The Telegraph Reports That Rahm Emanuel Is Calling It Quits (Updated)

The Telegraph has published a late-night bombshell: Rahm Emanuel will leave his White House position later this year. The Telegraph article describes Emanuel in terms that many other media have utilized. It reports that the "pragmatic" Rahm is leaving because he has grown tired of the "idealism" among President Obama's inner circle.

Earlier this year, several media outlets published articles that praise Emanuel as a political strategist. These articles emerged as many liberals criticized Emanuel. At the time, several bloggers viewed the articles as an orchestrated "swan song." Perhaps these bloggers were correct.

Update: The White House has dismissed this story as rubbish.

Update II: Emanuel says the story is "b.s."

Nancy Pelosi: She Who Saved Comprehensive Healthcare Reform

The New York Times joins Politico with an article that gives House Speaker Nancy Pelosi much of the credit for comprehensive healthcare reform. Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Jeff Zeleny, and Carl Hulse report that after Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate election, the prospects for comprehensive reform died. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel urged President Obama to abandon the more elaborate package and to pursue piecemeal legislation. Pelosi dismissed this approach as "Kiddie Care."

The New York Times article confirms much of the substance of the Politco article, but it adds factual details. The New York Times describes a partnership between Obama and Pelosi that developed once he trusted her instincts on reform more than his most senior advisor.

Here is a clip from the article:

In a series of impassioned conversations, over the telephone and in the Oval Office, [Pelosi] conveyed her frustration to the president, according to four people familiar with the talks. If she and Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, were going to stick out their necks for Mr. Obama’s top legislative priority, Ms. Pelosi wanted assurances that the president would too. At the White House, aides to Mr. Obama say, he also wanted assurances; he needed to hear that the leaders could pass his far-reaching plan.
“We’re in the majority,” Ms. Pelosi told the president. “We’ll never have a better majority in your presidency in numbers than we’ve got right now. We can make this work.”

Now, in what could become a legislative Lazarus tale — or at least the most riveting cliffhanger of the Obama presidency so far— the House is set to take up the health bill for what Democrats hope will be the last time.

For Mr. Obama, who vowed earlier this month to do “everything in my power” to see the bill to fruition, the measure’s passage would be an extraordinary triumph. Its defeat could weaken him for the rest of his days in office.

Only a month ago, several journalists wrote off comprehensive healthcare reform and asserted that Emanuel was right to advocate less. Today, it appears that the opposite is true.

See also: Pelosi Convinced Obama to Reject Emanuel's "Kiddie Care" Proposal and to Pursue Comprehensive Reform.

Pelosi Convinced Obama to Reject Emanuel's "Kiddie Care" Proposal and to Pursue Comprehensive Reform

Politico writers Carrie Budoff Brown and Glenn Thrush report that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi convinced President Obama to renew the push for comprehensive healthcare reform after Scott Brown won the election to replace Senator Edward Kennedy. If the Brown and Thrush article is accurate, then it soundly refutes the notion that passing healthcare reform legislation would vindicate Rahm Emanuel.

Emanuel, as several media sources have reported, preferred a piecemeal approach to healthcare reform.  According to Brown and Thrush, however, Pelosi rejected this strategy and dubbed it "Kiddie Care." The article also reports that Obama was torn between Pelosi's comprehensive approach and Emanuel's incrementalist proposal. Due to Pelosi's advocacy, Obama finally embraced the comprehensive plan and rejected Emanuel's advice.

Despite the upcoming passage of a comprehensive reform package, Politico writer Ben Smith recently argued that the reform legislation would vindicate Emauel.  Liberal bloggers immediately blasted the idea. Now, Smith's own colleagues have finished ripping his theory to shreds.

Apparently, Nate Silver No Longer Believes Liberals Are "Batshit Crazy"

Ben Smith's essay which asserts that passage of the healthcare bill will vindicate Rahm Emanuel's dismissal of liberals has triggered responses from numerous bloggers (see mine here).  Nate Silver's reaction interests me because he once described liberals as "batshit crazy" who challenged White House weakness on progressive aspects of the bill.

Now, Silver describes liberal protest as a rational reaction to President Obama's constituents who want him to fight passionately for their interests (I made the same point a long time ago).  Silver still agrees that the Senate bill is better than "nothing," but he has retreated from his heavy-handed comments regarding progressive protest:

Personally, I think the reason for the increase in support is mostly this: the Democratic leadership, and particularly President Obama, are now fighting for this bill tooth and nail. They didn't necessarily have to do this; they could have thrown in the towel, passed off some bipartisan crap that didn't do much to help the uninsured, and called it a day. That's what Rahm Emanuel wanted to do, as Chris Bowers points out. But that isn't what Obama did: instead, he's gone all-in on the thing, potentially staking his Presidency on the outcome. Liberals like the idea of being the scrappy underdog -- being the fighter -- and Obama, after a strangely aloof performance on the health care bill throughout 2009, has been fighting the good fight. . . .

The lesson for the White House, I think, is that liberals (like any other voters) react as much to tone as to substance. A bill might not meet every objective on the liberal checklist, but so long as you're Fighting Like Hell for it, liberals are usually going to be willing to fight for you too.

My Take
Liberals, whom Silver previously described as "batshit crazy," always wanted more "fight" from the White House -- although I believe that Sliver overstates the role of this fight in shifting liberal support. Liberals have also compromised now that all other options have expired. That is an integral part of politics and social movement activity.

Ben Smith Argues That Liberal Support For Health Bill Vindicates Rahm Emanuel

Apparently, Rahm Emanuel's media buddies could not resist the urge to write another love piece. Today, Ben Smith of Politico asserts that a new poll which shows that liberal voters support healthcare reform vindicates Emanuel. Emanuel has argued that the White House should not make concessions to liberals because they would come around eventually.

Smith's article, however, is too simplistic as an analysis of contemporary politics. First, the passage of reform legislation cannot vindicate Emanuel since, as numerous articles report, he favored a much slimmer bill and feared that a large one would not pass. If anything, the passage of this bill -- though smaller than what many liberals wanted -- proves Emanuel wrong.  Emanuel argued that comprehensive reform would not pass; he -- not the liberals -- was wrong.

Second, Smith misunderstands the debate among liberals regarding healthcare reform. Liberals have always favored reform, and many liberals always favored the Senate bill. Many liberals, however, were angry that the White House did not do enough to support more progressive and sensible measures like the public plan option. The public plan represented the most rational argument regarding cost containment (other than a single-payer system). Although President Obama advocated it during the campaign, he never forcefully backed it as president. This angered liberals, causing some people to argue that Congress should abandon the Senate bill and start the process again.

But after the "kill" option evaporated, liberals -- contrary to the White House line -- accepted compromise. The fact that liberals now support this good yet flawed bill actually proves Emanuel and the White House wrong.  White House staff circulated a narrative that portrayed liberals as unforgiving and unwavering ideologues (also known as "fucking retards"). Obama, on the other hand, was portrayed as the smart pragmatist.  The mainstream narrative about liberals was clearly inaccurate.

Finally, Smith makes the mistake of equating one battle with an entire war. The struggle over healthcare reform has emboldened many liberals.  Labor unions have threatened moderate Democrats with primary challenges.  MoveOn has promised the same. Even Obama has shown some needed spunk and told on-the-fence Democrats that he would not raise money for them if they voted against the bill. Liberals have always wanted a fight. The fact that they accept this mixed victory does not vindicate Rahm Emanuel in any way, shape or form. It simply shows that liberals can cut their losses and move forward when appropriate. It does not mean, however, that they have become a doormat for the White House or Rahm Emanuel. Perhaps, Smith's analysis is merely wishful thinking.

Representative Massa: Recidivist Groper?

The Washington Post, quoting three anonymous sources close to the ethical investigation of Representative Eric Massa, reports that Massa groped multiple male staffers. The allegations against Massa reportedly date back one year.

During a recent radio interview, Massa admitted to running his fingers through the hair of a male staffer while making a sexual comment. Massa, however, accuses White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer of using the ethical complaint process to chase him out of Congress in order to eliminate his "no" vote on healthcare reform. Massa says that he is only guilty of using "salty" language.

The Latest Installment of Rahmology

The New York Times delivers the latest installment of Rahmology -- devoting 8 web pages to analyzing the White House Chief of Staff. The article, written by Peter Baker, is a "preview" to an article in the forthcoming New York Times Magazine.

The article does not tell readers much that differs from other installments in the Rahmology genre. Instead, it simply provides more background details about Emanuel in an effort to explore what makes him tick. You can read the full article here: Magazine Preview - The Limits of Rahmism

Related articles on Dissenting Justice:

Poor Rahm Emanuel: Misunderstood, Ignored, and Handsome

OK, We Get It: The Washington Post "Hearts" Rahm Emanuel!

Rep. Massa: Lunatic or Victim of Diabolical Plot?

Last week, Representative Eric Massa announced that he would resign from Congress. Yesterday, Massa came out swinging against Rahm Emanuel and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, accusing them of forcing him out of Congress to eliminate a possible Democratic vote against the healthcare bill.

Massa Speaks About the Alleged Sexual Harassment
The facts in this saga are still emerging, but here are some preliminary details. Massa has admitted to making a sexually laced comment to an aide at a New Year's Eve party/wedding. Apparently, Massa made the comments after drinking massive quantities of alcohol.

Massa admits to the following exchange, which he says was recorded by cameras:

"I said goodnight to the bridesmaid,” Massa continued. “I sat down at the table where my whole staff was, all of them by the way bachelors.”

“One of them looked at me and as they would do after, I don’t know, 15 gin and tonics, and goodness only knows how many bottles of champagne, a staff member made an intonation to me that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid and his points were clear and his words were far more colorful than that,” Massa said. “And I grabbed the staff member sitting next to me and said, ‘Well, what I really ought to be doing is fracking you.’ And then [I] tossled the guy’s hair and left, went to my room, because I knew the party was getting to a point where it wasn’t right for me to be there. Now was that inappropriate of me? Absolutely. Am I guilty? Yes.”

Massa says that the person to whom he made the comments did not complain of any harassment, but that another aide made an ethics complaint.

Massa Accuses Emanuel and Hoyer of Pushing Him Out of Congress
Massa accuses Emanuel and Hoyer of trying to push him out of Congress in order to eliminate a possible "no" vote on healthcare reform. Massa says that he "was set up for this from the very, very beginning. . . The leadership of the Democratic Party have become exactly what they said they were running against."

Massa was especially critical of Hoyer. He says that Hoyer has been improperly discussing the details of the ethical complaint against him before an investigation has made any findings.

Massa is either a lunatic, a victim or both.

White House Brushes Aside Media Scrutiny

The White House continues to brush aside media scrutiny that portrays conflict and ineffectiveness among President Obama's senior staff. Several of the articles have portrayed Rahm Emanuel as a pragmatic moderate and Obama's other staff members, particularly Valarie Jarrett and David Axelrod, as Obama-worshippers who are unfamiliar with the grit of Washington.

Axelrod, whom the New York Times recently portrayed as being weary from the job, argues that no one outside of Washington cares about the scrutiny. A Politico article quotes Axelrod as saying:

This is what Washington does — it gets itself into a tizzy . . . We dismiss it for what it is. There aren’t 10 people outside of Washington who give a rat’s ass about any of this. They’ve got bigger stuff to worry about, and we’re trying to worry about that. The same people who are all in a tizzy right now are the same people who called us idiots for the better part of two years.

According to Politico more White House scrutiny will take place in the near future:

And it’s not over: The New York Times magazine has an Emanuel profile by Peter Baker scheduled for publication soon. Emanuel and his brother Zeke, a health-care expert with the White House Office of Management and Budget, sat for an interview by CBS’s Katie Couric that’s scheduled to air on “60 Minutes” on March 21.

Two Points
First: Interestingly, none of this abundant scrutiny focuses on President Obama.

Second: Axelrod's dismissive response is either political grandstanding or a sign that he is tone deaf. Although he is right that a majority of the public does not focus on the daily workings of the White House, voters now oppose many of Obama's proposals that they once favored. This sounds like a communications problem, which only the White House can repair. Even if the journalistic accounts are wrong in substance, this does not mean that the White House is above criticism or errors.


See also: Faux White House Intrigue Obscures Deeper Disarray

NYT On David Axelrod: Tired, Confused, But Determined

New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich has written an article that analyzes David Axelrod (a welcomed departure from the Rahm Emanuel love fest that has gripped the media). Leibovich portrays Axelrod as tired, confused, yet determined.

Tired
Leibovich reports that several of Axelrod's friends are concerned about his health. According to the article, Axelrod, who is 55-years-old, lives on 5 hours of sleep per day, and he spends only one week with his family each month:

Mr. Axelrod’s friends worry about the toll of his job — citing his diet (cold-cut-enriched), his weight (20 pounds heavier than at the start of the presidential campaign), sleep deprivation (five fitful hours a night), separation from family (most back home in Chicago) and the fact that at 55, he is considerably older than many of the wunderkind workaholics of the West Wing. He wakes at 6 in his rented condominium just blocks from the White House and typically returns around 11.

Confused
Leibovich also reports that Axelrod seems confused by the public's failure to appreciate the daunting challenges that the Obama Administration faces. Axelrod has received a lot of criticism for not creating an effective communications strategy for President Obama. Although Obama's message during the presidential campaign was pitch perfect, according to many observers, he has lacked a coherent strategy as president. These observations leave Axelrod scratching his head:

Mr. Axelrod said he accepts some blame for what he called “communication failures,” though he acknowledges bafflement that the administration’s efforts to stimulate the economy in a crisis, overhaul health care and prosecute two wars have been so routinely framed by opponents as the handiwork of a big-government, soft-on-terrorism, politics-of-the-past ideologue.

"For me, the question is, why haven’t we broken through more than we have?” Mr. Axelrod said. “Why haven’t we broken through?"

Determined
Despite the hardships, Axelrod, who admittedly does not like Washington, comes across as determined and undaunted:

Mr. Axelrod is tired, but he says that is nothing new. “I have dealt with a lot of ‘real stuff’ in my life,” he said, referring to his daughter’s long struggle with epilepsy, his father’s suicide and his wife’s bout with breast cancer. “The disapprobation of some folks in Washington doesn’t seem very meaningful.”

Perhaps Axelrod can take solace in the fact that he only committed to doing this work for about two years -- a term that will soon expire.

Final Take
This article does not analyze Rahm Emanuel in much detail. Nevertheless, it subtly supports the growing media depiction of Emanuel as a skillful Washington insider and Obama's other senior advisers as clueless devotees of the president.


See also: A Baffled David Alexrod

David Broder Tosses Ice-Cold Water on WaPo's Emanuel Love Fest

Washington Post writers Ezra Klein, Dana Milbank, and Jason Horowitz have engaged in public displays of affection for Rahm Emanuel. Last weekend, however, Washington Post writer Colbert King rained on the parade with a scathing critique of Emanuel. Whereas the former portrayed Emanuel as a skillful taskmaster whom President Obama foolishly shunned to accept the counsel of starry-eyed advisers (like Jarrett and Axelrod), King argued that Emanuel was a classic Washington insider who wanted to blunt the possibility of meaningful change.

Today, David Broder joins King and expresses passionate dissent from the Emanuel love fest. Broder's article, "The Fable of Emanuel the Great," criticizes his colleagues who have portrayed Obama "as a weakling and a chronic screw-up who is wrecking his administration despite everything that his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, can do to make things right." Broder says that this is a "remarkable fiction" started by his "friend" Milbank.

Broder offers a very different perspective from "others" in the White House who apparently have not been seduced by Emanuel's "distractingly prominent quadriceps." According to that narrative:

The underlying problem . . . is a badly damaged economy that has sunk Obama's poll numbers and emboldened Republicans to blockade his legislative program.

Emanuel, who left a leadership post in the House to serve his fellow Chicagoan, Obama, has worked loyally for the president and is not suspected personally by his colleagues of inspiring these Post pieces.

But, as one White House staffer said to me, "Rahm likes to win," and when the losses began to pile up, he probably vented his frustrations to some of his old pals in Congress. It's clear that some of them are talking to the press.

Finally, Broder contends that the flurry of stories praising Emanuel have emerged because his "friends are so eager to exonerate him," but that in doing so, "they are threatening to undermine the president." Broder, however, argues that Obama should simply ignore Emanuel's media pals:

From too many years of covering politics, I have come to believe as Axiom One that the absolute worst advice politicians ever receive comes from journalists who fancy themselves great campaign strategists.

Broder's article is quite refreshing. I was beginning to suspect that the Washington Post server was taken over by an Emanuel-loving computer virus.

Poor Rahm Emanuel: Misunderstood, Ignored, and Handsome

The New Republic has joined the Washington Post's Rahm Emanuel lovefest. Noam Scheiber's article portrays Emanuel with greater complexity than Dana Milbank and Ezra Klein. Ultimately, however, Scheiber describes Emanuel favorably as a skillful, crude -- yet handsome -- dude:

At 50, Emanuel has the lean, taut look of a lifelong swimmer, with broad shoulders and distractingly prominent quadriceps. But at the heart of the Emanuel mystique is the family patois, which lurches between pronounced curtness and vivid, sometimes scatological, imagery. Emanuel will casually toss off quips like, “You’re in the bowels of nothin,’ man.” One former colleague recalls making two or three requests during a sensitive negotiation, only to have Emanuel respond: “Well, I guess if I can take care of Bill Clinton’s blow jobs, I can take care of that.”

And then there are the f-bombs, which Emanuel reels off like a verbal tic, sometimes embedding them in other words with Germanic aplomb. There is, for example, “Fucknutsville” (his pet name for Washington) and “knucklefuck” (an honorific bestowed on Republican opponents). In administration meetings, Emanuel will occasionally announce, “I think it’s fucking idiotic, but it’s your call.” (That would be Rahm-speak for: “You have more expertise than I do on this subject.”) He’s even been known to use the imprecation as a term of endearment, as when he signs off friendly phone calls: “Fuck you. See you later. I love you.” As Phil Kellam, one of Emanuel’s star recruits from the 2006 election cycle, recently joked to me, “If you could sum up Rahm Emanuel, it would be: big ideas, big mouth, big heart, little finger” (Emanuel lost half his middle finger in a teenage accident.) (emphasis added).

These public displays of Emanuel-affection are becoming too much.

Scheiber also portrays Emanuel as the smart yet ignored Chief of Staff. In doing so, Scheiber comes closer than any of the other Emanuel-lovers to blame Obama for his shortcomings:

[T]he enormity of the challenges Barack Obama faces, and the ambitiousness of his program, mean he has almost no margin for error. Indeed, Emanuel--the grizzled, battle-hardened Washington insider--was brought into the Obama White House for precisely this reason, because Obama was shrewd enough to recognize the chasm between campaigning and governing, and that what works in one domain can be debilitating in the other. Put simply, Emanuel is the chief of staff most presidents turn to when they realize their first chief of staff has failed them. To hire Rahm is to skip right to Leon Panetta without first enduring Mack McLarty.

But what we’re discovering is that Obama wasn’t prepared to give up on his campaign ideals so quickly. Deep down, he didn’t necessarily want a hard-nosed insider to execute his agenda; maybe he just wanted to want such a person. For all of his flaws, Rahm Emanuel was supposed to be the man who helped Barack Obama do things the easy way rather than learn lessons the hard way. But, sometimes, deciding to go the easy way can be the hardest thing of all (emphasis added).

Emanuel continues to cast his spell.

See also on Dissenting Justice:

Update: White House Responds to Washington Post's Adoration of Rahm Emanuel

OK, We Get It: The Washington Post "Hearts" Rahm Emanuel!.

Update: White House Responds to Washington Post's Adoration of Rahm Emanuel

Earlier today, Dissenting Justice examined a series of articles in which Washington Post writers Ezra Klein, Jason Horowitz, and Dana Milbank have lavished praise upon Rahm Emanuel and defended him from his liberal critics. Milbank notoriously argued that other senior White House staff were giving Obama shoddy advice and that Emanuel was the only skilled politician within the group. Horowitz repeated many of Milbank's arguments and portrayed Emanuel as the reasonable -- yet misunderstood and ignored -- member of Obama's staff.

Now, the White House has denied allegations of discord among Obama's senior advisers. According to The Hill, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the Washington Post articles. Gibbs said "I don't subscribe to all of it or a lot of [the reports]" and that Emanuel has the full confidence of the President.

OK, We Get It: The Washington Post "Hearts" Rahm Emanuel!

First, Ezra Klein defended Rahm Emanuel against growing concerns that he was failing President Obama. Next, Dana Milbank/Emanuel infamously argued that Emanuel is the only person with good political skills among Obama's senior White House staff. Now, Jason Horowitz has written the latest love letter from the Washington Post to Rahm Emanuel.

In the article, "Hotheaded Emanuel May Be White House Voice of Reason," Horowitz acknowledges that many commentators blame Emanuel for Obama's declining approval ratings. Horowitz, however, in a very glowing essay, sketches out a "contrarian narrative":

Emanuel is a force of political reason within the White House and could have helped the administration avoid its current bind if the president had heeded his advice on some of the most sensitive subjects of the year: health-care reform, jobs and trying alleged terrorists in civilian courts.

It is a view propounded by lawmakers and early supporters of President Obama who are frustrated because they think the administration has gone for the perfect at the expense of the plausible. They believe Emanuel, the town's leading purveyor of four-letter words, a former Israeli army volunteer and a product of a famously argumentative family, was not aggressive enough in trying to persuade a singularly self-assured president and a coterie of true-believer advisers that "change you can believe in" is best pursued through accomplishments you can pass.

The article does not add much substance to the observations of Milbank and Klein -- except that it provides a lot of pithy quotes from Emanuel's Rolodex of friends, which will raise suspicion (yet again) about his (or his friends') connection to Washington Post writers. Overall, the article portrays Emanuel as a misunderstood and ignored voice of reason. It does not, however, take cheap shots at others in the White House (e.g., Jarrett, Axelrod) like the earlier essay by Milbank. Perhaps this is a sign that the Washington Post and Emanuel are responding to criticism of the earlier chapters in this love story.

Ironically, while Horowitz portrays Obama as ungrounded and Emanuel as a pragmatist, the media have typically portrayed Obama as a pragmatist and his liberal critics as unyielding ideologues. The political landscape has certainly changed.

At least one Washington Post writer is having no part in the Emanuel love fest. Colbert King, a huge Obama supporter, wrote a scathing article regarding Emanuel over the weekend. King basically argues that Obama is reaping what he sowed by picking a Washington insider to serve as Chief of Staff.

"Healthcare Lite": Does The White House Have a Fallback Position?

According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House has prepared a scaled-down healthcare reform package that would accomplish far less than the Obama administration's current proposal. Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, however, says that this is not true.

Klein chides the Wall Street Journal for pushing the idea that the White House is considering "health-care lite." Klein, however, concedes that since August, the White House has debated the merits of a lighter reform package.

According to Klein, Rahm Emanuel pushed the idea of aiming low, believing that comprehensive reform either could not pass or that it would cost Democrats votes in the midterm elections. The Wall Street Journal also reports that Emanuel pushed a smaller package, but the article states that he did not design the alternative policy. Klein says that Emanuel pushed the idea again after Scott Brown won the Massachusetts senate race. According to Klein, however, advocates of the comprehensive plan won the debate on each occasion.

The Wall Street Journal article relies on anonymous sources. Klein's does too, but Klein's sources are from within the White House, while the Wall Street Journal does not cite White House sources -- even anonymously -- a factor that for Klein raises suspicion of attempted "sabotage."

Query: Dana Milbank's recent Washington Post article that reads like a personal marketing statement for Rahm Emanuel also states that Emanuel pushed a much smaller reform package. According to Milbank/Emanuel, President Obama's failure to listen to Emanuel was a terrible mistake. Could the Wall Street Journal article represent a last-ditch effort by Emanuel's people to bring attention to healthcare lite?

Update: Klein says that the Wall Street Journal has now updated the article without saying so; the new version drops a quote from an anonymous, senior White House official. But the clever Klein made a screen-capture of the original article.

Rahm Emanuel: Ghostwriter for Dana Milbank?

Recently, Dana Milbank wrote an article that passionately defends White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel against a torrent of criticism. Many commentators have argued that Emanuel has been an ineffective strategist for the White House and have openly called for President Obama to fire him.

When I first read the article, I immediately suspected that much of its content probably came directly from Emanuel or from people close to him. The article barely pretends to approach the subject of Emanuel's performance objectively, and it is laced with anecdotes and perspectives that only Emanuel or someone very close to him could have provided.

For example, the article reports that Obama has rejected Emanuel's advice on various strategies and followed the advice of Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, and Robert Gibbs. Milbank portrays Obama as the victim of the latter's bad advice. Milbank, however, would not know the specific moments of conflict between Obama's senior advisers unless someone very close to the White House informed him.

An article in Politico makes a plausible case that Milbank merely transcribed Emanuel's views. Others have also speculated about Milbank's source. In particular, Cenk Uygur of the Huffington Post argues that "Dana Milbank transcribed an article written by Rahm Emanuel today in The Washington Post. Never has an article been more clearly written to support a political benefactor."

In response to the Politico story, Milbank has denied that he spoke to Emanuel for his article. But it is less clear, however, whether Milbank spoke to someone very close to Emanuel. Milbank simply says that Emanuel's "people were. . .disinclined to help me with this column, out of fear of just the reaction that would occur: people would suggest he spoon fed it to me." Even if Emanuel's people were "disinclined" to contribute, this does not mean that they ultimately refused to speak to Milbank. If Milbank did not speak to Emanuel or persons close to him, then his portrayal of conflict in the White House lacks credibility. If Milbank spoke to Emanuel or his people, then he should have disclosed this fact. Either way, the story has a cloud over it.

RELATED STORY: OK, We Get It: The Washington Post "Hearts" Rahm Emanuel!

WaPo's Ezra Klein Defends Rahm Emanuel; Says Growing Criticism Is "Weird"

Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein has defended Rahm Emanuel against a growing number of critics who insist that he is bad news for President Obama. Klein argues that "[i]t's a bit weird to see so much blame accruing to Rahm Emanuel for the administration's woes." More specifically, Klein contends that:

I'm not an Emanuel fan, as it happens. In most of my reporting, he was not particularly pleased with doing a big health-care reform bill in the first place, and at multiple steps along the way, he's argued for scaling it back dramatically. But his personal opinions aside, I'm not sure what else he could've done in shepherding the bill through the process. And if Martha Coakley hadn't insisted on mocking Red Sox fans, health-care reform might well have been signed by now and the White House would've pivoted to a more populist argument about jobs and banks while being able to brag about the largest legislative achievement since Lyndon Johnson.

Bad luck has left them in a very different place than that, and a lot of people want someone to blame. But given the precise contours of Emanuel's job -- keep the White House running smoothly and help craft its strategy with Congress -- I'm not convinced that he's the right guy. What's clearly the case is that his strategy stopped being suited for the circumstances the day Scott Brown won the election. But after a week of readjustment, the White House seems to be doing what it can to take control of the process, and I'd say it's too early to tell whether its new approach will work.

So, "bad luck" explains the series of problems -- not the administration's top political strategist. For contrary opinions, including my own, see: Democrats Offer Scathing Criticism of Obama's Senior Staff.

Earlier this year, Klein defended Obama against liberal critics who argued that by dropping the public plan option during Senate negotiations, President Obama betrayed a campaign promise. Klein made the utterly inaccurate assertion that the Senate bill and Obama's campaign proposals were "remarkably similar." See: Ezra Klein's "Pink=Blue=Colors" Logic Regarding Healthcare Reform.

See also on Dissenting Justice:

OK, We Get It: The Washington Post "Hearts" Rahm Emanuel!

Rahm Emanuel: Ghostwriter for Dana Milbank?

Democrats Offer Scathing Criticism of Obama's Senior Staff

Career Democrats (not just "outsider" liberal critics) are beginning to criticize President Obama's senior staff. The Hill, for example, reports that liberal and moderate Democrats in Congress blame Rahm Emanuel for the Obama administration's poor performance on healthcare reform.

Although both sides point to Emanuel, they do so for different reasons. Moderates fault Emanuel for only seeking the support of a narrow band of politicians, like Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Liberals, on the other hand, argue that Emanuel gave Senator Max Bachus too much time to negotiate with Republicans, like Senator Charles Grassley (who shamelessly joined Sarah Palin to condemn the bill for promoting "death panels").

On some level the criticisms sound contradictory (too much outreach versus not enough outreach to Republicans). Nevertheless, they all single out Emanuel as a problem for Obama. They also attribute Emanuel's shortcomings to his lack of Senate experience (which raises the question: Where is Joe Biden?).

In addition to The Hill article, former Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder has written a scathing critique of Obama's senior staff in Politico. Wilder, who supported Obama over Hillary Clinton, argued that Obama needs to shake up his senior staff and remove Tim Kaine as Chair of the Democratic National Committee:

I am an admirer of Tim Kaine, whom I backed in his current position and as one of my successors as Virginia governor and even recommended for the vice presidency. But a spate of recent losses in races that Democrats should have won underscores what has been obvious to me for a long time: The chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee is the wrong job for him.

The changes must go much deeper. Obama’s West Wing is filled with people who are in their jobs because of their Chicago connections or because they signed on with Obama early during his presidential campaign.

One problem is that they do not have sufficient experience at governing at the executive branch level. The deeper problem is that they are not listening to the people.

Hearing is one thing; listening is another.

Although these recent critiques focus on Obama's staff, they implicitly raise questions regarding the extent to which Obama himself is responsible for his shortcomings. Admittedly, while Obama filled many policy positions with experienced individuals, a lot of his senior advisers in the White House are Chicago pals or people who endorsed him at critical stages of his campaign. Accordingly, Wilder's critique seems legitimate.

Nevertheless, some of the qualities that Democrats now demand -- experience and toughness -- are things they explicitly rejected in Hillary Clinton during the Democratic presidential primaries. Democrats said that they wanted a "fresh face," rather than "experience," and that they wanted a "unifier," rather than a "fighter."

Now, hearing Democrats demand that Obama become tougher or that he replace his staff with veteran Washington politicians reminds me of Clinton's famous campaign statement: "You campaign in poetry and govern in prose." At this point, no one can honestly debate these words.

"Fucking Retards": Why Didn't Rahm Emanuel Apologize to Liberals?

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that during a private conversation in August 2009, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said that liberal critics of conservative and moderate Democrats were "fucking retards." Cute. According to ABC News, however, Emanuel has offered an apology to the "disabled community" for his remarks. Although he has acknowledged making the statement, Emanuel has not apologized to liberals.

Emanuel and other close advisers of President Obama have frequently criticized liberals. After the White House instructed Senate Democrats to capitulate to Senator Joe Lieberman's request that they drop the public health plan option, many liberals denounced the move and demanded that Democrats in turn reject the Senate bill. In response, White House senior staff separately referred to liberals as "irrational" and "insane." By describing liberals as "fucking retards," Emanuel is simply towing the White House line in an effort to isolate politically and to show contempt for progressives.

For related readings on Dissenting Justice, see:

Just a Little Note: People Closer to Obama -- Not the Clintons -- Are Calling Liberals "Insane" and "Irrational"

While White House Condemns Liberals, Congressional Moderates Remain Inflexible

NYT's Adam Nagourney Peddles New White House Attacks on Progressives

Rahm Emanuel Tells Liberals To Kiss His Arse

Why Is Obama Still Protecting Lieberman?

White House Shows Its True Colors on Healthcare Reform

Liberals Battle White House Over Healthcare Reform

Irrational Robert Gibbs Says Howard Dean Is Irrational

Nate Silver Calls Progressives "Batshit Crazy"; Readers Turn the Table

Just a Little Note: People Closer to Obama -- Not the Clintons -- Are Calling Liberals "Insane" and "Irrational"

Although President Obama chose a lot of people from the Clinton administration to fill his Cabinet and staff positions, these individuals have not paraded around calling liberals "insane" and "irrational." Before his election, many liberals incorrectly believed that Obama, not Clinton, was a liberal dream-come-true. But during the first epic battle of his presidency, some of his closest allies, including David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs, and Rahm Emanuel, have ridiculed liberals who oppose the pseudo-reform bill that passed in the Senate. Uncritical belief in a politician never pays off.