AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > December > 11
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Is Obama involved enough in the economic crisis?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
I found Barney Frank’s criticism that Barack Obama must take more leadership refreshingly honest, especially for a Democrat known to blast Republicans. The man who takes office in a matter of weeks has far more opportunity to signal the right direction through this crisis than the man who is leaving it. Speaking about the thorny bailout decisions being made right now, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan perfectly captured the need, saying, “It would be very helpful if the president-elect would become more involved.” He continued, “I want him to offer his assistance. He is a person who can really bring people together.”
It seems disingenuous for Obama to say that since he can’t yet make decisions on the economy, that he can’t be involved. Just as Obama can rightfully request foreign policy briefings so he can decide on and signal his direction (such as asking Sen. McCain to report to him on a recent trip to Afghanistan), he can rightfully involve himself in the ongoing intense discussions on how to handle the immediate economic crisis. He says he won’t get specific until Jan. 20, but by then many crucial decisions will have been made without him.
When Bill Clinton was elected president, he also inherited a recession and a $50 billion bailout was being discussed in Congress. Instead of saying he couldn’t get specific until January, Clinton responded directly to reporters with, “Let me tell you what I’m going to do…”
All this said, I have a lot of sympathy for any president-elect; there’s a steep learning curve and pulling an administration together would be a full-time job even without a massive economic crisis to manage. But that is the job Obama signed up for, and I believe most people would willingly follow if he would lead. It would be entirely understandable if our president-elect didn’t yet know the right path to take, but that doesn’t let him off the hook. Not all of us voted for him, but all of us need him now to take leadership in pulling people together to tackle a time-critical problem, instead of forfeiting his place at the head of the table and having to accept what was pieced together in his absence.
Services »
Commentary
By Andrea Cornell Sarvady
A wry moment came near the end of “Meet the Press” the other day. When asked by Tom Brokaw if he’d stopped smoking, Barack Obama’s initial, self-assured answer was: “I have. But there’s times when I’ve fallen off the wagon.” “Wait a minute,” Brokaw interjected, and pointed out that that answer indicated Obama hadn’t kicked the habit. “Fair enough,” the president-elect reluctantly responded.
What doesn’t seem fair enough, or fair at all, is the way that many are criticizing Obama’s performance for a position he doesn’t yet hold. Conservative pundits mock the “office of the president-elect” lectern, and other ways that Obama has been so quick to look presidential. Meanwhile, cohorts on the Hill, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, don’t think he’s taking over fast enough.
“In the minds of the people, this is the Obama administration,” Dodd declared. “I don’t think we can wait until Jan. 20.” Frank got off a zinger in sharing his concerns: “He (Obama) says we only have one president at a time. I’m afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have.”
With Frank’s plea that Obama must “remedy the situation,” he acts like the president-elect is issuing “no comments” from some beach in Hawaii. Yet Obama has hardly waited until Day One to weigh in on pressing issues. His team is working closely with treasury officials, and he’s talked at length about his views on the future of the Big Three automakers. Yet in the “damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t” world of presidential politics, the transition period is fraught with political landmines. Obama gives specific policy briefings? Then he’s taking over the highest office in the land while Bush is still in power. He demurs on giving specifics? Then he’s accused of ducking responsibility when, in fact, he has no executive authority at all. Listen, this may be a uniquely challenging time, yet 9/11 didn’t rewrite the Constitution and neither did 11/4.
So give the guy a break, will you? As a strong opponent of smoking, I’d rather he take this breather without sneaking a cigarette. Yet if people keep insisting that President-elect Obama is either stealing George Bush’s job or already falling down on his own, I might just go out and buy him a pack myself.