The Obama Obsession

---

"In just a few weeks the young man would become President of the United States, and to the newspapermen standing outside his Georgetown house, there was an air of excitement about every small act, every gesture, every word, every visitor to his temporary headquarters. They complained less than usual, the bitter cold notwithstanding; they felt themselves part of history: the old was going out and the new was coming in, and the new seemed exciting, promising."

David Halberstam
"The Best and the Brightest"

---

Something's been bothering me since the November elections, and I've been trying to put my finger on it for the last five weeks.

I think I've come close to identifying it.

There is an obsession in the land, and I'm not referring to the Calvin Klein perfume or an old song by Guns N' Roses or any one of several films with "obsession" in the title.

I'm referring to the general public (as well as media) infatuation with Barack Obama.

For some reason, many of the people who voted for Obama seem to be under the impression that everything will start to improve immediately when he takes office.

I wrote about this, indirectly, after reading a column by Gail Collins in the New York Times a few weeks ago that suggested that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should resign and let Nancy Pelosi become president.

In the interim between taking office and Obama's January 20 inauguration, Collins wrote, Pelosi could start implementing Obama's policies.

At the time, I observed that Collins' suggestion was creative but improbable.

However, it's also indicative of a much greater public psychological problem.

Bush may be the lamest lame duck you've ever seen hobbling around the West Wing, but he's still the duly elected president until Obama takes the oath of office.

I'll grant you that nothing, constructive or otherwise, is being done in the waning days of Bush's watch. And Collins made a valid point by quoting presidential historian Michael Beschloss, who observed that "Doing nothing is almost the worst thing a president can do."

Perhaps, over the long haul, Bush's do-nothing, limp-across-the-finish-line approach won't make a real difference — other than to reinforce the perception of him as a puppet ruler. It certainly won't enhance his "legacy," such as it is.

But it just might not make any difference.

Obama talked a lot during the campaign about health care reform, which is a noble endeavor. But, as the Clintons learned, it's much easier said than done.

As Robert Laszewski argued in an entry in The Health Care Blog a few days after the election, major health care reform is not likely in 2009 or 2010 — even with a Democratic president and sizable Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

In fact, Laszewski pointed out, Obama will have the same majorities in both chambers that Bill Clinton had when he took office in 1993.

"In the House ... last session we had 49 'Blue Dog' Democrats and will have at least that many this time," he wrote. "Without 'Blue Dog' support, the Democrats will not have a majority on any health care bill. No big health care reform can pass without the support of these fiscally conservative Democrats who are pledged to a pay-as-you-go policy ...

"In the Senate, it appears the Democrats should have 57 or 58 seats in January. But Republicans can stop a big Democratic health care bill with only 41 votes and they will likely have 42 or 43. Forty-three is exactly the number of seats Bob Dole had when he stopped the Clinton Health Plan in 1994."

As I say, it may make no long-term difference if Bush spends his final weeks as president picking out the carpets and drapes for his new home in an affluent section of Dallas. But it's not making things easier for the team that will take over in January.

And, after Obama takes office, Collins and many of the millions of Americans who voted for him may be disappointed to learn that a change in administration does not mean immediate change, no matter how earnestly it may be desired.

This is not a dictatorship — remember how Bush suggested that everything would be easier if it were? — and a president must work with 100 senators and 435 representatives.

Obama doesn't have a full term in the Senate under his belt, but he's been around long enough to know how the system works.

And he spent enough time on the campaign trail to know how impatient the press can get. If he forgot in the weeks since the campaign ended, he got a reminder during the weekend, when he was interviewed by Tom Brokaw on "Meet the Press."

Brokaw quizzed Obama on economic issues, foreign affairs and even zeroed in on his smoking habit, which reportedly is more than two decades old now.

Obama also reportedly has struggled in recent years to give it up.

"Have you stopped smoking?" Brokaw asked directly, just before the end of the interview.

Obama, who had fielded a variety of questions, seemed to be caught off-guard. He said he had stopped smoking, but he admitted that "there are times where I have fallen off the wagon."

Brokaw jumped. "Wait a minute. That means you haven't stopped."

Obama retreated, saying "Fair enough," then asserting that he had done a "terrific job under the circumstances of making myself much healthier."

That's good for Obama, but he can be a real role model by being as public as possible about his quest and encouraging those who are trying to stop smoking in the current economy. Tough times require straight talk.

"People will not stop smoking in recession, they might even smoke more because they are nervous," a professor at London's Cass Business School told Reuters.

Do you suppose that means the tobacco companies won't be needing a bailout?

I know how difficult it is to stop smoking. Obama certainly isn't the first person who has done some backsliding when trying to give it up. But reforming the health care system is going to be even more difficult — and require more long-term dedication.

So will mending the economy.

So will securing our borders — and ending an unpopular war.

Might be a good idea to hold off on those commemorative plates and coins celebrating Obama's inauguration.

I know there's a temptation to try to make a few bucks from the historic inauguration of the first black president.

But every president — good or bad — has taken the oath of office.

Let's wait until Obama has done something to commemorate — other than raising his right hand.

Matchmaker, Matchmaker

---

"The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics."

Chicago Tribune

---

Speculation is running wild about whether former Secretary of State Colin Powell will issue an endorsement of one of the presidential candidates when he appears on NBC's "Meet the Press" tomorrow.

The speculation has spread and now includes foreign media as well as domestic.

Philip Sherwell of The Telegraph of London sounds like Tevye from "Fiddler on the Roof" as he leaps from one conclusion to the other.

"On the other hand ... "

To illustrate what I mean, Sherwell begins his article by observing "Colin Powell ... is expected to denounce 'ugly' personal attacks on Barack Obama and may endorse the Democrat for the nation's top job."

Sherwell then quotes Powell's former chief of staff as saying that Powell has bemoaned the "vitriol, bile and prejudice" in the campaign and "I'd expect him to talk about it."

But Sherwell also points out that Powell's ex-aide describes him as a "loyal soldier who owes a lot to some people in the Republican Party," which he concedes is "a factor that could mitigate against an endorsement by a man not prone to gesture politics."

In short, Sherwell speculates that a Powell endorsement of Obama is a definite maybe.

(While reading Sherwell's article, I was almost disappointed that I didn't hear a chorus singing, "Find me a find, catch me a catch ...")

There are a few genuine endorsements to talk about today.

• Perhaps the most significant comes from the Chicago Tribune.
  
  It may not seem especially surprising that the fifth-largest newspaper in the United States (with a circulation of nearly 1 million), which happens to serve the city where Obama makes his home, has endorsed the Democratic nominee.
  
  Until you realize that this is the first time in its 161-year history that the conservative Tribune has endorsed a Democrat for president.
  
  The paper was a strong advocate of the abolition of slavery, and it supported favorite son Abraham Lincoln when he sought the presidency in 1860. But it hasn't always endorsed Illinois politicians who ran for the nation's highest office. It did not support Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson when he ran against Republican Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s.
  
  Supporting a Democratic presidential nominee is a new experience for the Tribune, but it doesn't always endorse the Republican nominee, either, as its editorial points out — although the examples it cites are endorsement editorials that were written by journalists several generations removed from the current editorial staff.
  
  In 1912, when former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt sought to return to the White House as the Progressive Party's candidate, the Tribune backed Roosevelt.
  
  And, in 1872, instead of supporting Republican President Ulysses S. Grant's bid for re-election, it endorsed the editor of the New York Tribune, Horace Greeley (at left), who ran as a Liberal Republican but was endorsed by the Democratic Party.
  
  Last spring, the Tribune endorsed both Obama and McCain in their parties' primaries, but the Tribune admits that it is "hard to figure John McCain these days" and asserts that he "failed in his most important executive decision" — when he picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate.
  
  "Give him credit for choosing a female running mate," writes the Tribune, "but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. ... McCain put his campaign before his country."
  
  In contrast, says the Tribune, "Obama chose a more experienced and more thoughtful running mate — he put governing before politicking."


• In comparison, I guess, the other two high-profile newspaper endorsements are neither surprising nor particularly historic.
  
  The Washington Post, for example, has a track record of supporting Democrats — although, for many years, late publisher Katharine Graham insisted on a policy of not endorsing presidential nominees.
  
  Since at least 2000, however, the Post has been endorsing presidential candidates — but, while conservatives often mention the Post and the New York Times as the joint Eastern apex of the so-called "liberal media bias" in American journalism, the truth is that the Post has endorsed some Republicans and taken conservative positions on some issues.
  
  But it lives up to expectations in its endorsement of Obama.
  
  "There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain," writes the Post, shedding crocodile tears. "Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president."
  
  The Post also uses Palin as a scapegoat, saying "The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president."
  
  But, while she may be convenient for that role, that doesn't mean the Post might have endorsed McCain if he had chosen someone else for his ticket.
  
  And the Post recites the qualities it believes Obama possesses that make him the best choice. "He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment."


• In the eyes of its modern-day readers, the Los Angeles Times follows a liberal editorial policy, but it was not always so.
  
  When I wrote a paper in graduate school on the 1932 election (to which I referred in this blog last month), I studied the Times' coverage of the campaign — and the Times' editorial policies clearly were different in those days.
  
  Students of history know 1932 was the year Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt defeated President Herbert Hoover in a landslide. On Election Day, the Times' front page ran an item in a box above the fold with a headline advising readers "Where to Vote For Hoover."
  
  Most Angelenos (like most Americans) did not follow the Times' recommendation when they went to their polling places.
  
  Times have changed.
  
  And one of the things that has changed is the Times' long-standing ban on endorsing presidential candidates. The newspaper stopped endorsing presidential candidates during the Nixon presidency but is resuming the practice this year.
  
  Today's Los Angeles Times says it endorses Obama "without hesitation."
  
  And recent voting history suggests that California will be in the Democratic column in November.
  
  It appears likely that, with its first presidential endorsement in nearly 40 years, the Times will achieve an electoral symmetry with its readers in 2008 that it wasn't able to achieve three-quarters of a century ago.
  
  Palin, once again, takes the hit for the Republicans. The Times writes that the decision was "irresponsible ... [It] calls into question just what kind of thinking — if that's the appropriate word — would drive the White House in a McCain presidency."
  
  And the Times isn't bashful about borrowing the poetic style of its preferred candidate. Obama, the Times writes, "represents the nation as it is and as it aspires to be."

I don't know if Powell will endorse anyone tomorrow or not, but I do know there will be legitimate endorsements published in the nation's newspapers in the next couple of weeks.

Whether the so-called "liberal media bias" exists, the truth is — as statistics clearly show — that the majority of newspapers that endorse presidential candidates have tended to endorse Republicans over the years.

In the last half century, the exceptions to that rule have occurred when the Republican candidate was considered to be too extreme (1964) or out of touch with the public while presiding over a recession (1992).

Thus far in the 2008 general election campaign, Obama leads in newspaper endorsements by about a 3-to-1 margin. Obama also has been endorsed by a few magazines — The New Yorker, Vibe, Rolling Stone and Esquire.

But only 82 newspapers have endorsed a candidate so far, according to Editor & Publisher. More than 400 newspapers endorsed a candidate in 2004.

Clearly, many, many newspapers that usually endorse a presidential candidate have not done so yet.

Perhaps they're waiting to focus their attention — as political observers tell us the voting public does — after the World Series.

Will He or Won't He?

---

The election of an African-American president “would be electrifying,” Powell told a George Washington University audience, "but at the same time [I have to] make a judgment here on which would be best for America."

CNN's Political Ticker

---

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is scheduled to appear on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

And there's a lot of talk about whether Powell will take the opportunity to endorse Barack Obama or John McCain.

Mike Allen speculates, on Politico.com, that Powell will endorse Obama's presidential campaign.

"The general’s camp is being coy about what he might or might not say on Sunday," Allen writes. "But some McCain advisers suspect, without being sure, that Powell will endorse Obama. 'It’s going to make a lot of news, and certainly be personally embarrassing for McCain,' a McCain official said. 'It comes at a time when we need momentum, and it would create momentum against us.'"

CNN's Alexander Mooney joins in with his speculation on Powell's intentions in CNN's Political Ticker blog.

Ann Althouse, a law professor and blogger, chimes in in her blog, "[W]hy else would they book him on the third-to-the-last show before the election?"

Well, NBC may want to get some insight from a former secretary of state about the world situation. The financial crisis has dominated news reports lately (and deservedly so), but the fighting goes on in Iraq and the problems with Iran and Korea — and other nations in the world — haven't gone away.

It's obvious that the next president will have to confront the financial crisis immediately, but he will also face an increasingly unpredictable international situation — especially in the Middle East.

Four years ago, Osama bin Laden caught nearly everyone by surprise by releasing a video taped message the weekend before the election.

In his message, bin Laden said he personally directed the Sept. 11 hijackers and said George W. Bush had been negligent prior to the attacks. Many pollsters reported that surveys indicated movement in Bush's direction after the video tape was aired.

Joseph Nye recalls, in the Financial Times, that bin Laden's 2004 message affected voters by reminding them of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Put in the context of the 2008 campaign, Nye writes, "Americans are transfixed by the aftermath of the September surprise in financial markets. Could there be a very different surprise coming in October?"

NBC may want to ask Powell what he believes the terrorist leader may do between now and the 2008 election. Will he do something similar in an attempt to influence the outcome?

---

"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."

Colin Powell
Speech to the U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

---

Also, Powell has served the last three Republican presidents in high-profile positions, and he considered running against the last Democratic president — as a Republican.

All of which would make a Powell endorsement of Obama really big news.

But, beyond the 24-hour news cycle such an endorsement would surely dominate, how much value would it have?

I guess that may depend — at least in part — on the outcome of the corruption trial of Sen. Ted Stevens.

Just last week, Powell testified in court on Stevens' behalf, saying that the Alaska senator had a "sterling" character and was "a trusted individual whose word you could rely on."

If Stevens is acquitted before the election, Powell's endorsement might have some benefit for its recipient.

But if he is convicted — or if the trial is still being conducted when the voters go to the polls — Powell's endorsement might not mean much.

Personally, I can't see the man who urged the United Nations (and, in the process, persuaded millions of fence-sitting Americans) to support an invasion of Iraq choosing to endorse Obama.

---

"I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. ... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors ... and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama
Oct. 2, 2002

---

Nor, for that matter, can I see Obama, who has made a point of emphasizing his opposition to the war, welcoming Powell's endorsement.

Unless he does so (cynically) on racial grounds.

And, if that's the case, is it still off the table to discuss Obama's association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright?