"O" my . . . a Presidential who wrote it?

I've been reporting on books and publishing for over a decade now, first as sort of an emergency, back-up Lynn Neary (NPR's dedicated books and publishing reporter), and then, when NPR did away with a dedicated book editor, writing about books for npr.org. 

So anyway, I'm fully qualified to recognize and enjoy a publisher's promotional hijinks when I see them. Especially when they are a recycling of another publisher's promotional hijinks.

Remember Primary Colors, the Clinton Era "novel of politics" written by Anonymous, who -- after 6 months of speculation-fueled best-seller status (ka-ching, goes the cash register) -- turned out to be Joe Klein?

Well, Anonymous is back with a new novel. This one's called O: A Presidential Novel. It goes on sale* January 25th.

The "product description" on Amazon tells us that O: A Presidential Novel, set during the 2012 Presidential campaign, contains,

The truth only fiction can tell.

This is a novel about aspiration and delusion, set during the presidential election of 2012 and written by an anonymous author who has spent years observing politics and the fraught relationship between public image and self-regard.

The novel includes revealing and insightful portraits of many prominent figures in the political world—some invented and some real.

I  think the cover of O is spot-on, as apparently does Jill Lawrence, Senior Correspondent for Politics Daily. Ms. Lawrence notes that,  

You don't have to be a close observer to get the cover art: an O with a large ear attached to each side. "What's going on between those ears?" asks the first line of the Simon &  Schuster press release on the book, officially due out Jan. 25.

Obama campaigning in 2008 ( Darron Cummings/AP

Back to publicity hijinks . . . 

The Mail is a British tabloid similar to America's National Enquirer, its front page littered with reports of violence and  pot-smoking toddlers . Earlier this month this article appeared:

A Presidential whodunnit: Mystery of who wrote new Obama novel.

Washington is awash with rumours over the identity of the anonymous author of a new novel written by an Obama insider.. . . It is described as a 368-page roman a clef inspired by Barack Obama and his inner circle. The author is said to have ‘vast personal experience’ of the President. . . . But so far the writer is keeping his or her identity under wraps.

Indeed he/she is. And Jonathan Karp, executive vice president and publisher at Simon &  Schuster stands guard over those wraps, frantically fueling the flames of speculation with missives such as an e-mail sent January 18th to politicos, and any Big Media Cheeses who deal with politics and/or books. I didn't rate one (what an oversight!), but Steven Levingston, who writes The Washington Post blog, "Political Bookworm," kindly published his copy.

On January 25, we'll be publishing a secret novel simply titled O, about President Obama's campaign for re-election in 2012. The author of the novel wishes to remain anonymous. You may be asked to comment on whether or not you are the author. If so, it would be great if you refrained from commenting, in solidarity with the principle that a book should be judged on its content and not on the perceived ideology of its author. The author, an individual with integrity and talent, is someone who has been in the room with Barack Obama and knows the political world intimately. In fact, you may know this person, or know of this person -- if you are not in fact the author yourself. Thanks in advance for your consideration. I apologize for the impersonality of this blind group email, but this seems like the best way to protect the author's identity. I hope you enjoy the book. It's terrific.

Only maybe, it's not so terrific.
Susan Page begins her review ("'O: A Presidential Novel' is primarily an uncolorful tell-al.l,") in USA Today this way:

WASHINGTON — The mesmerizing power of Primary Colors: A Novel of Politics when it was published in 1996 was its roiling, pitch-perfect, three-dimensional portrait of President Bill Clinton, even if his name in the loosely fictionalized account of his first presidential campaign was Gov. Jack Stanton.

The disappointing thing about O: A Presidential Novel, which goes on sale Jan. 25, is the failure of this speculative account of his 2012 re-election campaign to offer any similar insights into President Barack Obama, known throughout only by his initial.

Ron Charles, writing in The Washington Post was equally unenthusiastic, pointing out that,

Dramatically, "O" suffers from its concentration on a pair of candidates determined to be civil and restrained. That would be nice for our country, but it's damning for a novel. 

As to who wrote it, who knows? Ed Pilkington writes in the Guardian:

Rampant speculation has name-checked Rahm Emanuel (though he's a little busy running for mayor of Chicago), David Plouffe (has enough on his plate as Obama's new senior adviser) and the TV comedian Stephen Colbert (the book is not funny enough to have been by him). Ben Smith, a blogger at the Politico website, has diligently obtained denials from many potential culprits, which is in itself suspicious. So is he the author? "No. I'd be happy to take credit for it though – it's a fun read," Smith told the Guardian. 

Says Ben, anyway.


You know, I thought some about claiming to have written O: A Presidential Novel myself, just for the fun of it. But then the reviews came out . . .

* I link to Amazon on this blog because if you buy this book (or anything) through this link, WMRA gets money!

Is this what consensus politics looks like?

President Barack Obama waves as he arrives in Hawaii for his holiday vacation.(Lum/Pool NYDailyNews.com)

The New York Daily News began the article accompanying the above picture by saying,

President Obama didn't have much to be thankful for last month, but it looks like he'll have a Merry Christmas after all.

The Commander in Chief can bask in the glow of big legislative wins as he spends the holidays in Hawaii, and a new poll shows 56% of the country approves of the job the President has done this month working with the lame-duck Congress.

Only 41% disapproved of how Obama worked with Congress, according to the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll published Wednesday.

This, just a month after his administration's self-styled thumping.

Jonathan Capehart began a "PostPartisan" column today in The Washington Post this way:

"I am persistent," President Obama said in his "How ya like me now?!" press conference. "If I believe in something strongly, I stay with it." And he has enough legislative victories in this lame-duck session to prove it. The deal on tax cuts and the extension of unemployment benefits. The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." A new START treaty with the Russians. The passage of the first changes in food safety laws in more than 70 years. And a law to provide for the health care of those who put duty first in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11.

 Today's New York Times lead editorial proclaiming that "The Senate Surmounts Politics," begins by saying,

Wednesday was not a good day for Senator Mitch McConnell’s single-minded project to make Barack Obama a one-term president. Over the minority leader’s objections, 13 Republicans joined every Democratic senator to ratify the New Start nuclear arms treaty with Russia, reducing the size of the countries’ nuclear stockpiles and making the world a safer place. The 71-to-26 vote was the capstone to what now shapes up to be a remarkably successful legislative agenda for President Obama’s first two years.

I have always loved Gloria Steinem's retort to the reporter who, 30 years ago now, on the occasion of her 40th birthday told her that she didn't look forty. Ms. Steinem famously (and accurately) replied, “This is what 40 looks like -- we’ve been lying for so long, who would know?” 


Haven't we for years been clamoring for our elected officials to forget politics and actually accomplish something for the public good?  So, is this what's finally happened in the last month?


Or has government been dysfunctionally political for so long, who would know?

Wheeeeeee!

Do I hear Bonnie Raitt singing lustily,

 Let's give them something to talk about. A little mystery to figure out. . .????

I love this stuff. Love it! Love it! Love it!

All these sage talking heads talking solemnly about whether or not President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are planning the uber corporate shake-up: a 2012 job switcheroo for Mr. Biden and Ms. Clinton.

To me, it conjures up an image of the two of them, blind-folded, playing Pin the Tail on the Job.

Bob Woodward, arguably the doyen of talking heads, brought such a possibility up during a Tuesday interview with CNN's John King.

"President Obama needs some of the women, Latinos, retirees that she did so well with during the [2008] primaries and, so they switch jobs, not out of the question, and the other interesting question is, Hillary Clinton could run in her own right in 2016 and be younger than Ronald Reagan when he was elected president."

But wait! No stranger a source than George W. Bush's former Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, had speculated about such a high-level job switcheroo on CNN way back on October 1st. 

"[It] wouldn't surprise me if she became the vice presidential nominee. And the vice president [Biden] became the Secretary of State," Card said on CNN's American Morning. "That would shake things up."

But wait, again! From an aside in an article yesterday in The Wall Street Journal (an interview with former Clinton campaigner Howard Wolfson), I gather this talk has been simmering  for a while now. . . perhaps just waiting for a slow news couple of days to come to a boil?

Don’t ask New York City Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, whether she would be a good vice president. He’s just not going there.

Following a breakfast forum in midtown Manhattan Wednesday, Wolfson deflected a flurry of questions about the possibility of President Barack Obama replacing Vice President Joe Biden with Clinton on the 2012 ticket, a possibility that’s been the subject of speculation among political observers recently. The talk seemed to have died down lately (my boldface), but on Tuesday night Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward reignited the chatter by suggesting the White House is talking of a possible switch.

There's been enough chatter on this subject to draw a White House denial and a Clinton dismissal. Jenna McGregor took note of the switcheroo rumors yesterday in her Washington Post blog PostLeadership, and had this (among other things) to say:

I have nothing to further the speculation, but I can ask this question: why not? Rotating executives between top jobs happens all the time in business, and is seen as good management and corporate governance. It's a natural way for leaders to challenge themselves, develop their skills and stretch different management muscles for a few years.

To which actual, source-based speculation, I ask, does Ms. McGregor have nothing to add? Where did this rumor come from? And why is it being bandied about now?

I found the most interesting speculation on the reason for the current eruption of switcheroo speculation embedded in The New York Times political blog, The Caucus. Michael Shear writes mid-way through yesterday's 2:32 PM post:

Just as the buzz from his latest blockbuster book had started to fade, Bob Woodward, The Washington Post journalist and author, found another way to set off the cable news chatter.

In an almost off-hand comment in an interview on CNN on Tuesday night, Mr. Woodward asserted that the White House was considering swapping Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton and Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. on the 2012 ticket.

Is that what all this is about? Mr. Woodward's desire to sell more books? Bob Woodward does appear to admit this in an e-mail to The Caucus, in which he writes that “the issue [the Clinton-Biden job switcheroo] is outlined in the book [that's his new book, Obama's Wars]. . ..”

That sounds to me  like a book tease. Does it sound like a book tease to you?

If so, I ask you , Mr. Woodward, where's your dignity? Surely we Americans still want our news kept separate from reality TV, where the dramas are admittedly created whole cloth for corporate profits..

Don't we?

So what was Mr. Biden's reaction to all this windy, journalistic speculation that the president might ask him to switch jobs with Mrs. Clinton? According to The Caucus,

An official close to Mr. Biden says the vice president could “care less” about the chatter, and that he chuckled when told of the report.

What's the drill?

There has been a long-standing moratorium on oil and gas drilling along much of the east coast of the United States. That, evidently, is about to change.

Obama to allow drilling 50 miles off Va. coast

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 31, 2010

WASHINGTON -- In a reversal of a long-standing ban on most offshore drilling, President Barack Obama is allowing oil drilling 50 miles off Virginia's shorelines. At the same time, he is rejecting some new drilling sites that had been planned in Alaska.

Obama's plan offers few concessions to environmentalists, who have been strident in their opposition to more oil platforms off the nation's shores. Hinted at for months, the plan modifies a ban that for more than 20 years has limited drilling along coastal areas other than the Gulf of Mexico. . .

Thus began an article in this morning's Richmond Times-Dispatch. The Washington Post reports that the move will anger environmentalists and please oil and gas companies.

The drilling policy represents the White House's latest attempt to straddle a middle ground on climate and energy policy, an effort that has already seen steps to boost domestic energy production and demands for stricter limits on greenhouse-gas emissions. This week the administration will finalize the nation's first greenhouse-gas limits for emissions from cars and light trucks, regulations that will boost the fuel economy of the U.S. vehicle fleet over several years.

Interestingly, at the time I'm posting this, there was no mention of the expected announcement in The Dallas Morning News, which reports from arguably the heart of the American oil industry.

Trolling the web for perspective on this announcement, I came across this article about then Senator Obama on the campaign trail, posted August 3, 2008, on CNN.

Sen. Barack Obama responded Saturday to criticism that he has changed his position on opposing offshore oil drilling.

Obama said Friday that he would be willing to compromise on his position against offshore oil drilling if it were part of a more overarching strategy to lower energy costs.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama told The Palm Beach Post early into a two-day swing through Florida.

But on Saturday morning, Obama said this "wasn't really a new position."
"I made a general point about the fact that we need to provide the American people some relief and that there has been constructive conversations between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on this issue," he said during a press conference in Cape Canaveral.

"What I will not do, and this has always been my position, is to support a plan that suggests this drilling is the answer to our energy problems," Obama added.
"If we've got a plan on the table that I think meets the goals that America has to set and there are some things in there that I don't like, then obviously that's something that I would consider because that's the nature of how we govern in a democracy."

So, WMRA community of listeners, what's your reaction? Good move? Bad move? Necessary move? Politically expedient move? 

NOTE: April 1st ON POINT (10 a.m.--noon) on WMRA

President Obama’s Energy Vision - President Obama announces plans to drill for oil offshore. On Point looks at the politics behind the move - - and Obama s energy vision now.

NOTE #2:  map of proposed drilling area off Virginia coast

Michelle Obama's right to bare arms and other stylish questions. . .

A year ago, when we were all still getting comfortable with President Barack and First Lady Michelle Obama’s personal style, there was quite a lot of journalistic clucking about Michelle Obama’s arms; that they were so strong and so often on display.

And this clucking came not just from narrowly focused fashionistas, but from the astutely focused pundit—and frequent NPR presence—David Brooks. His discomfort with Ms. Obama’s public display of biceps was ratted out by fellow New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in a Sunday column she titled "Should Michelle Cover Up?" Ms. Dowd and Mr. Brooks were on their way to the British Embassy . . .

In the taxi, when I asked David Brooks about her [Mrs. Obama's] amazing arms, he indicated it was time for her to cover up. “She’s made her point,” he said. “Now she should put away Thunder and Lightning.”

So what, exactly, was our initial problem with Ms. Obama’s naked arms? Could it have been that we, the American people, were being asked to cope with one style adjustment too many?

Barack Obama, as a candidate, had famously declared America wanted change. Obviously, we voters agreed with him, having had enough of being governed by sartorially conservative, rather prudish people. The Bush Tribe was nothing, if not predictable in their personal style. Remember Attorney General John Ashcroft draping the semi-nude statues in the Great Hall of Justice because he wasn’t comfortable being photographed with them?

First Lady Laura Bush dressed perfectly for her role as that administration’s head spouse -- no non-traditionally naked arms on display for her! Indeed, Mrs. Bush presented us with no fashion surprises of any kind. She understood First Ladies as institutions on two feet, not as fashion forward women who use clothes to give us some sense of who they are.

Of course, we didn't elect Michelle Obama, we elected her husband. And Barack Obama comes with a personal style as well; not so much in what he wears as in how he goes about doing business. We threw out a President who many thought shot from his hip (and was famously ill at ease listening to contrary opinions), for one who has positioned himself as a consensus builder, one who asks us all to be patient while he takes time to be well-informed himself and gives others time to become equally well-informed. President Barack Obama seems to really expect politicians to stop worrying about re-election long enough to actually accomplish things.

Dana Millbank, whom I think watched the entire Health Care Summit, has an interesting column in this morning's Washington Post, called "Obama needs to flex his political muscle," in which he contrasts Gordon Brown's and Bush II's political style (which he sees as bullying) with President Obama's more measured approach:

Here in America, however, we can only watch this [Gordon Brown's bullying] behavior with envy. Our president is not a bully; in fact, he is the victim of bullying. He is bullied by Republicans on health care. He is bullied by congressional Democrats on everything. He is bullied by his own Cabinet. Dick Cheney pauses in his bullying of Obama only for the occasional heart attack.

Admittedly, the allegations against Brown have only hastened his political decline, and there's no need for Obama to start kicking furniture and throwing BlackBerrys at people, as Brown stands accused of doing. Still, it wouldn't hurt for the occupant of the bully pulpit to show some force of will.

His predecessor got a narrowly divided Congress to pass his tax cuts, authorize the Iraq war and give him the Patriot Act, not through logic or eloquence but by bludgeoning, intimidating and threatening holdouts (remember Jim Jeffords or Max Cleland?). Lawmakers weren't swayed by George W. Bush's arguments; they feared retribution.

The problems that plague this country are terribly complex and terribly serious. It seems evident that "talking point" politics are unhelpful in addressing them, yet we Americans seem drastically uncomfortable with anything else. Obama's popularity numbers continue to plummet as he continues to try to work with the people who oppose his ideas, often (it seems) for purely political reasons. He began the year with a 50% approval rating down from 68% last March.

It's a given that we are all worried and all concerned about the country's future as well as our own. My question is what, exactly, do we want this President to do that he is not doing? Are we simply uncomfortable with Barack Obama's consensus-building style?  Do we really want government by political bullying?

Michelle Obama, by the way, has a 78% approval rating. Which means, I guess, that we have gotten quite comfortable with "Thunder and Lightning."