rancor? The loss of momentum? Where was Rahm then? I don't recall him ridiculing the teabaggers. I don't recall him blasting the obstructionists. I don't recall him saying much of anything at all except that progressives who wanted to target regressive Democrats were "fucking retarded" for daring to press the agenda we were sold. Pushing the platform Obama ran on was supposedly Rahm's job. He became the lightning rod of disillusioned former supporters because he was not effective in doing that and actively discouraged people who did.
As we hit the one-year mark and health care reform continued to slip from our grasp, rumors started floating about a shake up in the White House. Rahm's name got put into the mix. People began whispering about his imminent departure. That's the kind of talk that ruins a future lobbyist's potential income. Can't have that. So what do we do? Rally our buddies to develop a "contrarian narrative" that paints us as the victim.
"...in the search for what has gone wrong, influential Democrats are -- in unusually frank terms -- blaming Obama ... for not listening to Emanuel."
That uppity muthafucka. How dare he ignore the sage advice of his Chief of Staff? What's wrong with that boy?
The Spin
Here's the art of image management as naked as a newborn babe. First, make a bold assertion without evidence. Then, drop a quote in that sounds like it supports your assertion. For example, make an assertion that unnamed "influential Democrats" are blaming Obama for not listening to Emanuel, then follow that with a quote from a Democrat for attribution (Wasserman Schultz). Don't mention she is a DLC heart throb. Just let her say
I think that Rahm's considerable legislative experience translates into advice that the president should heed.
Voila! How you like your emerging narrative now?
Finish it off with on-the-record quotes from insiders showing how "effective" poor misunderstood Cassandra Emanuel really is. Who are the voices coming to Rahm's side and saying how effective he is? Kent Conrad, Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snowe. I don't recall them being big supporters of Obama's agenda. Where's Bernie? Where's Harkin? Where's Franken? Brown? Hell, what about hometown boy Dick Durbin? Their absence from this story speaks volumes.
The die is cast when we learn this tidbit about the drama over the summer:
[Emanuel] argued to Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev) to strike the public option from the legislation to expedite passage.
Never mind the fact the President ran on that platform. Never mind the fact the House had passed it. Never mind he could have strong-armed Snowe and Conrad. Never mind the fact Reid wanted to include the public option. Rahm had been busy breaking ranks since summer and now that he is catching hell for it, he's covered his ass. The tell-tale signal?
Emanuel and Axelrod declined to comment for this article.
Think about that for a moment. Someone is going to publish another story that paints your boss in a bad light and suggests you were the guy he should have listened to. No matter how you cut it, that is not going to make your boss look good. Faced with that shitstorm Mr. "He's dead to me" decides to channel his inner mime? Yeah. Right.
The Bottom Line
When your number one attack dog pisses on your leg in public, you have a problem. If you can't control your own troops, why should the opposition worry? All they need to do is follow Napoleon's famous dictum:
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
In contrast, Obama, being the man of letters that he is, should remind his staff of George Bernard Shaw's equally famous dictum:
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.
What do you say when the hatchet man is being used as the borrowed knife to gut key elements of the boss's agenda? Nothing good, that's for sure. If this insubordination is left unchecked, we will see another narrative emerge. Instead of "no drama" leadership, people will simply say Obama is not in charge. That will damage his credibility and undermine his legitimacy. That will dovetail very nicely with the narrative teabaggers, birthers and Republicans have been pushing since Roberts botched his oath of office.
Heckuva job, Rahm. Heckuva job.