Jim Johnson, the author of the Fannie Mae debacle and seemingly a lifetime magnet for the appearance of impropriety, has stepped down as Barack Obama's chief running-mate vetter. Personally, I find this devastating news. If Johnson had done for Obama what he did for Fannie, Obama probably would have wound up with Pauly Shore or Carrot Top on his ticket.
So what have we learned here? Once again, Obama continues to make unforced errors. The fact that tabbing Johnson as an eminence grise would trigger catcalls and raise eyebrows was far from unforeseeable. Indeed, it seems like everyone recognized the danger instantly except for Obama himself.
Obama seems to have an odd and rather unendearing personality tic whereby he considers his every instinct to be perfect. If he had pondered the matter a little more closely, he probably would have realized that Johnson wasn't the right guy for the job. I guess the whole Hope/Change gestalt doesn't allow for reflection.
The choice of Johnson, an insider Democratic muckety-muck who I'm pretty sure predates the New Deal, reveals something even deeper about Obama. Obama is a decidedly inside-the-box thinker. Because he personifies a new kind of politics, the public has been slow to perceive how conventional Barack Obama's philosophy and deep thoughts are.
You could say the same applies to every politician, but you'd be wrong. Both Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton created new paradigms in the 1990's. They did so by dint of their own intellectual vibrancy. Obama only offers fresh substance when a spontaneous pronouncement goes awry.
Could it be that Barack Obama is just a sleeker version of Michael Dukakis who gives great speeches?
