David Plouffe's Today Show Interview: Weighs In On 2009 Elections, Obama's Job Performance (VIDEO)

Tuesday's elections are local races -- not measures of President Obama's ability to deliver or a referendum on the president's popularity, according to David Plouffe, the former chief campaign manager for Barack Obama's presidency.

Plouffe appeared on the Today Show Tuesday morning to talk about today's off-year elections, what they mean for the political landscape and his new book The Audacity To Win.

Plouffe defended President Obama's job performance and rejected claims that the president is not delivering on his promise of change. According to Plouffe, the most important story of the day isn't about election results, it's about the dynamics in New York's 23rd District race, where a moderate GOP candidate bowed out of the House race under pressure from more conservative Republicans like Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty.

When asked by Meredith Vieira whether he was downplaying the importance of today's elections because it appears that the GOP might win, Plouffe said that this is one instance where he agrees with the Bush administration -- off-year elections don't mean that much. Plouffe continued, "There's 18,000 lifetimes between now and next November."

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Comments

[Matt7]

My God, woman. Are you proud of your media "shout out"? You're really adding to the "people are saying" buzz. Running for media game-changer, are you?

[denicci1977]

It's warped thinking for anyone to blame President Obama for these elections. Might as well blame him for the Iran and Afghan elections as well. People just want to find something to run off their mouths about against him.

[Matt7]

They do.

[Dan55886]

Nomatter which way he spins the news, ploufs boss seems to be striving for bipertisianship more than what he said he campaigned for. I thought and continue to hope he is a different politician, however, I am more concerned now than I have been in the past.

[anick]

It seems that Arianna is seeking political power herself. Everyone who thinks that they have an answer to our current economic problems should have stepped up sooner and ran for President.

Not use the word timid to describe President Obama. Where were all of these know it all people before now? Just saying.. maybe you can kick in and be supportive to the President and help him. Ya think?

[Matt7]

It's far more profitable to throw stones. Just look around you.

[denicci1977]

Amen for what you and Matt both said !!

[Matt7]

Holdges: “I want no part of Obama and his change, and I HOPE his policies FAIL completely for the sake of the country."
___________________

What is wrong with you? When the Presidency fails, the country fails. Are you an American or a Republican (or whatever you're calling yourselves these days)?

When that Iraqi journalist threw shoes at President Bush, don't you realize he wasn't only dishonoring the MAN, but that the COUNTRY was being insulted, too? I was humiliated as he disrespected my President AND my COUNTRY. (Even though I'd "never liked" nor voted for Bush.) Did CHICAGO lose the 2016 Olympic bid, or did AMERICA miss out on that potential economic boon? Did the President alone win the Nobel Prize, or did the honor also accrue to the United States?

Wake up and stop the vitriolic rhetoric long enough to do something constructive with your time /energy. Ragging on an internet board is not the same as citizen activism. You don't like the way things are? WORK to fix it, and stop throwing rocks at the guy trying to pilot the d@mn ship in the middle of rough waters, at least until he can manage to get it to shore.

You people have been sold such a us vs them, partisan bill of goods, it's like you can't comprehend/absorb the fact that if you sh00t a hole in MY side of the boat that we're both in, YOUR behind is going to be treading water soon, too!

[jackbutler5555]

Pretty good.

[foxbat]

I think that Plouffe's statement about that NY 23rd district race is much more the story than trying to tie off year elections to a referendum on the president. Ultimately, what's going to be of interest in 2012 almost seems to be less about Obama and more about how far the GOP moderate and semi-independents are willing to allow the far-right and fringes to co-opt the party. So far, it appears that they are more than willing to let it swing wide right; perhaps at the eventual detriment of the party ... or worse, the country.

[SharpDressedMan]

I don't think the moderates are allowing the far right and fringes to co-opt the party, as you put it. I think the far right and extremists are hijacking the GOP again. This time rather than grow the size of the party as it did in the last 3 decades, this hijacking is shrinking the party. Remember, they lost their credibility in handling the economy and handing foreign affairs such as wars. All they have is social values and we know what happened there.

Their bark is worse than their bite.

[foxbat]

When I don't see people like Dick Lugar speaking out about the nonsense that's going on in the GOP, it gives me pause. I wonder if they are hoping and praying that the far-right finally breaks off into a fringe party or whether they just have indeed just allowed the party to be pulled and are somehow hoping that lunacy catches on with the rest of the country to again build the base.

The problem with social values is that so many people buy the cr*p that's being sold. Now these are people who are good family values people, but consistently seem to suppost people who talk the talk, but ceratinly don't walk the walk as you allude to. I also marvel at the fact that folks have still not caught on to the fact that lowering taxes don't do much of anything if you don't also cut the spending. I can't imagine that people thought it was such a great idea to go into two wars and lower taxes while keeping the expenses off of the books and then sit there and believe the rhetoric about lowering taxes. *sigh*

[jackbutler5555]

What is the worst possible outcome for Democrats?

1. A Republican state -- Virginia -- elects a Republican governor who is trying to keep conservative Republicans arms length out of fear he'll be tainted.

2. A Republican congresswomen is replaced by a Conservative.

3. A state which has elected Republican governors, like Christy Todd Whitman, elects another Republican governor, replacing an unpopular Democrat.

That it? It really ain't that bad.

[SharpDressedMan]

Baloney

[jackbutler5555]

Hello, Mr. SharpDressedMan. You said my comment was "baloney." That it? That's all you have to say? Is there something intensely significant in that comment that I may be missing? Mr. SharpDressedMan that's the kind of comment an empty suit might make, apparently in your case a sharp empty suit., the kind of suit no doubt that would sell itself right off the hanger.

[vgirl1]

The Republican playbook: Never discredit another Republican unless she/he is not conservative enough.

The Democratic playbook: Always discredit a Democrat unless they are doing exactly what "I "want, when "I" want it, as fast as "I" want it.

No wonder Democrats sat so long in the wilderness. At the rate Dems tongues are wagging to do damage to their own best interests and that of the country (c0onsidering the Republican alternative) the Democrats will get back there sooner than they think.

Led by the voices of Ms. HuffandPuff and Mr Mathourwayornoway we are walking the path of self destruction with the haughtiness of righteousness.

[KarateKid]

LMAO. That's funny. Good joke.

[Donthizz]

im really getting sick of leberals attacking Obama, this why democrats cant stay in power, as soon as they come to power they start attacking them, jeez...

[MillinMn]

I'm confused - is President Obama up for re-election? Has he completed even one of his four year term? Is it time for his performance review by lefties, or righties at this very moment in history?

Everything isn't about how it affects the political fortunes of the President. Some times local races, like those in Virginia, New Jersey and New York are about what the voters in those areas are worried about - none of those voters can cast a ballot for or against President Obama today.

So get a friggin' life, help the guy govern successfully instead of amplying the chattering class - which thrives on false conflicts and exaggerated differences - that must do daily performance reviews to fill a news cycle that is 24/7

[SharpDressedMan]

Excellent, fanned.

[lthuedk 1]

To gauge President Obama's courage and understanding of the Constitution and international law, one only examine his position on prosecuting Bushists. For now, he's courting moderate Republicans. But later, he'll be courting Progressives.

He will lose in 2012 if the Bushists aren't fully prosecuted. Personally, I believe the prosecutions would begin after the 2010 elections but before Nov. 2012. Nothing educates better than going to court. There is no better way to neutralize the fascist wing of the Party than to punish their anti-American heroes for the crimes everyone knows they committed.

President Obama wouldn't dare be criminally negligent. He has zero choice and neither does A.G. Holder.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/gonzo_or_justice.html

[itsme23]

The man hasn't been in the office a whole year yet....and you are expecting him to have everything solved!?? Seriously? It didn't take 10 months for all of our ills to become a reality and they were never going to be solved that quickly either. But what makes me the most angry, is all of this discussion of it as though that were ever possible...it's not real and e all know it. Even worse are the people who are blaming Obama instead of these knuckleheads in congress who are not helping the adgenda.Turncoats like Lieberman who need to be voted out asap, who are hindering the process. O thought he had a congress that supported him, we no see that they just lied to help themselves get elected.

[Dogma]

Agreed.

The malcontents sound like naive, undisciplined teenagers who were expecting the world with a bow on it.

Here is link posted on HufPo a few days ago. Think of it as a pacifier.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125712507804421903.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy

[justice58]

Co-Sign

[SharpDressedMan]

Fanned

[BabblingBrooks]

Just how fast do you want the country destroyed? He's working as hard as he can on it, given that the citizens don't seem to like it and aren't knuckling under as much as he had planned.

[BannedInBoston]

You're just babbling, Brooks.

[LeeCalif]

eh eh eh eh eh

[chancho24]

Funny how Repubs were not alarmed when Bush was causing major damage to the country.
No, along comes a new leader whose only fault is that he has different ideas, and this is someone labeled out to des-troy the country.
The bs is mindboggling.

[Cloball]

It's what they thrive on. They know it's bs.

[SharpDressedMan]

I find that funny too. We had market downturns during the Bush years. Every president had them but Bush had it bad, the worse since Hoover's years. No one took to the streets to protest, no one rallied in Washington DC or rode and some bus promoting a political party styling itself after a beverage.

That alone gives them away and discredits their agenda. If they didn't know what was best for our country during the Bush years, they certainly don't know what's best for us now.

[Indie2008]

I'm curious about the thought process in reaching such a conclusion. Do you just block from your mind the Bush years of runaway spending (after inheriting a balanced budget), The cowboy diplomacy and wars of choice, the suitcases of money lost in iraq, the first of the bailouts, started under his watch last fall, the same chairman of the FED, and on and on... Does one block it out or just not see it?

[Aaryck]

They problem with republicans is that they have short term or selective memories when it suits them or in some cases really do have alzheimers. Either way it dangerous to govern with that type of attitude or problem.

[marlainWA]

My husband keeps saying he has the power he just needs to realize that. I feel for Obama because so many of the big problems have no easy answer and no matter where he turns he will make enemies. But trying to govern in the middle he is risking looking like milk toast.

[Aaryck]

I agree I think it was easier for Clinton to do it during his time but for Obama we are in a greater challenge and sometimes greater challenges call for great solutions with steadfast and firm decisions. People will be unsatisfied no matter but that's life.

[Rescisco]

I sometimes feel that politics ("left" and "right") is a fiction designed by all of us to distract ourselves from the reality that we really don't know what we're doing most of the time and nobody is really in charge etc. Its just one big scam and we're all just trying to win the "lotto" of life. Just kidding....sort of!

[BabblingBrooks]

Yeah, I agree. The choice is between those who want to control other folks and those who want to leave them alone. Those who want to take other people's money and property and those who don't.

Make your choice!

[BannedInBoston]

You're just babbling, Brooks.

[KarateKid]

It's interesting how you buy into that talking point, control others v.s. left alone. Then, are we correct in assuming you were against the Patriot Act?

And the premise of left alone. Don't just isolate controlling others to the federal government. Look at your local and state government, too. Sales tax, property tax, excise tax are all part of local government and it takes a lot out of your pocket, too.

But what are the alternatives? Want to put out your own fires, police our streets with vigilantes? Build and repair your own patch of road? Have ALL toll roads? Clean up your own environment?

Your argument sounds good, but it has no practical application to real life.

[foxbat]

You mean control like tell them who they can and can't marry? Or do you mean take away property by infringing on copyright? Or do you mean control like telling someone what they can or can't do with their body? Or are you meaning control like leaving the cost of a war off of the books? Or do you mean take other people's money like spending for a war without having the resources to begin with? Or do you mean leaving people alone by reducing Constitutional protects for privacy rights? Or ...

[vgirl1]

The choice is between those who are fooled by the rich and powerful military/industrial /corporate complex and the Repugnants who represent them versus those who truly work for the average American and the betterment of the as a whole.

The first group is fueld by those who think that the crumbs they are given by the Repugnants are their life and liberty because they also feast on the false sense of racial, ethnic and national superiority fed them by the Repugnants. The second group recognizes the scam, know when they are being screwed, know the world is moving ahead while so many choose to be stuck in the past. As a result this latter group actually votes for the party and people who have vision and honestly and traditionally have passed legislation which created, built and and supported the forward progress of the middleclass (i.e the Democrat Party).


"What's the matter with Kanas" is the best description of this sad state of American affairs.

[vgirl1]

Leave us alone is right.

So stay out of our bedrooms.

Stay out of our reproductive choices.

Stop trying to control our personal lives.

Or like most hypocritical Repugnants is the definition of leave us alone only applicable when it involves things you support or want done in this nation?