Letting Jim Johnson Go Shows Obama Has What It Takes
Barack Obama plays for keeps.
He did not want the Jim Johnson flap to dominate the headlines so he accepted his resignation on the very day the first headlines appeared.
He understands just how much depends on his election and that he cannot let the campaign get bogged down on trivia. Jim Johnson, a good Democrat, also understands which is why he pulled the plug.
Obama just demonstrated that he knows how to play like Bill Clinton. Maybe he learned it by running against Hillary who learned it from Bill.
In any case, this is a new day for Democrats. This is a Democrat who acts swiftly and with resolution. Actually, it's not so new. It's very FDR.
Happy days are here again!
















Let’s not go cow eyes over Obama, his campaign, or potential presidency. His lame response yesterday to the Johnson problem was “who vets the Vetter.” Nothing I’ve read indicates Obama did anything to cause Johnson’s resignation: Johnson stated he resigned so he wouldn’t distract from the campaign. While Obama is better qualified than McBush by any objective standard, the campaign will continue to show the strengths and weakness of Obama, as it should, such as such as hiring two neoliberal economists to his economic team.
June 11, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I get it. It's a reverse Rove strategy- take your candidate's weakness and project it as his strength! Well played, sir.
June 11, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, I'm all for giving credit where its due, but I'm also for giving criticism where its due.
He should have made sure there were no conflicts of interest before he brought him on.
The bright side of this, I would say, is that Obama has consistently been a quick learn, and I dare say he won't make this mistake again.
June 11, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. I caught whiff re JJ's less-than-kosher background 6-7 days ago in local (NorCal) media.
Was fervently hoping BHO had simply had a brainfreeze from a celebratory margarita & would quickly offer his thanks for service rendered & move on.
June 11, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
edit to ad:
As he did.
June 11, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, I'm actually kind of annoyed about this. Maybe I'm not being ruthless enough but having Jim Johnson help you find a Veep is a very minor thing. It has nothing to do with Fannie Mae, it has nothing to do with Countrywide.
What I see is that the media pounced on this. But that same media has given John McCain a pass on something far more relevant -- he had a former Senator and UBS executive and lobbyist actually writing his mortgage crisis policy.
If McCain can get away with that, why should Obama be made to do without Johnson's considerable (at least as acknowledged) skills in veep vetting?
And... is Obama going to get a fair shake from this media?
I know, I know, back in my Hillary days I complained about how the media loved Obama. Times have changed. This ain't fair.
June 11, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor,
My only question is how has Johnson stayed out of jail? He makes Jack Abramoff look like a piker. He was CEO of Fannie Mae, which was also involved in the subprime meltdown. He manipulated FM’s earnings numbers to give himself a $2 million bonus in 1998. They were the biggest buyer of mortgages from Countrywide. His friend and FCEO of Countrywide, Angelo Mozilo who was brought up through Fannie Mae by Johnson, gave him over $7 million in “special loan” sweetheart deals. Sounds like pure fraud to me. And this is the guy to vet candidates’ character for VP? I think the press has been relatively subdued on this.
June 11, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems that Obama made this a one day story which is good. However, I wonder how he was picked in the first place. I also wonder why we don't keep bringing up the Phil Gramm ties.
June 11, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: Johnson was never shown to have manipulated the numbers at FM that raised the Exec bonuses (his to $2 mil). But he has been involved in many financial scandals over both his own exec compensation and when serving on committees deciding compemsation.
June 11, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny. Republicans complaining that Johnson wasn't a hardliner on executive compensation.
June 11, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding. As if they have any standing to point fingers.
On the other hand, in our case, we've got Barney Frank in the House pushing his Say-on-Pay legislation, and Obama pushing his own version in the Senate, and so it's truly a head-shaking moment ... Again, wasn't Johnson himself at all concerned that his appointment could be used to make a hash of Obama's messaging? It's a situation that nearly parallels exactly what Say-on-Pay is meant to address: shareholders getting less-than-deserved ROI because of clubby top management. As stakeholders (no matter how small) in Obama's campaign, we have every right to be pissed off when messaging gets threatened by top-level Dem insiders who allow their enthusiasm or hubris to cloud their judgment.
Are we gonna give up accountability just because we're afraid some Republicans might be paying attention to our discussion?
As far as Eric Holder is concerned, I take him at his word:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june01/pardonprobe_02-08.html
But it still doesn't thrill me to see Holder take on such a high profile so early in the GE contest.
June 11, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If judged by the company he keeps, McCain has no standing to say anything about staff or advisers. When the elevator operator says, “lobby,” McCain looks up with a grin on his face. Still, Holder is a problem only because Clinton was roundly criticized for her husband's pardon of Rich (and if Holder only played a small part in it, HRC played no part). But Johnson represents the antithesis of the new politics that Obama talks about. IIRC, I read that he was warned against by Kerry advisers in 2004, but he lobbied so hard for the job with well placed friends they acquiesced. It is all too ‘Beltway’ for me.
June 11, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
For me as well. Way too 'Beltway' and it deserved to get batted down hard by the progressive blogs. That it wasn't has kind of been a disappointment to me. Granted, it could just be that I'm not paying close enough attention, but I don't think so, and so the dearth of outrage disappoints.
This is an interesting (and long) interview with Jim Johnson from back in April 2007.
http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/interviews/james_a_johnson/
The guy was clearly not in Clinton's corner a year ago. He was the biggest Obamaniac in the Bilderberger/Trilateralist/CFR set.
Unforced error on Obama's (and Johnson's) part. It happens. When it does, it does none of us any good to avert our eyes and pretend it didn't.
June 12, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Business scandals or business as usual?
June 11, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
MEMORANDUM
To: MLR
From: FEB
Subject: Career Choices
If you ever see a job in the Want Ads labeled "Ass Kisser," APPLY! You'll get it for sure.
Your piece was an insult to the intelligence of TPM readers and is right up there with Nixon's Press Secretary Ron Zeigler responding to a reporter's question about false info being given out by the White House re Watergate; that famous response was, "Those statements are no longer operative."
Shame on you.
June 11, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I don't understand is why Jim Johnson accepted the appointment in the first place? How could he not understand the ammo his appointment would hand to McCain's campaign?
This will soon be forgotten, a small bump in the road, but c'mon, it was a dumb, dumb, dumb appointment.
If FDR was human and capable of getting it wrong now and then, then, yeah, this was all very FDR.
June 11, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he didn't understand about giving ammo to McAnus, because in his world getting huge bonuses for nothing, huge fees for sitting on boards that vote huge compensation packages for CEOs, and below-market deals from the companies you do business with, is simply normal. Oh, maybe he pushed it a little, but not much.
June 11, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Obama showing his first political mistake, Jim Johnson? Then it will be Eric Holder? ("...as deputy attorney general, Holder was the key person who made the pardon of Marc Rich possible in the final hours of the Clinton presidency")
Who will replace Jim Johnson on the committee, how about one of the Virginia potentials, like Sen Webb or Gov Kaine, that way if they don't see any "good" prospects after analyzing the polling and the opposition party, they can look at themselves in the mirror and just say, heck, why not me!? (Cheney/with Bush).
Recent polling is claiming to show Latinos and Clinton supporters are now drifting towards Obama. If true and holding, the prospects of Hillary being on the V.P. ticket become more unlikely. With that in mind, I do wish the media would stop talking about Hillary, Bill, and the rabid Clinton supporters....it's so old news and so yesterday.
June 11, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't all of you people have useful, constructive tasks you could be working on?
June 11, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Johnson was brought on, now he's been let go.
Something happened, MJR posted about it, and now we're commenting.
Do we need to bring permission slips next time? Or just proof that we're not dead-enders or Republican trolls or what?
June 11, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want Obama to be successful now that he's the nominee, but wow, is every article you write about him going to be like this? Everything Obama does is just a sign of his magnificence?
June 12, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
He voted for him before he voted against him.
June 12, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to infest MJ's post, but prmco, that is the dumbest characterization of this episode that I've seen.
I thought this comment at mydd got it about right:
By the same token, the blind antipathy to Obama expressed in prmco's comment is not what we need from friends we assume to be loyal Democrats.
June 12, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lighten up.
What is this "we need" "we assume to be loyal"" stuff? Much worse criticism is to come from McCain et al, so be prepared.
June 12, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, but spare me the concern when all you've got to offer is the lame suggestion that Obama is somehow Kerry redux.
We know what's coming, but thanks for the heads up. You rock.
June 12, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look guys. I'm not an Obama worshipper, but I do think his handling of this whole thing has been pretty deft. I thought his line about having to "hire at vetter to vet the vetters" was pretty poignant a nice succint way to pointing out the 'gotcha' mentality of the MSM. Then by dispatching Johnson immediately he takes this story out of the news cycle very quickly. And in any case, I doubt this story would really resonate on street anyways. For us high information types this is interesting stuff---but i know my grandad couldn't care less.
At the same time, he immediately pounces on Old Man McWar's "not too important" comments. This buries the Johnson story and makes McBush's idiotic comments the new story of the day.
It's not just his handling of the Johnson situation, but how he diffused this flare-up, disposed of it and pivoted swiftly to attack McCain on his perceived strength. What he's doing is systematically painting McWar as out of touch with the American people on Iraq and he won't let little games like the Johnson affair stand in his way.
The guy has his operation running like a well-oiled machine. No Democrat has ever had a rapid response apparatus like this before, nor a candidate this willing to be so aggressive and ruthlessly efficient if that's what's called for.
Obama is doing everything they said he was too young, too inexperienced, and too black to do.
You don't have be an Obamabot to appreciate this.
June 12, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just how brilliant would Obama have to be to hire a bright college student to google any one associated with the campaign? I'd think it was a no brainer except that Obama failed to do so.
Obama offered a clever quip as a whine when Johnson was exposed -- trying to trivalize the appointment to the committee charged with making what Obama had characterized as his most important decision. I heard the comment as a whine.
Obama is too insecure and too weak to choose Hillary. He is underfire for lacking experience. He has trouble with Latinos, 'Reagan' Democrats and Hillary voters.
National polling shows that adding Hillary to the ticket moves Obama to 51% versus 42% for McCain from 47% versus 41% for McCain.
June 15, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Compare this with "Monstergate", the resignation of Samantha Power. In both cases, the Obama campaign quickly cut its losses. There seems to be a pattern emerging here.
June 12, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think to the contrary on this one MJ. This shows the Obama team's inexperience and naivete.
Whose business is it who the people are that are doing the preliminary research and evaluation of potential VP candidates for Obama? It is no one's business outside the campaign.
It was just plain dumb for Obama to go around announcing who is doing that stuff. He should have seen this sort of thing coming or rather his top people should have, but oh yes, the first time winners of the nomination are going through the quadrennial Democratic ritual of forgetting about business and thinking they have the race in the bag already. Such dumb moves just open up the campaign for foolishness and gotcha politics of the sort we've seen in this case.
The people doing this work for Obama are not even employees of the government or of any kind. He can have whoever he wants and it simply is nobody elses business. They are doing some work on a volunteer basis for Obama and thus it's just plain idiotic to a) make a bid wahoo out of who they are to begin with and b)to go through these sorts of sophomoric "gotcha" moments where people have to "resign" from nothing in order to get the paid national gossips, uh, I mean the corporate media, to focus on something else.
June 12, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink