No-Drama Obama

Since the early days of his 2009 term, “No-Drama Obama” has held his nickname to heart. His White House has to overcome the scandals, final-hurdle squabbles and occult shenanigans from the Bush era. Now we’ve discovered today that this “normal” presidency has preserved, above everything, its appearance by keeping the media at a distance.

The consequence of never having been able to maintain a simple, direct relationship with this administration, the press has now stepped into the breaches opened up by the blows of the Republican battering ram thanks to three enlightening controversies.

It necessitated waiting nearly nine months and stormy congressional hearings, so that one could evaluate the shadowy areas and blunders surrounding the death of American Ambassador Christopher Stevens last Sept. 11, during the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The for-certain-shocking remarks of diplomats long since constrained in silence confirm a large case of “damage control” by the State Department and the White House, aiming to cover its tracks, hide security failures or information voids, perhaps excusable but now aggravated by the denial.

Politicized and certainly strengthened by bad faith, the Republican offensive in regard to this topic could seriously tarnish the image of Obama’s second term; it’s accompanied by other wretched blunders.

What paranoia or governmental “bunker mentality” could drive the Department of Justice to legally (but secretly) obtain the authority to rummage through the Associated Press’ phone records to search for the persons responsible for a leak concerning the possibility of a terrorist attack fomenting in Yemen? One could not imagine a bigger insult to the American press, which had otherwise spared this government for the past four years.

Lastly, even when it seems in good faith, the administration has itself fed on the lack of confidence by its clumsiness, like the proof of a third mistake. The IRS has subjected politically-minded associations linked to the tea party to thorough inspections. But apart from visible abuse in Ohio, these snubs have been also inflicted, in the same proportions, on pro-Democrat groups.

Since the upheaval of campaign financing in 2010, the IRS has been confronted by the emergence of a multitude of new organizations, many of which do not, in fact, deserve tax-exempt status. Obama, before having all the facts at hand, declared these abuses inflicted by his political enemies “intolerable,” beating his breast, disavowing tax officials to end a new controversy before it began. How can he go back now and modify the affair?

These incidents call to mind the gaffes committed by the Clinton administration with the established press in Washington during 1993 and 1994. They had taken place at the beginning of his presidency. It’s going differently for Obama, who plays on his posterity before opinion, key to the reform projects of his last term.