How Will Obama Govern?

There is much speculation going on right now about how Obama would govern if elected president. On Sunday John Kerry was on Meet the Press talking about how he would urge Obama to "build 85-vote majorities" in the Senate. Doug Schoen, the political mastermind whose strategy for the past eight years has largely been telling Democrats to accommodate George Bush, says that Obama must demonstrate his commitment to bipartisanship by appointing Republicans to his cabinet.

That may be fabulous political speech, but people who pay even remotely close attention to politics know that in order to get 85 votes on anything in the Senate, you're basically telling lobbyists and the corporate cons who pay them that they've got veto power over any legislation. There is no shiny new bill with pearly white teeth that is going to make everyone happy--if there were, it would've passed already. Eighty five votes is the political equivalent of the status quo.

What's surprising is that in the very next breath, and with no apparent sense of contradiction, people will talk about the likelihood of Rahm Emanuel being Obama's Chief of Staff. It's a real knee-slapper. Rahm and 85 votes? You've got to be kidding. It will be an instant sign that all the bipartisan talk is just that--talk--and signal that Obama intends to work solely within the Democratic caucus to achieve his objectives. The Republicans would be welcome to tag along if they like.

I don't share Rahm's political objectives -- he's the architect of NAFTA, a "free trade" hound and the godfather of the Heath Schuler immigration bill, which seeks to privatize the border and give illegal immigrants no path to citizenship. But Rahm doesn't do "bipartisan"--which I've always sort of liked about him. Not that I think the Republicans have any interest in working with a Democratic administration -- particularly not the ones who are left after Tuesday. As Paul Krugmannotes this morning, the moderates will likely be purged from the party, leaving it in the hands of the extremists. They're very good at operating as an opposition party and will be only too happy to do so once again.

The Obama team has been remarkably leak-proof so odds are this rumor didn't come from them, and Rahm is rather notorious for floating these things himself. But the only thing Rahm Emanuel is going to extend across the aisle to Republicans is a sharp slap in the face, and if Obama does indeed appoint him, we'll soon see just how important achieving 85 votes is to a new administration.

Comments (35)

1. If Obama moves to the center he may lose his base.

   Ask Bush how many friends you have when you alienate your base.

   Stick with the LEFT dude.

   Posted by bleedingheart at 11/04/2008 @ 8:04pm

2. To the People of the United States of America: FELLOW CITIZENS, the importance of this Presidential election undeniably surpasses all others in recent memory. We are at war, uncertainty is threatening our way of life, and the politicos are continuously failing us. So let us ask ourselves, who can we literally afford to trust in office? Americans are being swayed, divided, and weakened by two political parties through the use of Styrofoam backgrounds, vague slogans, and properly placed emotional gestures. But history has taught us that political rhetoric flourishes in many forms during troubled times, so do not be easily fooled by the patriotic images and shows that any politician is participating in. Still, some are saying that we should entrust the 72 year old warrior-statesman because he will righteously put "Country First". Indeed McCain, who was born on an American Naval Air Station, has had many honorable life experiences similar to those of characters we remember today via marble works of art and Plutarchic biographies. But on the other side of the deliberation stands the swarms of people who sincerely believe that the eloquent Ivy-leaguer can bring a much needed change to the political culture in Washington. The novus homo, Barack Obama, continues to inspire the masses with a sense of hope not present since the time of JFK. The Republicans and Democrats have put forth their best men: let US choose between them. But why should one of these highly regarded men (who is going to win the vote of tens of millions of tax-paying Americans) just simply be eliminated and declared loser along with those who voted for him? Does America not need all the competent leadership she has nurtured to attend her needs as Americans and not partisans? Why can't both these even-tempe

   Posted by studentoflife at 11/04/2008 @ 8:41pm

3. Posted by studentoflife at 11/04/2008 @ 8:41pm

   Anybody making any sense of this?

   Some weird-ass call for "Co-Presidents" coming?!??!?!??

   Posted by Maskdelta at 11/04/2008 @ 10:30pm

4. President-Elect Obama will govern the same way he campaigned. Quietly stating his plan, persuading those on the fence, and avoiding a fight just for fighting's sake. On the other side, the rabid, ultra-conservatives remaining in office will do everything in their power to stop each and every effort made by the new administration. If people recall the hyperpartisanship and lockstep opposition that marked all eight years of Clinton, they haven't seen anything yet. The few, moderate, smart GOPers lost last night, leaving a ideological mob that will throw mud first, stopping only to see what sticks.

   Today's GOP is out of step with the majority of America. They get their sTalking points from Drudge, Rush, Sean and a few Faux Gnus pigs and sows. They have nothing left to lose, and will act accordingly. Their shameless, amoral, behavior in the past is a roadmap for the future.

   Posted by AGNOSTIC at 11/05/2008 @ 08:33am

5. "If Obama moves to the center he may lose his base.

   Ask Bush how many friends you have when you alienate your base. "

   Ummm, are you really suggesting that Bush lost his base by 'moving to the center'??? More apt to say he lost his base by radicalizing his party and catering to the interests of his corporate CEO frat buddies at the expense of the average voting Republican.

   Posted by wilson_ty at 11/05/2008 @ 09:24am

6. The far-right Republican Base response to the Obama victory

   http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ_Sqj7JUn8

   Posted by leftofcenter at 11/05/2008 @ 09:41am

7. Why, for heaven's sake, would the most liberal senator ever govern from the middle. Even if for some reason he thought that a good idea, the Democrats won't let him. They have an agenda and majorities. Obama will be a good rubber stamp. We are all in serious trouble. The president does not get to vote present.

   Posted by wredner at 11/05/2008 @ 10:36am

8. Left, right, center. Fugettaboudit!

   Throw our notion of "old politics as usual" out the door; strip our labels naked from our "selves" . Move together, hand-in-hand towards the goodness in the light of democracy and the freedom that is America.

   That is We! Not them. Not us. We!

   Posted by rayted32 at 11/05/2008 @ 11:39am

9. Obama does not need to move to the center. His great opportunity, if he is to be the "transformative figure" many of us hope he will be, will be to MOVE the center. Reagan, to the chagrin of many (myself very much included -- and we continue to pay for it) was able to do that -- and I think Obama can as well. If he can, we'll ALL be much the better for it.

   Posted by artiegold at 11/05/2008 @ 11:42am

10. This is a completely crazy article. Rahm is not of the "left." He is a consistent advocate for war and has proposed in his book The Plan increasing the military by 100,000 - the same number advocated by Obama AND McCain. He worked to defeat the antiwar Dems in 2006 using all the cash he had as chair of the DCCC. And at the time of the first Gulf War he volunteered to serve in the army of his country - that is the Israeli army. After that mysterious service he returned to become, overnite, a major player in the Clinton campaign. He is the quintessence of a Dem neocon. This is the first post-election sign of where Obama is taking us. Don't blame me. I voted for Ralph.

    Posted by jvwalshmd at 11/05/2008 @ 11:55am

11. The only GOP he should even consider would in my opinion be CHUCK HAGEL and perhaps COLIN POWELL .

    Posted by danos714 at 11/05/2008 @ 1:00pm

12. Obama move to the center? I don't think so. A self-proclaimed pragmatist, he's already there and always has been.

    To those who fear his "liberal" agenda, which of his left-wing positions are you worried about?

    His support for renewal of the Patriot Act? His support for a continuation of warrentless wiretapping? His plan for increasing the size of the US armed forces? His intention to ramp up military activity in Afghanistan and Pakistan? His meager health care program that will still leave about 20 million Americans uninsured and in the hands of the insurance companies? His approval of Iraq War villainess Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State and endorsement of Independent (read that Conservative) Joe Lieberman over Liberman's progressive Democratic opponent for Senator in Connecticut? His backing of the anti-progressive Hamilton Project? His close associations with free market deregulators Robert Rubin, Paul Volcker, et al? Etc, etc?

    Get real people. Although I backed the guy wholeheartedly considering his opposition, Mr. Obama's administration will be as mainstream and conventional as any. The folks really in charge wouldn't have it any other way.

    Posted by saroman at 11/05/2008 @ 1:09pm

13. Saroman is right; the adminstration will be mainstream. Mainstream folks, not wing-nuts elected Obama president.

    Posted by jsens at 11/05/2008 @ 1:51pm

14. Is anybody getting tired of hearing the right say "the country is in trouble now" or that they are scared now that Obama has been elected? Over the last 8 years we've just experienced the worst president in our history. We've ruined our reputation with the rest of the world. The number of people who count themselves as our enemies has increased dramatically. The poor in this country are getting poorer and the middle class is struggling to exist. Corporations are destroying our workforce and making us a nation of consumers that produce less and less. We have 2 wars going on with no end in sight for either. The environment is in crisis and we've done nothing productive to address our energy needs. This has all happened under Republican leadership. We are already in trouble and we need new ideas and new leadership to get us out of it. The Republicans have had their chance and I'm sure that's one of the reasons why they say they are scared of Obama. Of course the other reason they're scared is that they believe the Rovian garbage that the far right has spewed about Obama over the course of this election. They need to decide if they want to continue to be part of the problem or part of the solution. If they can't help then they need to get out of the way.

    Posted by liberalisnotadirtyword at 11/05/2008 @ 2:20pm

15. "Rahm is not of the "left." He is a consistent advocate for war...and...in the first Gulf War he volunteered to serve in the army of his country - that is the Israeli army."

    These, and other things, including the fact Rahm's now physician father fought in the Irgun, are true. Athens-Sparta all over again--which, if honestly declared, would mean that Athens-Sparta, while an ocean away, are the same state, rooted in the same history: murder of native populations for territory and material gain.

    Here we have it, friends. "Change" becomes continuity. "Consolidation" and "moderation" leads to more of the same. The quest for permanent majorities leads to capitulation to profits, and, becomes abandonment of Republic for Empire. Age old recipe. Any questions?

    Posted by optimist at 11/05/2008 @ 2:21pm

16. I am so glad to see others have noticed that Rahm Emmanuel is really a Democratic Neocon. If he were made the gateway to Obama as Chief of Staff, and as a probably source of leaks to AIPAC, etc., what kind of a changed foreign policy---that we so desperately need--could we hope for?

    Posted by Letitia at 11/05/2008 @ 3:59pm

17. Don't hold your breath waiting for a leftist or liberal revolution coming from Congress. I don't know why the right is so panicky right now. Most of the gains by Democrats have been in very conservative districts and senate seats. These new office holders will want to get re-elected in these conservative districts and senate seats. There is no way they will go crazy, they will have to move to the mood of the people they represent or their terms will be very short.

    Posted by aljstl at 11/05/2008 @ 4:35pm

18. From NBC's Andrea Mitchell A senior Obama advisor confirms to NBC News that Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel has accepted the job of Chief of Staff for the Obama White House.

    The election may have been Young tweedle dee versus old tweedle dumb...if so, the struggle has just begun all over again.

    Posted by denim at 11/05/2008 @ 7:21pm

19. Rahm Emanuel would be a terrible choice. For a high ranking Democrat he does not understand the reasoning behind the need to exit the Iraqi War. That was evident in an interview he participated in last year on CNN or MSNBC.

    Like Bush, he does not care about the U.S. voters' concerns or wants. He indicated, then, that the United States should remain in Iraq indefinitely. We do not need someone like that in the Cabinet or anywhere else, nor does President Obama.

    The United States needs to leave Iraq, in haste, especially with the Iraqi President making new demands. They have enough money they have stolen from the U.S. government (over $79 billion at last estimate). Let them handle the Taliban by themselves. They are ungrateful and want us out of their country. Let's go... NOW!

    Posted by aplwonk at 11/05/2008 @ 7:48pm

20. As a former US citizen now living in Canada but still following US politics, I am thoroughly dismayed by the rumours that president-elect Obama will select Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. This is simply offering a key to the White House to all the new-economy hustlers and organized crime groupies (do the surnames Rich and Coia ring any bells?) whose priorities contaminated the Clinton administration, especially during his second term. It seems from here as if the vision of a new politics won't even last a week.

    Posted by tschrecker at 11/05/2008 @ 7:50pm

21. Obama is a complete, total fraud. He is a pawn of the same powers that installed George W. Bush in the White House. I am not really surprised at the celebration at his supposed "election" (it was a fraud through and through) but I am surprised that so many Americans can not see that he is is a Republican in Democratic clothing.

    The MSM did not expose his financial backers, nor his Senate record, both of which clearly show him to be an absolutely corrupt politician, a complete pawn of the plutocracy.

    The masses of people who fell for his lofty rhetoric, who view him as a latter-day Messiah, will be extremely disillusioned once he has been in the White House for a while.

    Never underestimate the power of propaganda, advertising, and money. Yes, money! Obama won because he had so much money to spend. Do not underestimate the importance of his revocation of his pledge to use public campaign funds. He overspent McCain by orders of magnitude.

    Posted by Natascha at 11/05/2008 @ 10:25pm

22. Obama should show those koolaid drinkers the true meaning of being the new unitary executive placing them - the six most neo-con senators with real dirt - on an enemy of the state list, and disappear them to Cuba for water boarding. After a week, he could return them with a rehabilitated paradigm.

    Posted by valiant at 11/06/2008 @ 01:11am

23. Israel is shaping the policy of this country. There have been well over forty members of the Bush administration with dual American and Israeli citizenships. Paul Wolfowitz, Ben Bernanke, Michael Chertoff, Josh Bolton, and Scooter Libby, just to name a handful.

    What's more, the CIA. NSA, and other spying agencies have outsourced their eavesdropping and listening-in operations all to Israeli companies. On top of that, the entire Congressional communications network is also outsourced to an Israeli company. Israel is now tuned in to everything going on in this country.

    It just doesn't smell right. Now they've got Obama in their sights. New boss same as the old boss. Instead of following the money, follow the Israeli connections. (They'll be following the money for you. As in the bailout that's going into the pockets of so many Jewish bankers and Wall Street firms.)

    This isn't anti-semite ranting. Merely a reporting of the facts. You decide what it all means.

    Posted by Marker at 11/06/2008 @ 02:35am

24. "It just doesn't smell right. Now (Israel has)Obama in their sights" (marker)

    I agree. The neo-cons would have dominated a McCain/Palin team also; Obama however is the lesser of two evils. But I agree: Once Israel has its talons into this administration--and now it does, as we all suspected--it really is all over. That means permanent wars, Iraq and Georgian oil pipelines onto Tel Aviv,and Iran for sure, more theft from our Treasury. And Russia is knocking on our door. Emanuel is a guarantee of the continued stranglehold Israel has over our domestic and foreign policy.Where can we all go? Sweden? It's a nightmare. I said a long time ago the elections are mere theatre, a pretense. The neo-cons will finish us off.

    Posted by mystic at 11/06/2008 @ 09:27am

25. Move to the center??? Too late. Just like when Clinton was elected, Let's see how fast he bails on his promises. As someone said before: Don't blame me I voted Nader.

    The ONLY good thing I see about Obama's selection is 'world perception'. It was probably the only thing that would address the many and deep wounds caused by GWB.

    Not fix. Address. Much work needs be done to come close to "Fix". I don't think a embassy in Iraq 4 square miles will help. That's not an embassy, that's a military base.

    Posted by Tht1Gy! at 11/06/2008 @ 3:40pm

26. Emanual was an Investment Banker, supports "Free Trade", and privatization? He is a Democratic clone of a Republican!

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/06/2008 @ 3:42pm

27. I love all this rush to judgment on Obama and it's only two days past the election. Give the man a chance. And this nonsense about corruption and fraud in how he raised his money is sour grapes. My family and many of my friends volunteered time and money for his campaign. The Obama campaign did an amazing job drumming up support and money through the use of the Internet. This is one of the few times in history where individuals could donate money no matter how small the donation and feel like they were really part of the process. Obama has connected to those of us of modest means. The teacher, the policeman, the factory worker and countless others finally have someone who speaks for us. This really is a campaign of the people and not big business or special interests. Yes, he had more money then the Republicans. And yes he spent it to get elected. The difference is his money represents the poor and the middle class more than it represents the rich and the multinational corporations.

    Posted by liberalisnotadirtyword at 11/06/2008 @ 4:20pm

28. Okay. Just who WAS Obama supposed to make his Chief of Staff?

    Diane Rehm?

    Al Roker?

    The job requires a HAMMER.

    Posted by Egalitare at 11/06/2008 @ 7:03pm

29. The job requires a HAMMER. Posted by Egalitare

    Yes, exactly. And let's let Obama actually become president and screw up once or twice before we skewer him. Bush got a chance to screw up and he did that excellently.

    And REDRIVERS usual rant that never includes the screwing we've taken by GW., whose existence now is like a whisper in a dark ballroom. We all know you voted for McCain and that person who thinks Africa is... where? She clearly had fiscal obsessive compulsive disorder.

    Rahm has 'sharp elbows'. I would like to trust that Obama knows this attribute and looks beyond his dubious actions in the past. If Rahm can apply his abrasive nature to some of the tasks at hand he may very well do a good job.

    Posted by ficheye at 11/08/2008 @ 03:59am

30. "I don't share Rahm's political objectives -- he's the architect of NAFTA, a "free trade" hound and the godfather of the Heath Schuler immigration bill, which seeks to privatize the border and give illegal immigrants no path to citizenship."

    Being so anti illegal immigration is different for someone who is so pro NAFTA. Usually, Republicans and Democrats who favor both NAFTA also are PRO illegal immigration in order to favor big business in the US (cheap and exploited labor).

    Posted by Armadillo at 11/08/2008 @ 6:44pm

31. Rahm Emanual is still an Israeli Citizen who went back to Israel to join and serve in the Israeli Army in 1991. He never served in the US Army. When Rahm was the Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee he intimidated and withheld support from Democratic Candidates who opposed the war on Iraq. This was in direct conflict of the Democratic Party stand on the war, but rather what the Israelis really wanted.

    Rahm is the son of a renowned terrorist, Benjamin Emanuel, who was member of the Israeli Terrorist Organization Irgun. The Irgun blew up hotels, railroad stations and participated in the murder of hundreds of British soldiers and Palestinian Civilians. Benjamin Emanuel was put on the "Wanted List" of the British Government. It will be indeed an irony to watch Emanuel conducting his war on terror from the White House. In recent interview with the Israeli daily Ma'ariv, Emanuel's father was quoted as saying: "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."

    Well, he surely will.

    Posted by CripThink at 11/09/2008 @ 12:22pm

32. Rahm Emanuel IS Barak Obama, Jane. The disabling problem with you is that you haven't yet realized it. And tonight we learn from - whom else - Rahm Emanuel that Obama and the Democrats are getting ready to bail out the automobile industry. Why these "progressives" are so advanced they've found a way to turn social democracy into fascism. Remarkable. And there was the dohickey last night about Obama waffling on missiles for Poland despite the position he articulated on them in the debates. Not that I'm complaining, I'm against missles in Poland, its just that Obama can't seem to act on anything without first lying about it. Clearly we're in for quite a ride.

    Posted by john lowell at 11/10/2008 @ 12:05am

33. Obama is not a leftist and will govern with the same old Democratic agenda. Obama will offer nothing new. He has no intention of asking Congress to give up their pensions and health coverage until every American has both. Nor does he plan to have the Justice department investiage Bush, Cheney and their cronies. I could go on and on but you get the picture.

    Posted by gozafa at 11/10/2008 @ 11:03am

34. If your policies are already in alignment with Neo-Cons, bipartisanship, or lack of it, is irrelevant. Emanuel's allegiance is to his own worldview and anyone else can be made invisible by his position.

    Very bad move on Obama's part.

    Posted by Lil at 11/10/2008 @ 1:17pm

35. Obama doesn't have to do much to move to the center. He's spent his entire political career there.

    I am kind of amused by this idea that his election represents some sort of liberal realignment.

    As the kids today like to say: Jigga What?

    In what world is Obama a liberal? We are in for the same old, same old. I voted for Obama, but with my eyes wide open, and a silent prayer that he at least appoints reasonable supreme court justices.

    Posted by gillian at 11/10/2008 @ 5:24pm