So far, so bad...

All new presidents make mistakes during the early days of their administration. They usually recover from them. So far however, Obama has made three mistakes that can only be called "unforced errors." Unforced errors are indicative of what a man truly believes, his essence, or errors in judgment, as opposed to tactical mistakes which usually are inconsequential and due to forces beyond one's control.

An example: Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath was not Bush's fault, but relying on cronies such as FEMA director Michael Brown from the get-go was.

Obama made three errors which I think reflected poorly on him. The first was when he poked fun at Nancy Reagan accusing her of conducting seances. The second was when he spoke with the President of Poland and assured him that he was likeminded, but then turned around and said the opposite. The third was when he leaked the results of his private meeting with Bush.

A lot of this is inside baseball, it won't really matter that much to the great majority of the people, but it does give us insight into his character. The first mistake was tactless and betrayed a heartlessness towards a beloved woman who has suffered mightily the last fourteen years. Not to be too blunt about it, but it shows a heartlessness or an indifference to people.

The second has greater import because it causes world leaders to wonder how good Obama's word is. Is the US now a paper tiger? Will it say one thing to Sarkozy but another to Medvedev? Such double-mindedness makes the world a more dangerous place, not safer. Consider: the Israelis may decide that they have nothing to lose and launch a preemptive strike against Iran, after all, what good is Obama's word? And so on.

Third, Obama was the only other person in the Oval Office with Bush, so we know that the leak came from him, who leaked it to a subordinate (probably Rahm Emanuel). What does this mean? For one thing, world leaders are going to be very chary about discussing things with him. So will his allies on Capitol Hill. There is something about such a leak to a lackey which says more about his character. It's almost as if he desires the sympathy of his subordinates. Let's say it was Emanuel, what hold does the future chief of staff hold over him that he could pry out such high-level private discussions with the incumbent president? Let us say that Emanuel wore him down, and got him to spill the beans in a weak moment. That can happen to all of us. It should never happen to the president however. Obama owed no such favors to any lackey, no matter how valuable he feels they are. The meeting in the Oval Office was between one president and his successor, arguably the two most important men in the world. If what was discussed was substantive (and what is not in the Oval Office), not even their wives should be privy to what was discussed. Aides, even high level aides know where the boundaries are and know not to press their advantage. The purpose of a hierarchy is to insulate those in the chain of command and to create an aura of authority. If someone like Rahm Emanuel can breach this innermost circle, then Obama risks the very real possibility of being viewed as a figurehead or puppet.

How should Obama have played this? If he was asked what went on, he should have responded: "none of your goddamned business." He would have looked like a forthright leader, one not to be trifled with. On the other hand, if he spilled the beans willingly, then he runs the risk of looking like an incurable gossip. In the first instance, he looks like a real man, in the second, like a teenage girl.