Rahm Emmanuel - Yes or No?

Simple poll: do you like or not like the selection of Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff?

< Young Turks Election Day Contest Results | Classic Young Turks Video Clips >

Poll

Rahm - Yes or No?
Yes, I like. 66%
No, I no like. 33%

Votes: 84
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
Interesting choice. He impresses me as an SOB at his core. Well, that's what Bob Haldemann said one has to be in that role. He'll certainly be interesting to watch.

by Verified1 on 11/06/2008 05:05:37 PM EST

I know it's selfish but I want to see Obama surrounded by those I agree with ideologically and RE is not one of them.

by toosinbeymen on 11/06/2008 05:24:18 PM EST

Didnt we just have an administration that emersed itself in yes-men and believers?

It doesnt work. You have to be able to see the entire political battlefield and be able to anticipate and make moves.

by calturner on 11/07/2008 11:37:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The Chief of Staff is a facilitator role not a policy role, he helps the Pres execute his agenda. The only qualm I have about him is his Clinton past... but Dean gave him a resounding thumbs up and I generally agree with Dean.

by pictman on 11/07/2008 12:49:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's his tenure in the House that should give you pause. Nevertheless, as I stated below, I think I like him as chief-of-staff. It ends his tenure in the House as well.

by Weapon X on 11/07/2008 11:53:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
All the charisma in the world means jack-all in the face of getting things done.  Just saying.

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 11/06/2008 07:57:10 PM EST

In all fairness, I really don’t know of Rahm Emmanuel, but I have enough faith in Obama to make the right decision. 

 

Regarding this quasi-poll, they should have allowed for a third option, such as undecided.  All good statistical polls must contain an option that is neither pro nor con because not all people will fit nicely into an either yes or no camp.  

by neurochem on 11/06/2008 08:04:23 PM EST

I live in IL so on paper I *should* know more about him, but I don't.

I'll be reading up. My relatively un-educated guess is that he's good in so far as he'll kick ass but bad in that he's a bit of a DLC Dem.

by ihavenobias on 11/06/2008 10:49:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Ihavenobias: You are the first I have heard make mention of the DLC aspect.

There has been no discussion in the media of the DLC, historical or otherwise. It's no wonder. Let's see... could it be... the corporate stance of the DLC?  Or maybe the opposition of Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy by  Rahm Emanuel. Oh, the laundry list.

 There was also no mention of the DLC when Hillary was running for prez. Right-o.


 

by gialuna on 11/07/2008 03:48:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I have heard a lot of talk about the DLC stuff.

And back when Hillary was still in it, it was one of the major defining points of discussion between her and Obama. 

Where are you getting your news?

by ProfRich on 11/07/2008 09:57:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]

He's to blame for my district being stuck with Peter Roskam after the retirement of Henry Hyde. Rahm was the one who decided which Dems would be backed in the primaries and he plucked Tammy Duckworth out of the clear blue sky, tried to find her a residence in the district, financed her over Christine Cegelis (who came damn near beating 30+ Congressman Henry Hyde in the previous election when the Dems refused to finance her) and then allowed the naivete of Duckworth in not pointing out that she was an Iraq vet who lost her legs in the war while Roskam kept slamming her for being a "cut-and-run" liberal on non-stop TV ads and interviews.

I used to have high hopes for Rahm in the House, now whenever I start to believe in him again I pull out the letter I sent him and his response before he finalized the decision to back Duckworth instead of letting the Dem primary play out. In reading my reasoned, empassioned plea and the response I remember that he thought of himself as the penultimate genious and valued his own ego and power over reality and the best interests of the party and therefore the country.

 Having said all that... I do think he will be a good chief-of-staff, lol.

by Weapon X on 11/08/2008 12:15:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Now that's a hare-core response! See, I didn't follow him that closely.

by ihavenobias on 11/08/2008 11:59:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
he's known for keeping the trains running on time.  The quote I heard was that if the conductor couldn't do the job, Emmanuel would yank him from the job and do it himself.  He'll have to do more gatekeeping than hands on as chief of staff, but he should make the business community happy.

by gatekeeper50 on 11/06/2008 08:07:35 PM EST

For the past year I have been fighting to try and get my fellow Chicagoans and Illinoisans to start fighting against Rahm being appointed to Obama's soon-to-be-vacant Senate Seat. I want another great senator like Dick Durbin. If Jan Schakowsky gets the appointment I think Illinois will have the best Senate duo in the country. We need someone who will be part of the coalition with Durbin, Feingold, Dodd, et al.

The fact that now Rahm cannot be my Senator is reason enough to support this move. Also, he was a great detriment in the House because he often fought against liberal Dems.

Rahm is an incredibly intelligent, engaging and forceful personality, so I am glad he's on our side (sort of). It is much better to have him out of the Congress. His smarts and influence are much better to have serving President Obama's agenda. Also, the President-elect has demonstrated an ability to weigh differing advice while still able to keep his own views. He will be a good chief-of-staff, I think. It's also cool that a black president will have a Jewish chief-of-staff.

by Weapon X on 11/06/2008 08:12:50 PM EST

Although i can't make an informed decision, i'm voting yes because i agree with Obama's decisions on who to have as his staff as i know it will be well informed and well decided.

by DungeonMaster on 11/06/2008 08:27:23 PM EST

Rahm Emmanuel is one og the major reasons I have been telling people for MONTHS that their notion of Obama as a Liberal is off-base. He could EASILY be a Republican and he is SURE to appease, appease, appease the victory away.

Clinton fans should feel relief, one of theirs will be having a HUGE say after all. Wall Street won't shed tears, either. The Right Wing pundits will moan and pretend they're pulling out their hair, but DON'T believe it. The only thing which could be more to their benefit is if he had chosen Lieberman.

Although not a surprise, I would have wished for Obama's first major decision to be one which reflected his campaign rhetoric rather than running to the Blue Dogs and DLC right out of the dugout.

by MedfordTim on 11/06/2008 09:22:48 PM EST

Although not a surprise, I would have wished for Obama's first major decision to be one which reflected his campaign rhetoric...

Actions, not words, Tim. Barack had no problem breaking his promise to take the public financing route against McCain. He'll have no qualms breaking any other promise.

by Twba on 11/07/2008 12:48:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]

ALL of Obama's funds came from public financing - just not from the government fund. Silly argument.

I've been around long enough to know that a politician will promise anything during a campaign, including many things over which he has no control. I know how to discount the obvious crapola.

I believe Obama really does want to change things. 

I also really believe that putting people who profit by status quo around him as advisors is a sure way to NOT accomplish change.

We'll see...

by MedfordTim on 11/07/2008 06:01:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
ALL of Obama's funds came from public financing...

No, Tim, all of his financing was private. Public money is government money. Your money is private. It's helpful to understand the distinction. I hope your money remains private despite Obama's wishes.

I've been around long enough to know that a politician will promise anything during a campaign, including many things over which he has no control.

The president has very little control over taxes, health care, green collar jobs, etc. About the only thing the president controls that Obama promised is withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Of course, Obama also supports a surge into the Afghan quagmire. And he made the Clintonian promise to withdraw 'combat' troops from Iraq. That could leave a whole lot of troops in Iraq for many years.

I believe Obama really does want to change things.

Change can be for the better or worse. It could get much worse.

by Twba on 11/08/2008 12:34:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I refuse to participate in this black or white view of the world.

by jazzchic on 11/06/2008 10:17:32 PM EST

I did not vote on a boat, I did not vote on a goat...

by pictman on 11/07/2008 01:13:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
According to Chicago Sun-Times .....Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic Caucus chairman, dissented from Speaker Nancy Pelosi's support of a resolution condemning the 92-year-old Armenian genocide that has proved to be the big blunder of her tenure.


Emanuel was not present at the House leadership meeting that approved the resolution dealing with the 1915 slaughter of Armenians allegedly by the Turkish government. But he always has opposed the long-standing effort by the Armenian-American community, dating back to his days as President Clinton's political aide.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc /1P2-9666790.html

Lan siktiiiiiirrrrrr......

by Rufat on 11/06/2008 10:39:31 PM EST

Too many liberals are wussies and Progressives arent much better.

Im a liberal from VA and I have a concealed carry permit and like guns very much.

There arent enough rough and ready Dems out there despite the big wins.

This is smashmouth football time, we need to put the boots to the Republcians and destroy them if we can because they'll just retool and reload and come right back if we dont.

the GWOT is a long fight and not for the soft at heart. The Dems need to prove themselves able to make the tough calls and get their hands dirty AND LEAD THE WORLD.

by calturner on 11/07/2008 11:35:23 AM EST

Hey dude you left out the third G of the tripartite God, Guns, and Glory...

by pictman on 11/07/2008 12:56:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Those dissapointed and worried about the Emanuel appointment are completely missing what is in fact a totally BRILLIANT move to advance the progressive agenda.

If Rahm Emanuel were left in congress then one of two horrible events were inevtable.

EITHER Emanuel would become speaker consolidating the "Blue Dog" faction to a power base promoting corporatism and advancing non progressive congressmen.

OR Emanuel would replace Obama as the new Senator for Ilinois building a potential base for the blue dog concept in the senate.

By taking Emanuel in as Chief of Staff Obama in one move eliminates a whole plank of potential opposition to progressive policy from congress empowering by default the "obama wave" of genuinely progressive congressmen.

Emanuel is a political opperative of enourmous skill now contrained to use that skill to promote OBAMA'S agenda rather than his coprorate donors.

Obama and Emanuel are genuine friends but have significant policy differences but Emanuel is fundamentally a gamer. While he was gaming for himself he was channeling  fundraiser access which enables the distribution of largesse to other congressmen and the collection of favours. Emanuel is not an idealoge he is a power politician. Obama knew that he could not refuse to be at the centre of power and also knows that he will do everything he can to advance his power the fact being that that means he has to support OBAMA'S agenda.

One of the HUGE mistakes that Clinton made on entering office was not understanding how dindametally tricky navigating an agenda through congress can be. He did not have enough experienced "insiders" to do that efficicently. He got completely thrown off track got completely bogged down with side issues and failed to get healthcare passed. Then after the debacle of 94 he was forced to fall onto the "traingulation" concept invented by the worst weasel of politics in existance the aptly named "Dick" Morris.

Note that Clinton did not even have a transition staff in place till the 25th of November and his appointments were ill thought and the cause of considerable problems in his first 6 months in office just to get them approved by congress.

In contrast Obama has hot the ground running with a carefully thought out plan for the transition.

Those that "worry" about what Emanuel "means for the progressive agenda" Have clearly not been paying attention. If you want to know what Obama's agenda is go to Change.gov and you can read it!! It is all there defence healthcare economy energy ethics. Detailed agenda and priorities You can even apply for a job and push your own agenda in any of the departments:)

 I repeatedly pointed out to folks during the campaign that Obama had consistently proved to be smarter than the pundits and most of us about how to win. I think we will soon find that Obama knows how to get his progressive agenda passed better than we do. If you "doubt" that Obama is genuinely progressive then read his books. He is far more progressive than Clinton. He is a master at this. The problem for a lot of people is that they equate liberalism with wimpyness Obama is Liberal but is no wimp and can be utterly ruthless when needed. Just look at how he got into the senate if you dont beleive me. Look at what he did in the Ilinois Senate and the US senate if you doubt his liberalism. The best LIBERAL changes for justice in his ilinois crime bill in the US gauranteeing video taping of interrogations. When he entered the US senate his first priorities were the outrageously neglected issue of "loose nukes" And transparent governement with "google for government".

Consider also his recently balyhooed interview on civil rights and the constitution. In that interview he showed that he understands that to achieve change you have to have a movement for change that knows which levers to pull. The Civil rights movement went off course by relying too much on the courts and not enough on the legislature. Obama knows that to get a progressive agenda through it must be as part of a movement. By bringing Emanuel inside the tent to piss out he removes the most dangerous organisational power that could mobilize opposition and capitulation to the corporatists from congress and to boot gets a real hard ass to push HIS agenda.

Obama is the first president in half a centure at least perhaps in the last century and a half who owes NO favours to cororate donors because although he is not completely "clean" from corporate donations they are dwarfed by the "peoples" donations. Obama knows that if he dissapoints his base which is the US people who volunteered and donated in MILLIONS for his campaign he has no chance of repeating the fundrasing and volunteer flow he achieved in the 2008 election for 2012. I don't think that is even a question.

As Fineman said recently Obama did not run just to BE president he needed to be president to DO stuff. If you still dont know what sort of things Obama wants to do then again I say read his agenda, read his books.

I think Obama is probably the smartest person ever to be elected president of the united states with the possible exception of Jefferson. I think he is a better politician than Jefferson though and also a considerably better man. 

by Scotty12 on 11/07/2008 01:45:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well said, Scotty. One of the best blog entries I've read on TYT in a while.

by Verified1 on 11/07/2008 02:00:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I have no doubt that Obama is Liberal from a SOCIAL POV - it's his economic policies which are transparently Clinton conservatism. Adding Emmanuel does NOT mitigate that; it underscores it.

I get your point about having someone who knows the ropes, but there are other people out there who can do it without the DLC baggage. Chris Dodd comes immediately to mind.

Instead, the COS will be a corporatist, Israel first, Clintonesque piece of the same old shit. You may think it's brilliant politically but I'm still thinking of what is best for the COUNTRY. Emmanuel's counsel is NOT that.

by MedfordTim on 11/07/2008 06:20:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]

As I said above, my greatest worry for the past year has been how to neutralize Rahm if Obama wins. How do we keep him out of the Senate when his ties to the DLC (the Daleys, Clintons and Rod Blagojevich would make his appointment seem inevitable), how to keep him from becoming Speaker if we can keep him out of the Senate, and how to remove his toxic influence on silencing progressives within the Democratic Caucus. And on the flipside Rahm has many gifts other Dems lack, not to mention the experience of being part of Clinton's White House in addition to being a Dem Congressional leader.

Basically what I'm saying is... good comment Scotty. 

by Weapon X on 11/08/2008 12:03:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
too many liberals are afraid to knock heads when necessary...

by sfinneganus on 11/08/2008 04:13:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer"

by elimenez on 11/07/2008 01:19:57 PM EST

I don't know a whole lot about Rahm, but I like what smart people are saying about him - he'll help keep Barack on schedule, protect him from every little request, etc.  I'm already sick of people reading his first appointment as proof that he won't be inclusive in his cabinet.  What, he's supposed to pick someone opposed to him as his right hand?  Hey Rush and you other guys - shhh.  You lost.  You don't get a say.  Shhhh.

He'll have conservatives in other, less important roles, I'm sure. Settle down.

by yul2las on 11/07/2008 02:31:57 PM EST

Here's a cute video from a few years ago - a charity roast for Rahm. Obama is hilarious.

by Verified1 on 11/07/2008 09:17:36 PM EST

was aired on c-span this a.m. Lots of information about him as a person, the professional relationships, and some of his work in the senate. I'm all for this choice.

by tifosies on 11/08/2008 12:41:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I understand that Rahm has a stalwart alignment to Israel and his father was quite the militant Israeli.  I'm not one to judge the the son by the actions of the father.  My question is this, is Rahm committed to the Peace Process or Israeli militancy?  I understand that many stalwart supporters of Israel are in favor of a just and peaceful solution.  I ofcourse agree.  I also think that peace between Israel and Palestine would be the most important victory in the war on terror. Obviously violence, Israeli or Palestinian, is destructive to the peace process.  Where does Emmanuel stand?  How much influence will he have concerning the peace process?  Is Obama going to be 100% comitted to the peace process?  Does anybody have any insight on this?

by s10129107 on 11/07/2008 10:42:21 PM EST

to actually getting a final peace deal, I don't think Rahm would be a hard-liner or a hindrance on this. But I don't remember what his views are specifically. Also, I believe he was more involved in domestic policy and communications than with foreign policy after his promotion in Clinton's second term so maybe he is a hindrance but wasn't really in place to get in the way in the 90s. We haven't had any legitimate, serious attempt at resolving Israel-Palestine since so it's not like we have any other moments-of-truth to analyze from him.

by Weapon X on 11/08/2008 12:19:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]

He's charming AND tough AND profane AND sentimental, has a good sense of humor, gets things done. It's important that he's also a good friend of Obama so that they trust each other.

And he looks wonderful in tights! I wonder if he still practices ballet every weekend.

by zenie on 11/08/2008 12:25:55 PM EST

 Display: