-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In my column on the main site, I talked about why I think President Obama is likely to react differently to electoral defeat in the midterms than Bill Clinton did. I argued that unlike Clinton, who was always a politician first and foremost, Obama is an ideological liberal who will continue to press his agenda.
I’m seeing now that the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein has a piece up comparing his conversation with Clinton days before the 1994 election and his recent interview with Obama. He also comes away with the sense that Obama is taking the prospect of political defeat a lot differently than Clinton, though he has a bit of a different take. To Brownstein, the difference is more a matter of temperment. It was Clinton’s despondence about losing that prompted him to change course in his presidency, Brownstein reports, while it’s Obama’s trademark calmness that prevents him from doing the same.
He writes:
Where Clinton agonized, Obama analyzed. It was clear that Obama has started to think seriously about how he will navigate a Washington with many more Republicans in it. But nothing about him suggested that he viewed the impending arrival of those Republicans as evidence that he needed to radically rethink his presidency. Obama sounded neither shell-shocked nor defiant. He seemed entirely focused on the practical: where he might work with Republicans, and where he expects confrontation (education, infrastructure, and energy in the first group; taxes, health care, and Social Security in the second).
Everything about the conversation reinforced the signal of continuity the president sent this fall when he named confidants Pete Rouse as chief of staff and Tom Donilon as his national security adviser. In private, Obama appears just as unruffled, one White House aide said. Asked whether the president had displayed “angst” over the looming losses, the aide said, “I don’t think that is the right word. He’s come to all these challenges with the same steadiness that people saw on the campaign trail in 2008—never got too hot, never got too cold, but just faced each day and did his best to take it on.”
Obama’s equanimity was indeed a great strength for him in 2008. But if Democrats are routed next week, some of them may wonder whether it is possible to be too cool and collected in the face of calamity.
View all comments (7) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/29/obama-in-2010-and-clinton-in-1
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
PattyMor| 10.29.10 @ 2:23PM
Well Obama can keep his chin jutting out and looking over the country with disdain, while the
republicans take over both houses on congress.
Remember, it was Obama who said, to the Republicans I won, you lost. Now stew in your own juices. Too delicious!!
JP| 10.29.10 @ 3:20PM
I think just as important is how Obama's own party will react. Many of the Congressional Dems who "took one for the Gipper" vis-a-vis ObamaCare will be gone. For those House and Senate Dems who survive, the President will become an abatross around thier necks (and for the GOP, Obama could become the gift that keeps on giving). The President's agenda is dead. And while he will be able to protect his gains via the veto pen, the President could be seeing Dems join hands with the GOP to either overside his veto, or crossing the aisle permanently.
Much depends upon Boehnner and McConnell. If the surrender before it begins (see Mona Charen's NRO column today in which she advised the GOP to do just that). The public has no idea what will hit them beginning next year. The claws of ObamaCare will just be reaching the public in a very intimate and expensive way; for many if not most of us taxes will be going up (the lower middle classes will discover just how generous Bush's tax cuts was for them); and the outsourcing of US jobs will continue apace. The public will also begin to see the effects of Bernecke's 2 years of QE in the form of significantly higher consumer prices.
Let the President calmly watch his presidency melt away into a puddle of large scale voter dissatisfaction. By 2012 he will be running for safer harbors.
Warrior | 10.29.10 @ 5:42PM
Obama has no plans on moving quietly into moderation. He will count on a stalemate in the senate and move to "ruling" by agency fiat. His czar's and agency heads will institute that which he can not get legislated. The economy will continue to tank and the pathetic public will be as useful as a deer in the headlights for the next election unsure of which party to support as the media will happily point out how ineffective the Republicans were "again."
You all underestimate the power of the teleprompter. The left is willing to accomplish its goals through any means necessary. McConnell and Boehner cannot hold a candle to the deviousness Pelosi and Reid brought to the table.
sre| 10.29.10 @ 3:53PM
While I don't see the GOP winning the Senate, I confess I kind of like the idea of SCHUMER taking over for Reid for the next two years. We need to keep a foil in place until 2012. On the other hand, I hope there is enough new blood in the House that we aren't stuck with John Boehner as our public face. We need fresh leadership, not the same old, same old. Young guns in the House voting to repeal health care, cut taxes, enforce immigration laws, etc. while Obama/Schumer block, block, block - that could work out nicely for 2012.
Dale Cord| 10.30.10 @ 11:20AM
Obama is not ruffled in the slightest! He is able to remain calm, cool and collective because, he has George Soros money backing him. He already knows the voting polls will be fixed in his favor. Just as they have been in the past with F.D.Rs ,J.F.Ks elections that were bought and paid for by the fortune made by Joesph Kennedy Sr., through prostitution, bootlegging, and many other criminal activities. L,B,J s, Bill Clinton's, and the Bushes elections were made possible by the Italian Mafia operating their illegal businesses here for decades now. The corruption in our government has infected every aspect of our lives, and just as a lethal dose of poison or contagious disease like the Bubonic plague. It will bring down our country and, great will be our fall. Read your history books and you will find that every great nation, that has become intoxicated with immoral behavior and oblivious to others needs for survival has, become ashes and fodder for the next generation of fools.