Does anyone else have a problem with this POLITICO narrative on "subordination?"

[derby378]

No figure in Barack Obama's Washington, including Obama, has had more success in advancing his will than the speaker of the House, despite public approval ratings that hover in the range of Dick Cheney's. With a mix of tough party discipline and shrewd vote-counting, she passed a version of the stimulus bill largely written by congressional Democrats, passed climate legislation, and passed her chamber's version of health care reform. She and anti-war liberals in her caucus are clearly affecting the White House’s Afghanistan calculations.

The great hazard for Obama is if Republicans or journalists conclude - as some already have - that Pelosi's achievements are more impressive than Obama's or come at his expense.

This conclusion seems premature, especially with the final chapter of the health care drama yet to be written.

But it is clear that Obama has allowed the speaker to become more nearly an equal - and far from a subordinate - than many of his predecessors of both parties would have thought wise.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091130/pl_politico/29993

Many of you know that I've been rather critical of Nancy Pelosi over the past few years, but I am very uncomfortable with the idea of Pelosi or any other Representative being regarded as a "subordinate" of Obama's. Bush clearly regarded the House and Senate as subordinates, and he leaned on them hard until he got just what he wanted out of them in terms of legislation. That's right, even with Pelosi and Reid in the comfy chairs.

Last I heard, the President is supposed to hold one-third of the power of the United States government. And one of those remaining two-thirds? They're not just legislators, they're also voters. And I do not want the idea that any voter is considered to be a "subordinate" of the President to be one of the enduring legacies of the Bush administration.

[asjr]

1. Once I realized Politico is a work of

fiction I don't pay attention to it.

[napi21]

2. You're reading too much into it. They're talking about

a corporate (or in this case government) hierarchy. The same applies if you are talking about Hoyer being the subordinate of Pelosi.

[madrchsod]

3. yup- 7th grade essay contest winner hired by politico

[supernova]

4. 2nded

I read the whole piece, ugh.

It reads like "7 half-baked ideas I couldn't really flesh out into whole essays (because they're half-baked!!) so I mashed them all up together in this one piece."

The Nancy one really rankles because the subtext is, "the house is now run by a woman, so naturally it should be subordinate to the Pres. You can't have the Pres being shown up on the Acheive-O-Meter by a mere woman!"

Ugh. again.

[derby378]

5. Good catch

And yeowtch. If that subtext was intentional, it was defintely not nice.

[Iggo]

6. I don't read Politico.

So...no problem.