Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama's endorsement: worthless or radioactive?

Over at TNR, Jonathan Chait tries to rationalize Obama's defeat in Pennsylvania -- and he calls me "dimwitted" for saying Arlen Specter's loss was a defeat for Obama by pointing out that the president has an 80 percent job approval among Pennsylvania Democrats. "Thiessen seems to be suggesting that Specter lost a Democratic primary not despite Obama's endorsement but because of it."

Maybe Chait ought to focus on what I actually said, not what I "seem to be suggesting." What I said was that Obama "ushered Specter into the Democratic party and embraced him, that "voters rejected his chosen candidate at the polls" and that this was a “repudiation” of the president. The fact that Obama enjoys 80 percent approval among Pennsylvania Democrats only makes the president’s defeat in Pennsylvania all the more stinging. Despite his endorsement and the efforts of his powerful political operation, Obama could not translate that support into votes at the polls. There is nothing more embarrassing than when a leader tries to rally his troops but they refuse to follow. Obama recruited Specter and put his prestige behind him, telling Pennsylvania Democrats: This is my guy, vote for him. They said no. How on earth is that not a repudiation? One would think that the one place where Obama's endorsement would matter is in the Democratic primary in a blue state such as Pennsylvania. But it didn't.

The uncomfortable reality for Democrats is that, in contest after contest, Obama's endorsement has proven meaningless at best, and at worst he has been radioactive. David Broder made much the same point yesterday, declaring that Specter’s failure “showed the Obama White house once again to be a toothless tiger -- with its endorsements now having failed in Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. No good news for the president there.”

In a desperate search for silver linings, the Democrats are pointing to their success in holding Jack Murtha's seat in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional district as proof that the anti-Obama tide is not that strong. But as George Will points out, Democrat Mark Critz won that race by running against Obama -- opposing Obamacare and cap-and-trade, while declaring himself pro-life and pro-gun. Apparently the fact that Obama enjoys 80 percent support among Pennsylvania Democrats was not persuasive enough for this Pennsylvania Democrat to embrace the president. The fact is the one victory the Democrats could claim Tuesday came at the president's expense, not because of his support.

Come fall, I wonder how many House Democrats who won narrow victories in conservative districts in 2008 will ask him to come out and campaign for them. Not many, I suspect. As Karl Rove points out in the Wall Street Journal, "Democrats are increasingly likely to distance themselves from Mr. Obama, either ignoring him or running against him."

The fact is, for Democrats -- especially those in the South and in swing districts -- Obama is a liability. The morning after the election, Rand Paul virtually taunted Obama to come and campaign for his Democratic opponent: "I say, bring it on. Please, please bring President Obama to Kentucky. We'd love for him to campaign down here." It would be the best thing that happened to Paul's campaign if the president took him up on the offer.

By Marc Thiessen  | May 21, 2010; 12:02 PM ET
Categories:  Thiessen  | Tags:  Marc Thiessen  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Kagan the calculating?
Next: Palin, Dobson must repudiate Rand Paul or accept his extremism

Comments

I vote for both! Everyone he stumps for gets the hell beat out of them in elections. This is a sign of things to come.

Posted by: madmike272 | May 21, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I generally agree that Obama will not help, will most likely hurt, Democrat candidates in swing or red states.

In Pennsylvania, I don't think Obama had anything to do with the results.

In PA 12, an allegedly conservative Critz won in a walk. He'll likely continue in the porky tradition of his late boss, Jack Murtha.

Statewide, Obama had nothing to do with Sestak's win: that was the anti-weasel vote, plain and simple. As opposed to Critz, Sestak is quite liberal, but he had the great advantage of running against Snarlin' Arlen.

Posted by: Jack43 | May 21, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

All columnists are opinionated. But great columnists, e.g. George Will, are not always predictable, they present old facts in a new light, and new facts in a conventional way etc. Thiessen is only a hack. No sophisitication here. That Pennsylavanians rejected Specter's vrass opportunism can only mean to this half-wit that they repuidated Obama. And proof that Obama is radioactive in the country? Well, RandPaul taunted him to go campaign in red State Kentucky!!! By the way, was Thiessen around when Republican luminaries were avoiding GWBush? You want to know one single endorsement that was worthless and radioctive? The one that campaigned for all the Republican Congressmen and Senators who lost Congress. That would be GWBush, since this truth is apparently beyond Tihessen's pay. I vote Thiessen's and Gerson's columns typically the worst. Get help from Will and Charles Krauthammer in the art in brilliant polemics.

Posted by: alexalex2 | May 21, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

The only way that Republicans can capture the Senate in November is MORE OBAMA!

Posted by: johnhiggins1990 | May 22, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company