Closing The Books On Johnson

Opinions among Democrats differ as to whether the Obama campaign handled the Jim Johnson mess this week with care or folly. Some believe that the campaign acted swiftly to remove the problem. Others believe that Obama capitulated to public pressure and made himself look foolish.

There's more to the story than just a Countrywide loan: sources close to the campaign and to Johnson say that Obama was "irate" at the news reports of Johnson's and Eric Holder's meetings on Capitol Hill. Obama had expected all the meetings to be private, perhaps naively, but he was especially perturbed when reports surfaced about specific names that Johnson and Holder had brought up with some of the members of Congress.

A.B. Culvahouse has already consulted with top Republicans in the House and the Senate about McCain's picks. He's managed to do so without creating a ruckus.

In any event, Obama wasn't happy and his advisers weren't happy, and they made their feelings known to Johnson, and Johnson, sensing that he didn't really have Obama's trust and was becoming a distraction (because of the press accounts), he offered to resign. It was accepted quickly.

Comments

Thanks for closing the books on Johnson. I wonder who this A.B. Culvahouse person is and how Obama was "perhaps" naive to expect the meetings to be private when A.B. Culvahouse was able to keep his meetings private?

Posted by Gwendy | June 13, 2008 10:20 AM

Culvahouse was counsel to Reagan, and lobbied for Fannie Mae.

But you wouldn't know that from Marc - this is the first time he's actually been mentioned outside of a list, based on the Atlantic servers.

lobbied for Fannie Mae
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/and-whos-vett-1.html

But not newsworthy, and not remotely connected to this and the five posts in a row on Johnson.

Marc, this is indefensible.

Posted by James | June 13, 2008 10:31 AM

The problem with the whole thing isn't that he was fired or that he had taken the loan or anything like that. If Obama had simply abandoned the guy ('through him under the bus') then this would all make sense. The problem is that Obama came out swinging from a principled stance, criticizing the idea that Republicans/the press could nit-pick someone so far removed from governance, and then removes him.

Senator Obama has to choose whether or not he wants to play politics or play principles, when he does both it doesn't quite work.

Posted by Andrew | June 13, 2008 10:31 AM

LOL, the "campaign of seamless efficiency" needs to create a FORM LETTER for dismissing, disavowing, and distancing Big Brown from formerly trusted

FRIENDS/ADVISORS/SUPPORTERS/MENTORS/FUNDRAISERS/ETC.

It would save the typists in the office hours of labor.

Posted by robert ethan | June 13, 2008 11:00 AM

"robert ethan," please illuminate—are you a Hillary Clinton dead-ender or a right-wing nutjob?

And Ambinder, you sleazy shitbag, I am desperately hoping you shut down your comments again so that your traffic and influence shrinks. True.

Posted by BxM | June 13, 2008 11:06 AM

Here's the thing: No one outside of Beltway creatures and political junkies gives a crap about this. I saw Chuck Todd making a big deal out of it on MSNBC yesterday, and for once, I felt he was completely off base. It's already forgotten.

Posted by NHCt | June 13, 2008 1:38 PM

So when your candidate shows that he is not super-human or really any different from the rest of the politicians, you can only vilify those who choose to report his missteps?

The Johnson issue is real and it's not forgotten. The vitriol of Obama supporters here is rather telling.

Posted by J. Choi | June 13, 2008 3:33 PM