This is going to be a short diary because the dynamics here are pretty simple, in my view. Yahoo! News is currently featuring a story on the homepage that should never have come to be. Take a look:
PALIN ACCUSES OBAMA OF BEING IN BED WITH BIG OIL
Right-wing darling Sarah Palin accused US President Barack Obama on Sunday of being lax in his response to the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster and suggested this was because he is too close to Big Oil.
[snip]
More than 3.5 million dollars has been given to candidates by BP over the last 20 years, with the largest single donation, 77,051 dollars, going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Palin suggested this close relationship explained why Obama was, "taking so doggone long to get in there, to dive in there, and grasp the complexity and the potential tragedy that we are seeing here in the Gulf of Mexico."
"Largest single donation" doesn't say anything about total monies contributed. Meanwhile, I'm finding the CRP website to be extremely unhelpful in finding out the full picture about BP's political donations.
But none of that matters for the purpose of this diary. The point isn't about whether Obama is or is not in bed with BP. The point is that the Obama Admin has handed the opposition a huge opening here, and, given the short memories of the American public, it seriously dilutes one of the best reasons for keeping Democrats in power: environmental sanity. Republicans don't need to show that they're environmental saints; they just need to convince the media and voters that Democrats aren't any better than Republicans. And Obama is seriously helping them make that case.
Of course, here at Daily Kos, we all know Palin is being ridiculously hypocritical and craven. Palin and her ilk would like nothing more than to unencumber BP and all other oil companies from accountability for their greed-fueled incompetence. She wouldn't understand genuine environmental concern if it "reared its head" at her from Russia.
But Obama has given Palin and the like an opening during a catastrophe, and as we have seen over and over, catastrophe can be exploited to great effect. I'm sure you don't need examples given recent history, but let's indulge that of Rudy Giuliani. On 9/11, the story wasn't about Rudy Giuliani's abject failure in insisting that the NYC command center be placed in the WTC -- the likeliest terror target of all -- which thereby left the city without any centralized leadership capacity in its moment of need. Instead, Giuliani walked out and talked tough. He seemed to be doing something, even though he was in fact doing nothing as a result of his own incompetence. That's all it took to be anointed "America's Mayor" for an excruciating 7 years.
A currently rec-listed diary contends that the Obama Admin has been doing a lot to address the BP spill. I couldn't agree less with that contention, and I think the so-called evidence presented in that diary is weak tea indeed. I see a few cases of "overseeing" and "ordering" and some seemingly large but actually quite small numbers about how much toxic dispersant has been, well, dispersed. And these incredible achievements are being broadcast out via an obscure Twitter account.
Wow.
Whatever their achievements are, their PR strategy now isn't enough to convey that they are acting decisively and effectively. Not by a long shot.
The Obama Administration seemingly fails to understand the obvious reality that the BP spill is a watershed moment. Politically, use it or lose it. Attack it, or be attacked.
I would like to think the Obama Administration would simply act strongly and swiftly out of concern for the environment, but that is clearly not happening. The terrible politics of their current track ought to be enough to kick them in the ass, no?