The Note, 2/4/09: Anger Management -- Obama apologizes -- and quickly finds a new subject

February 04, 2009 8:21 AM

By RICK KLEIN

The honeymoon wasn’t going to last forever -- but this was a rude call from the boss, right when he was at the beach.

So he’s not perfect, and suddenly the new kind of politics has never looked so much like the old kind of politics.

But the era of responsibility starts at home -- or, more precisely, in one particular home office.

The challenge for Team Obama will be to tune out the commentary for the next few days. This is Day 15 of a very long journey, despite the spinning (and the temptation to spin the spinning).

The big picture: This will be a footnote to history if the stimulus works. This will be the opening scene in the book of the Obama presidency if it doesn’t.

Team Obama knows that -- and that’s why those ill-timed TV interviews Tuesday showcased something we haven’t seen from a president in a while: mea culpas, an “angry,” “disappointed,” and deeply apologetic president, owning up to missteps that led to the withdrawn nominations of Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer.

“I take responsibility for the situation that we're in,” President Obama told ABC’s Charles Gibson. “The most important thing, from my perspective, is making sure that the American people understand we don't have two sets of rules here, that everybody has responsibilities. In this situation, I take responsibility for it.” 

(And does this sound like a man who’s learning political lessons? “I'm less concerned about bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake,” Obama told Gibson. “I'm interested in solving the problem for the American people as quickly as possible.”) 

(“The president's prepared to compromise,” National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers tells USA Today, “but our focus is on the fact that the American economy badly needs help.”) 

In putting his very bad Tuesday behind him, one measure of political success: What will the ratio of questions be like when Press Secretary Robert Gibbs takes to the podium?

“In only his second week in office, Barack Obama is punching the restart button on his presidency,” Peter Wallsten writes in the Los Angeles Times. “The events are not a defeat for Obama and his legislative priorities, but they do mark a significant reversal of fortune. Obama started building support for the stimulus weeks before he took office, and he came to the White House with a claim that he deserved wide latitude to change how politics are conducted -- a claim that he may no longer clearly hold.” 

“George W. Bush was reluctant to admit any mistakes in eight years. It took Barack Obama just 14 days. And once he started Tuesday, he didn’t stop,” Politico’s Josh Gerstein and Jonathan Martin write. “And he didn’t even try to talk anyone out of the conventional wisdom -- that Daschle and his free limo rides were like the living repudiation of everything Obama campaigned on for two years.” 

“The president can move on. This was running the possibility of really hurting his reformist image,” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos reported on “Good Morning America” Wednesday. “Will these stumbles embolden the president’s opponents on this economic rescue plan -- the stimulus package? . . . The president is going to have to agree to some changes.”

Stephanopoulos reported that the president will meet individually with senators Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Ben Nelson, D-Neb. 

Not looking back, it’s a busy day for Obama: signing SCHIP, meetings with Cabinet secretaries and legislative leaders, and a signature piece: compensation caps for banks getting bailout money.

“The Obama administration is expected to impose a cap of $500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of bailout money,” Edmund L. Andrews and Vikas Bajaj report in The New York Times. “The new rules would be far tougher than any restrictions imposed during the Bush administration, and they could force executives to accept deep reductions in their current pay. They come amid rising public fury about huge pay packages for executives at financial companies being propped up by federal tax dollars.” 

ABC’s Jake Tapper: “Companies that receive more general TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) funds are permitted to waive the $500,000 plus restricted stock rule if they disclose executive compensation and if requested, allow a non-binding ‘say on pay’ shareholder resolution, allowing investors a non-binding vote on compensation for top executives.”

“When in doubt, change the subject,” Tapper said on “Good Morning America” Wednesday.

“The Obama administration also plans to ban chief executives of such firms from receiving severance payments,” Deborah Solomon and Laura Meckler report in The Wall Street Journal. “The potential changes amount to one of the most aggressive efforts to limit executive pay, a movement that has been growing in strength in recent years but hadn't made much headway until the financial collapse.” 

“The steps set the stage for the administration's unveiling next week of a new framework for spending the money that remains in the $700 billion financial rescue fund,” per the AP’s Jim Kuhnhenn. 

Fertile territory for the president: “Public outrage over compensation has been building since October, when Congress passed a $700 billion financial-rescue plan. An $18.4 billion bonus payout in 2008 to Wall Street executives and employees further inflamed Americans,” Bloomberg’s Heidi Przybyla and Christopher Stern write. 

Obama is clearly wounded politically by the withdrawals. It comes at a tenuous time for his young administration -- the stimulus bill under debate, Republicans figuring out what opposition means, more balls bouncing than any court can handle.

Humble pie: “Two weeks into his presidency, Barack Obama proved that even a clearly gifted politician cannot escape the gravitational pull of Washington forces that he has vowed to reform,” the AP’s Charles Babington writes. “In other words, Obama isn't perfect. This may be news to his adoring supporters, but like other presidents, Obama is going to make more mistakes over the coming months as he struggles with the economy, health care, military matters and Congress.” 

A turning point? “It took Daschle’s resignation to shake the president out of his arrogant attitude that his charmed circle doesn’t have to abide by the lofty standards he lectured the rest of us about for two years,” Maureen Dowd writes in her New York Times column. “Before he recanted, his hand forced by a cascade of appointees who ‘forgot’ to pay taxes, his reasoning was creeping perilously close to that of the outgoing leaders he denounced in his Inaugural Address: that elitist mentality of ‘we know best,’ we know we’re doing the ‘right’ thing for the country, so we can twist the rules.” 

Dana Milbank, in The Washington Post: “At 1:49 p.m., Obama hopped in his presidential limousine and took a field trip to a D.C. charter school, where he read a children's book called ‘The Moon Over Star’ to a group of second-graders. Good thing it wasn't ‘My Pet Goat.’ . . . Now, is it too late to rebook that honeymoon?”

“The abrupt move stands to potentially dent the reputation for steadiness and managerial prowess that the 47-year-old president had cultivated over a smoothly run campaign and a transition to power that boasted of a swift vetting and nomination of top aides,” Jonathan Weisman and Laura Meckler write in The Wall Street Journal. 

“Between his tax problems and the growing scrutiny of his lucrative ties to the health industry, the former Senate majority leader's nomination had become a repudiation of the very things Obama had promised to change in Washington,” Time’s Karen Tumulty writes. 

Answering to a different set of bosses: “Although Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader for a decade before his defeat in 2004, had his conservative critics, much of the pressure for him to step down came from within the legions of Obama supporters who say they took to heart the president's promises to change business as usual in Washington,” Wes Allison writes in the St. Petersburg Times. “Their criticism, coming just 15 days into the new administration, provides a jarring reminder for Obama that he cannot expect the free pass President George Bush enjoyed from his base for much of his eight-year tenure and that Obama's supporters expect him to keep his promise to hold his administration to higher standards.” 

“Progressive bloggers had been going after Mr. Daschle as elitist and aloof for several days after ABC News first reported the tax flap, and the Nation magazine joined the Times in calling for him to withdraw,” The Washington Times’ Christina Bellantoni reports. 

“Former Sen. Tom Daschle's withdrawal as the nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services chief came as it was becoming increasingly clear that his failure to pay taxes and his role as a high-priced consultant to health-care firms was rasing increasing opposition from average citizens,” writes McClatchy’s David Lightman. “Republicans had been largely mum on Monday about Daschle's problems. But by Tuesday, they were besieged by e-mails, phone calls and radio talk shows demanded opposition.” 

“The first major setback of his young presidency,” declare The Washington Post’s Anne E. Kornblut and Michael Shear. “His reversal yesterday suggested that speed may have come at a cost, and that Obama, despite the overwhelming popularity he had upon taking office and the major challenges facing the nation, will not be spared from the same kind of scrutiny his predecessors have faced.” 

“It was the rockiest day yet for the new White House,” The New York Times’ Jeff Zeleny writes. “The developments distracted attention from Mr. Obama’s effort to push his economic stimulus plan through the Senate and complicated the initiative that Mr. Daschle was to have led, his plan for overhauling the health care system.” 

Was he strong enough in his condemnation? “The White House insisted Tuesday it didn't force two tax-challenged nominees to withdraw. My question is, why not?” Michael Goodwin writes in his New York Daily News column. “Why didn't President Obama tell Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer to take a hike? Why did he let them jump when he should have pushed them?” 

“Unless he starts to deliver on his promise to set a new standard of ethics, rising anger over politics as usual during the economic meltdown could stall his momentum and strengthen Republicans,” Goodwin writes.

Why Daschle backed out: “A source close to Daschle says ‘he didn't have the stomach for the fight,’ ” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos reports. “The double-barreled combination of a blistering New York Times editorial and a front-page story raising questions about President Obama's commitment to ethics reform in Washington convinced Daschle he had to go. Already depressed by the recent discovery that his younger brother is stricken with brain cancer, Daschle wasn't prepared for another week of Senate hazing and damaging headlines. And, he didn't want to hurt his friend, Barack Obama.” 

Who’s next? “Advocates of universal coverage pressed the case for former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont, a medical doctor, but Mr. Obama just replaced him as chairman of the Democratic National Committee and he might be a provocative choice to Republicans,” Peter Baker and Robert Pear report in The New York Times. “Democrats close to the White House said attention was focusing on governors, who by nature of their jobs run state Medicaid programs, particularly Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. Other possibilities include Govs. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania and Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan and former Gov. John Kitzhaber of Oregon, all Democrats.” 

“Here's the short list: Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, former Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt and John Podesta, the head of Obama's transition effort and White House chief of staff for Bill Clinton,” Washingtonpost.com’s Chris Cillizza reports.

Ticking along, in the Senate: “President Barack Obama continued a massive push to save his nearly $900 billion stimulus package on Tuesday, deploying his top advisers to the Senate, giving network interviews and personally wooing moderate Republicans and Republican governors,” Roll Call’s Steven T. Dennis writes. “But Senators from both parties were preparing major amendments that would redirect significant portions of the stimulus to items such as housing and infrastructure. Republicans narrowly beat back a Democratic proposal Tuesday on a point of order to add $25 billion to the plan for infrastructure projects, arguing that it should have been offset by cuts elsewhere in the mammoth bill.” 

Why this is tough-and-go: “Senate Democratic leaders conceded yesterday that they do not have the votes to pass the stimulus bill as currently written and said that to gain bipartisan support, they will seek to cut provisions that would not provide an immediate boost to the economy,” Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane write in The Washington Post.

A shift in rhetoric? “President Obama is willing to change elements of his economic stimulus plan to meet objections in Congress, but he won't agree to increase its cost significantly or weaken its impact, his top economic adviser said Tuesday,” USA Today’s Richard Wolf reports. “As the president conducted five television interviews to promote the $800 billion-plus package, National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers said Obama wants to focus on the economy's needs, not the relatively small spending items Republicans have criticized.” 

“To back up its case, the White House provided a 50-state report estimating how many jobs would be created or saved, how many families would reap tax cuts or college tax credits, and other benefits,” Wolf writes.

Act fast: “If there is one thing U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner learned from watching Japan sink into a decade-long economic quagmire, it's this: Don't dither,” Michael M. Phillips writes in The Wall Street Journal. 

Said Geithner, in an interview: “Today's crisis in the U.S. "is dramatically worse today because, collectively, policymakers were a little slow to escalate both on the fiscal side and on the financial side.”

Don’t miss Obama’s stand against “buy America” provisions, in the stimulus bill: “I want provisions that are not going to be a violation of World Trade Organization agreements or in other ways signal protectionism. I think that would be a mistake right now. That is a potential source of trade wars that we can't afford at a time when trade is sinking all across the globe,” Obama told Charles Gibson. 

What does this say about the Obama-Pelosi relationship? A startling radio appearance from Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., a Blue Dog who was one of 11 Democrats to vote against the stimulus:

“Well, I probably shouldn’t tell you this, but I actually got some quiet encouragement from the Obama folks for what I’m doing,” Cooper told a radio station Sunday, per Politico’s Glenn Thrush. “I got in terrible trouble with our leadership because they don’t care what’s in the bill, they just want it pass and they want it to be unanimous. They don’t mind the partisan fighting cause that’s what they are used to. In fact, they’re really good at it. And they’re a little bit worried about what a post-partisan future might look like. If members actually had to read the bills and figure out whether they are any good or not. We’re just told how to vote. We’re treated like mushrooms most of the time.” 

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is using his e-mail list to rally opposition to Obama’s plan. “I realize we face extraordinary challenges with our economy today, but that is not an excuse for more irresponsibly from Washington. I hope you will join me in saying no to this stimulus package as it currently exists by signing this petition,” he wrote his supporters Tuesday. 

Look who’s back -- already: “Former Vice President Dick Cheney warned in an interview that there is a ‘high probability’ that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed,” Politico’s John F. Harris, Mike Allen, and Jim VandeHei write.

Said Cheney: “When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry.”

The Politico guys continue: “The interview, less than two weeks after the Bush administration ceded power to Obama, found the man who is arguably the most controversial -- and almost surely the most influential -- vice president in U.S. history in a self-vindicating mood.”

“Not content to wait for a historical verdict, Cheney said he is set to plunge into his own memoirs, feeling liberated to describe behind-the-scenes roles over several decades in government now that the ‘statute of limitations has expired’ on many of the most sensitive episodes.”

More from the loyal opposition: “The new face of the Republican Party does not seem to share the hunger for bipartisanship that Obama has made one of the touchstones of his first weeks in office. That became clear from the moment [Michael] Steele took the job Friday, as he all but invited the president of the United States to join him in the boxing ring,” The New York Times’ Adam Nagourney writes. 

“It's going to be an honor to spar with him,” [Steele] said, before throwing down the gauntlet to Obama with a quotation from, apparently, an in-your-face late-1980s rap song by Kool Moe Dee: “How ya like me now?”

In Minnesota, a win for Coleman: “In a ruling that keeps alive Republican Norm Coleman's chances of overturning Minnesota's U.S. Senate recount, a three-judge panel on Tuesday allowed him to bring evidence to trial that as many as 4,800 absentee ballots were wrongly rejected and should now be counted,” per the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s Pat Doyle and Kevin Duchschere. “The decision expands the evidence that can be considered in the recount trial, giving Coleman the opportunity to put more ballots into play in his effort to erase a 225-vote lead for DFLer Al Franken.”

STILL ugly, in New York: “A review of public comments and interviews with more than a dozen people involved in the process make clear that Gov. David A. Paterson’s administration released confidential information about [Caroline] Kennedy and misled reporters about its significance as part of an orchestrated effort to discredit her after she withdrew. But the governor is unlikely to face the legal scrutiny or numerous investigations that Mr. Spitzer did, even though he has acknowledged that the information about Ms. Kennedy should not have been released,” Danny Hakim and Nicholas Confessore write in The New York Times. 

Bob Barnett’s latest coup: “Obama campaign manager David Plouffe has agreed to a seven-figure deal to write a book about last year's presidential election,” per the AP. “ ‘The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama's Historic Victory’ will be published by Viking next fall.” 

Iowa watch: End of an era. “Des Moines Register political columnist David Yepsen is expected on Wednesday to be named director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, bringing to an end a storied chapter in the Iowa newspaper,” the Des Moines Register reports. “Yepsen, 58, was expected to appear Wednesday at a press conference in Carbondale, after the two other finalists for the job were said to have withdrawn from the running.”

The Kicker:

“Why exactly are you here, honest to God?” -- David Letterman, to his guest, Rod Blagojevich. 

Blagojevich: “Well, you know, I've been wanting to be on your show in the worst way for the longest time.” -- Blagojevich’s response.

Letterman: “Well, you're on in the worst way, believe me.”

Bookmark the link below to get The Note’s daily morning analysis:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/the_note/index.html

For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/

Follow The Note blog on Twitter: http://twitter.com/thenote