John Nichols: "DC's Rahm Emanuel Should be Running for Mayor of Wall Street—Not Chicago"

John Nichols:

He was the prime mover in the fight to enact the North American Free Trade Agreement, which shuttered whole industries and eliminated tens of thousands of jobs in cities such as Chicago.

He was the an architect of the scheme to provide China with permanent most-favored nation trading status, a shift that ushered in the era of outsourcing that continues to devastate urban neighborhoods.

He battled labor, environmental, economic justice and community groups on behalf of Wall Street, both as an investment banker and as political insider whose basic premise was that government should deliver for those in the suites rather than those on the streets of cities such as Chicago.

He counseled Bill Clinton to steer right on economic and social issues, serving as a key White House aide during the period that saw the former president sign the anti-gay and lesbian Defense of Marriage Act and a "welfare reform" law so draconian that responsible members of the former administration—such as Peter Edelman—quit rather than be associated with it. Both those laws battered urban communities while playing to the crude fears and fantasies of suburbanites and southern rightwingers.

He counseled President Obama to abandon the values he had learned as a community organizer in Chicago and to instead embraces the likes of Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and the corporate elites who seek a renewal for Wall Street while promising cities like Chicago a "jobless recovery."

Meet Rahm Emanuel, who on Monday began making campaign-style appearances in Chicago neighborhoods —as part of his effort to replace outgoing Mayor Richard M. Daley.

Emanuel's return to the city was greeted by a Chicago Sun-Times article that raised serious questions about whether the former White House chief of staff met residency requirements.

The Scent of Rhambo---Obama and the "professional left"

Mike Lux:

Here's the thing that drives me most crazy, though: the only thing making the Obama White House take the huge gamble of not reaching out to the professional left is their own arrogance. Engaging the "professional left" would be easy to do if they cared about it at all, and had a strategy to do it. In the Clinton White House, that presidency of NAFTA, failed health care, the 1994 election fiasco, and "triangulation", the progressive community- the professional left as well as progressive voters- progressives never deserted Clinton. Through his two elections, special prosecutors, the Lewinsky mess and impeachment, the Democratic base stayed loyal to and enthusiastic about Bill Clinton (even when he didn't always deserve it). Why? Because Bill Clinton cared about having a good relationship with progressives, and because we had a strategy for working effectively with them. President Clinton frequently asked me about who was happy with us and who was disgruntled in the progressive world, and we made sure to bring in everyone in the latter category for meetings and social events at the White House. At the height of the NAFTA fight, we organized a dinner for labor leaders where the President hung out with them for a long, social evening, telling them in his remarks "I know we are in a fight right now, but I want you to know that my White House will always be your house too, that we always will be friends." We made sure progressives always had chances to have serious input into policy development. Whenever we had bad news to deliver to progressive groups on any issue big or small, we reached out to them before the announcement, talked about how to make the damage hurt less, and talked about what we could do to help them on other issues. And whenever there was good news, we made sure the folks who cared about it were part of the celebration.

Here's the other thing: other Democratic politicians in 2010 get the need to work effectively with progressives. I have had my share of disagreements with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, but they and their staff have never failed to work constructively and conscientiously with me and other progressives I know. This is politics 101 as far as I am concerned, but to my knowledge, this White House isn't engaging in much of it. I am on the board of many different progressives groups, and know a wide assortment of folks in the blogosphere, in organizations, in the progressive donor world, on Capitol Hill, and I rarely hear about any kind of high-level outreach of this sort going on. One other important point on all this: what worries me the most is that I am as insider-y as a person can get. I have known Rahm for 30 years, Axelrod and Plouffe for over 20. I have been a client of Jim Margolis, Anita Dunn, and Axelrod's firms. I was a co-founder of Strategy Group, the Chicago based firm that was one of the closest inner circle firms in the Obama Presidential campaign. I have worked in the White House, and I even worked on the Obama transition. I am one of the professional left (not at all the only one, by the way) who, in spite of my disappointments with some of the compromises made, ended up supporting, enthusiastically working for, and praising Obama on all those initiatives mentioned above. Now I know that some folks in the White House are mad at me and have shut me out because I have been critical at times of this White House, but I still have to think: if the relationship with the "professional left" is as shaky as it is, and someone like me is not being reached out to much or asked to help, what about all those bloggers and progressive media people and organizations who don't have much in the way of inside connections? It worries the hell out of me, and it ought to be worrying the White House. MORE...

Joe Conason takes on Rhambo

Joe Conason:

If the Democrats fail to pass real changes in the health care system this year -- rather than a sham that mimics and mocks reform -- they will have nobody to blame but themselves. Or at least nobody to blame but other Democrats, notably those in the White House who have never been committed to this most venerable and fundamental aspect of party policy.

Of course, the right-wing rumormongers have done their share of damage, spreading lies about "death panels" and stirring up the boob cohort with warnings about socialism. Republican elected officials have decided to damage the president rather than address an issue they know is critical to the nation's future. Health insurance lobbyists and corporate leaders have spent millions of dollars to kill reform, buying legislative obedience the same way they buy advertising time or legal advice.

Yet in the months that followed the momentous election of November 2008, the Democrats have possessed the power to fulfill the moral imperative -- good, affordable health care for all Americans -- that they have pursued since the Harry Truman era. Both the new president and the new majorities in both houses of Congress declared their determination to create the kind of health care system that other developed nations have enjoyed for the past 50 years or so.

Now competing measures that might or might not accomplish that worthy goal are stalemated in Congress while the White House dithers over how best to placate Republicans and conservative Democrats who have opposed serious reform from the beginning.

The ultimate responsibility for this sorry state of affairs belongs with the president, who vacillates between speaking out boldly for a "public option," and permitting his aides and appointees to undermine his message by confiding their plans to sell out.

His worst tendency, to exalt bipartisan compromise above progressive policy, has left him at the mercy of senatorial frauds like Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican who pretended to negotiate over details while denouncing the president for seeking to terminate America's grandmothers. He assigned far too much responsibility for health care reform to aides who exacerbate that weakness -- and in particular to Rahm Emanuel, the current chief of staff and former congressman from Chicago.

Every mistake made by the Obama White House in the pursuit of health care reform can be traced to the political style and ideological prejudices of Emanuel, who has sought to intimidate progressives and empower conservatives, always in the name of winning elections and "getting things done."

A self-styled tough guy who famously likes to prove his point with abusive language and threats, he led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the years when the party regained its majority -- when he spent millions to elect the "Blue Dogs," who have done so much to thwart the president's agenda on health, energy and economic recovery.

He repeatedly intervened in primary elections around the country to promote GOP-lite candidates against challengers who actually represented the party's bedrock beliefs. Around that same time, he co-authored a lightweight volume on national policy, titled "The Plan," that explained why he believed that universal health coverage could not be passed, so Democrats should settle for covering the nation's children, which had largely been achieved by then.

All this dubious history was no secret when Obama appointed the combative Chicagoan to run his shop. Although few Democrats trusted Emanuel to hold true to principle, many hoped that he would get things done -- and that those things would reflect the progressive outlook of his boss rather than the attitude of accommodation he picked up on Capitol Hill.

Instead and perhaps inevitably, his narrow pragmatism is shaping the Obama administration's approach to reform. As long as some kind of bill passes, Emanuel won't worry when the corporate powers override the public interest once again. He will congratulate himself on a job well done. His Blue Dogs will boast of frustrating that liberal Obama. Everyone will get a nice check from the insurance lobbyists.

But the president's promise will be soiled, and the nation's future will be dimmed.