Jim O’Sullivan of National Journal celebrates presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett’s despoliation of her adversaries:
The trumpet blast of liberalism comes at a point in the White House personnel cycle where a cast of pragmatic, politically minded advisers has departed, many of them white males: Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs, Jim Messina, William Daley, David Axelrod, David Plouffe. Jarrett, among others, remains and thrives.
I’m sorry, I need to clean my glasses, but is there anyone on this list who isn’t a white male? O’Sullivan, whose name also sounds suspiciously male and quite possibly white, doesn’t even bother to explain why the sex and race of a presidential adviser is more important than, say, the quality of the advice she provides.
Whatever. O’Sullivan continues:
For various reasons, Obama has floundered in direct negotiations with Congress. When the administration makes headway with lawmakers, credit on the executive side frequently goes to Vice President Joe Biden. And Obama has had success when he turns the process inside out, enlisting public pressure on student-loan rates, the 2011 payroll-tax cut, and, this year, on gun control. Because of Jarrett’s purview, and because of who she is in relation to the president, the expressly stated plan to continue that outside game will only expand her influence—if not inside a White House where she already wields significant clout, then at least in real-world application.
Translation: Jarrett’s bad advice is one of the “various reasons Obama has floundered in direct negotiations with Congress.” However, “because of Jarrett’s purview,” the consequence of her horrible record “will only expand her influence.” What an amazing place Washington is. Only here is it possible to turn who you are “in relation to the president” into “real-world application” of a six-figure salary and your own “full-time Secret Service” detail.