Pitfalls in the Presidency

Barack Obama was sworn in as president one month ago today, but it probably didn't take him long to become aware of the many pitfalls that come with the job.

His most obvious missteps have come in the area of his Cabinet nominations — many of which encountered no significant opposition but some of which have gone down in flames.

Yesterday, while Obama was making his first trip outside the United States, trouble was festering in his home state of Illinois.

You'd think that the state would be spared such problems in the bicentennial year of Abraham Lincoln's birth. But any hope of that probably went out the window when former Gov. Rod Blagojevich was impeached and then removed from office for allegedly trying to sell Obama's old Senate seat.

Most of the attention outside Illinois yesterday seems to have been on the fact that the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped to its lowest point since 2002, which is when the last recession bottomed out. I've seen no indications that this represents the bottoming out of the current recession. Of course, one can always hope.

Certainly, the precarious condition of the stock market is not Obama's doing. But, whether rightly or wrongly, it doesn't take the public long to begin linking conditions, whether they are good or bad, to whoever the current occupant of the Oval Office happens to be.

If Obama had had the good fortune to inherit a booming economy, he would be reaping the benefits. He's still doing pretty well in terms of his approval ratings, but historical patterns indicate that his numbers will continue to slide until voters see changes that are clearly the result of his leadership.

That was a lesson that the most popular presidents in modern times — Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton — learned early in their presidencies. In spite of their declines in popularity, they regained their footing and went on to win second terms.

The flip side is that some modern presidents — most notably Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — have become controlled by events rather than the other way around.

Obama seems to be aware of the fickle nature of presidential popularity. During his recent campaign to whip up support for his economic stimulus package, Obama acknowledged to his listeners that, if things don't improve, "you'll have a new president" in four years. Historically speaking, that isn't an unreasonable expectation. America has just seen the last two presidents live through two full terms, which is almost unheard of. You'd have to go back to the early 19th century to find the only instance of three consecutive presidents who lived through two full terms.

As urgent as the economy is, however, there are still distractions.

And now the heat is on Blagojevich's pick to replace Obama in the U.S. Senate — Roland Burris — whose earlier claims that he had nothing to hide now seem to be at odds with reports that he did indeed make efforts to raise money for Blagojevich last fall.

Burris' spokesman resigned yesterday, but, on the surface, at least, it appears to be unrelated to Burris' problems. The spokesman claims he was only doing the job on a temporary basis because Burris is a "long–term friend."

The Hill writes that Obama's White House is trying to stay out of the matter. And it isn't hard to understand why.

"This is one of those classic political cases where anyone who touches it comes out looking bad," a Democratic strategist told The Hill.

At the risk of sounding racist — and, as you may have heard, the attorney general says America (the same America that just elected a black president) is a "nation of cowards" when it comes to discussing race — it's a tar-baby.