"is the Gulf spill such a political crisis that it requires the Obama administration to blow off allies? "

Let us put it this way - even if Obama were to have successful trips to Australia or Indonesia; it will not matter anything if American Public sees that he ran out when they just wanted him to hang out. His foreign trips can be really beneficially to American Public, but who says we 'demand' things rationally from our Leaders?

Politics and contradiction, these are not oil and water. They mix.

Of course, Americans know that they have not elected an accomplished petroleum mining engineer. But we want him to be around just in case. For what? well, for nothing more than a public punching bag, somber White House speeches and drab interviews; basically the moaner in chief at home. Obama has to do all the grieving on behalf of us.

Australia and Indonesia will be disappointed. But would they want a President who is totally decimated at home by GOP? Rush is already saying the Greens have done this. What next? Oh - 'the grown up boy goes back to his village' will be the headline on Drudge Report.

It is a legitimate question whether a President should fear Rush and Drudge Report. But for me - I want this President 'fearless' about what he talked in a speech in this week (well, yet another speech) - how to remove our oil dependence, fast. Everything else, I am perfectly fine for him to be risk averse and conventional.

Umeshgeeta has it right. For some reason, we need the Prez to "do something" or "show some outrage". And he's gotta be here! It's worth noting that his approval ratings regarding the oil spill are trending downward.

I agree that he should go, but the punditocracy would have a collective aneurysm. The Maureen Dowds, James Carvilles, and Chris Matthewses of the world would blow a gasket screaming about how he doesn't care. And that's just the left. The right might actually explode.

Barack Obama created a campaign organization in which all direction, to say nothing of all wisdom, was seen to flow outward from the candidate. He's set up his administration the same way. That's a big part of his problem.

A modern political campaign almost has to be organized in this way. No one is going to vote for David Axelrod or Robert Gibbs. Government is different, because its responsibilities are so great and so varied that subordinate officials have to be given public grants of authority to make things happen -- the alternative being a massive bottleneck in the White House, with nothing happening unless the President decides to make it happen. In a campaign, everything and everyone is oriented toward supporting the candidate. In government, it's often the President's job to back up his subordinates.

It's fair to say President Obama is not on board with this. I doubt it ever occurred to him to point to one department or agency head -- Sec. Salazar, say, or EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- and announce that he was charging this official with directing the government's relations with BP, interagency relations with state and local governments, and other aspects of the federal response to the oil spill. That would violate a cardinal rule: never take the spotlight off the candidate. The problem is that Obama is President now, and Presidents are different. They don't have to work for the spotlight; in situations like this, they actually have to work rather hard to ensure they are out of it.

It's obviously absurd for a President without any relevant expertise to decide he needs to remain in the country to oversea the response to an oil spill, while neglecting foreign policy responsibilities that only he can fulfill. Obama, determined not only that decisionmaking should be centralized within walking distance of his White House office but that everyone should see that this is so, has left himself little choice.

You have got to be kidding me, but unfortunately you are not. Are you such a globalist that you don't appreciate what's going on in people's lives along the Gulf Coast?

Along Grand Isle, LA, a way of life is dying.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/2010/06/04/way-of-life-dying-in-grand-isle-la/

This is an environmental 9/11 for our nation, which could turn into an economic crisis if the oil goes up the Atlantic seaboard.

There is simply no other place Mr. Obama should be or should have been over these last 46 days and counting. In our globalized world, politicians have forgotten their primary responsibility. It is to this nation and the sacred land on which we live and share our habitat.

Mr. Drezner, if you are so globalized that you cannot feel the tragedy unfolding in your own country it's time to burn your passport and go on a road trip. Preferably to the Gulf Coast.

Taylor Marsh
Political Analyst
Washington, DC

You asked, "Is the Gulf spill such a political crisis that it requires the Obama administration to blow off allies?" In my opinion, absolutely. Foreign affairs is only important as long as our nation has a thriving economy and domestic stability. At this point, the US is in economic decline having suffered catastrophic disasters now in two major industries: financial services and energy. So yes, we have serious problems here at home that require our president to be involved and engaged, if only to keep his lieutenants motivated and inspired to do what has to be done to economic growth and stability at home.

Keep in mind that when Rome crumbled, at some point its ambassadors were either recalled or were abandoned by events in Rome itself. From where I am sitting, the problems here at home are that bad. More at:

http://wjmc.blogspot.com/2010/06/probability-of-sequential-catastrophic.html

Thank you for the opportunity to comment...

There are two parts to the problem: First, cap the well. Second, organize the relief and cleanup needed along the coast.

As noted, Obama has no expertise and no real input to the first part of the problem.

But as for the second part, the President himself claims to be the ne plus ultra of organizers. This is where he should be most involved. Maybe he is, but I don't see much in the news reports to so indicate. In fact, he says he didn't know about the Birnbaum resignation, had to correct Salazar on the throat thing, and has now visited the Gulf coast a total of three times in six weeks. I think it's valid to wonder what he's doing about the cleanup, besides trying to blame it on someone else.

Obama can not do anything to plug the leak. But he knows that he needs to stick around to get reelected.

As an Indonesian studying for a Polisci PhD in the US, I can explain why Obama cancels his trip to Indo and Australia for the second time with a simple strategic choice (cost-benefit calculus) theoretical framework.

Potential costs for Obama if he goes ahead with the visit: 1) Right-wing politicos and pundits would immediately pan him for wasting millions of US taxpayers $$s for a trip that does nothing to add jobs to the economy, they along with some folks from the leftwing base would also thrash him for leaving Louisiana coast while the oil spill continues (if you don't believe me, just watch how the right wing pundits attacked Tim Geitner for going to the G-20 Finance Ministers meeting last weekend), 2) The "birthers" and the Tea Party folks would get back in action repeating their assessment that Obama visits mean that a) he's really a foreigner, not a "native-born" US citizen and b) he's a closeted Muslim. Obama and his aides will have to spend the next two weeks rebutting these baseless accusations, costing valuable PR time and reinforces the perception that he doesn't care about the folks in Louisiana, and finally 3) Obama's poll #s would potentially plummetted further, and would have resulted in more losses for the Dems in November's midterm Congressional elections.

Potential benefits from the visit: almost none, at least in the immediate future. There's very few new US investments in Indonesia in the last few years, most of it due to the chronic infrastructure as well as "governance" crises the country is having currently, which falls directly to the Indo government and there's nothing Obama could do to solve them. Yes, he could make an argument that the visit would strengthen US-Indo security ties and would result in better results in the GWOT, but the Indonesians are already cracking down hard against Islamic terrorists in the last five years or so that more collaboration would only produce marginal benefits for the two sides. Bottom line: very few immediate benefits from the visit that can be sold as an "accomplishments" for the US audience back home.

There you have it, a simple cost-benefit calculation that explains Obama's decision. Of course the Indonesians would be very disappointed (since they're preparing a big Welcome Home ceremony a la JPII's first visit to Poland in 1979 for him), but they would just have to suck it and wait until the midterm Congressional elections have been concluded since at this point for Obama and his team, it's domestic politics, stupid!

Speaking logically, the president should be abroad at the moment. Sadly, the average voter isn't that bright.

Politicians, even dead important ones, let alone foreign ones, it seems are not part of any sort of grand or grandiose political mythology in Australia. It does seem that no one aside from other politicians ever is deeply motivated to see them, or their monuments if any. There will never ever be a Prime Ministers' Day, let along a Mt Rushmore, in the Lucky Country. There is a grand mythology, or course, but politicians aren't really in it. Diggers at Gallipoli-- now that's another story.

The president has been receiving poor ratings and bad press for his response and management of the disaster. Imagine if he left for Indonesia and Australia in the midst of this ever-evolving crisis. He and his administration know it would be suicide to abandon ship NOW. The Gulf Coast must remain the his focus until at least August when the two relief wells are expected to be be finished. Until then he has no option but to sit tight and keep his finger on the pulse.

The original purpose of President Obama's scheduled trip last March to Indonesia was to take his daughters on a vacation at taxpayer expense to his childhood Muslim home. Because the trip was scheduled for purely personal reasons -- and not for an international conference at which other international leaders would be present -- Obama deemed it more important to stay in DC and ensure passage of Obamacare. Now, in June when his children are again off school and there is no international conference or any official reason to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on a personal vacation to Obama's Muslim childhood home, Obama must stay in the US to attempt to stem the precipitous drop in his popularity. I don't blame Obama for the oil well disaster, but I do blame him for ignoring the unfolding ecological disaster and ignoring the pleas of Governor Jindal for federal assistance to protect Louisiana's wetlands. But the bottom line is that we're broke and we don't need to be paying for the Obama family to go on a personal international vacation at taxpayer expense.

Pres Obama should visit Australia and Indonesia. Australia is one of America's closest allies and Indonesia, as the world's most populous muslim country, can be considered a foundational state for building global acceptance of the 2010 national security strategy objectives. Guam is a U.S. territory so Pres Obama not visiting is not a foreign policy issue.

It is interesting that there is no mention of VP Biden and the role he could play. Providing VP oversight of the disaster in the Gulf still sends a pretty strong message to the domestic constituency. Personally, I would rather have the VP focus on this as opposed to the President worrying about the oil spill, which affects a few states, when there are larger foreign and domestic issues for him to focus on.

An interesting post to read. The president has been receiving poor ratings and bad press for his response and management of the disaster. Imagine if he left for Indonesia and Australia in the midst world political newsof this ever-evolving crisis. Keep in mind that when Rome crumbled, at some point its ambassadors were either recalled or were abandoned by events in Rome itself.

> Question to readers: is the Gulf spill such a political crisis
> that it requires the Obama administration to blow off allies?

No, it is not a "political crisis". It is an environmental and economic catastrophe. I don't often defend the President, but his decision to stay in the country was the correct decision. He needs to lead from the top, not advise from afar. Whether he will actually do so remains to be seen, but it's simply not possible to take charge of the situation from thousands of miles and several time zones away.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. It's quite a position to be in. When the options are limited to two, where one offers you the opportunity to kill yourself, while the other offers the opportunity to be killed, how can the one making the offer possibly lose?

At this time, the oil spill in the Gulf is purely an American catastrophe. The long-term effects will be primarily America's to deal with, regardless of the $75 million damages cap or not. Losing this tremendous ecosystem for all the foreseeable future is not quite on the level as a foreign diplomacy junket, I grant you. Had he gone, the President would have been crucified by conservative and Republican media without mercy. But, being so very good at "framing the message", here we see a counter-strike prior to an opening gambit. How very American of you.

It's hubris of the first order. Muck-raking and slanderous innuendo demean us all, and most especially those who hold themselves forth as journalists. That the President went to Louisiana, is keeping the issue in front of the American people, and is coordinating federal relief efforts is precisely why he was elected. We saw other possibilities during and after Katrina.

Given the two options, I like this one much, much better. It comes to my mind that you should, too. Like it or not, this is an AMERICAN problem. I'm glad our American leadership is on-scene, with the Governor of Louisiana. It's really a nice change-of-pace.

Don't you think?

Australia's PM Kevin Rudd could use some of Obama's star-power, and yes Australian's are still getting constant footage of the Gulf OIl Spill. Drezner is right, there is nothing OBama can do with this except backpedal on extending drilling in the gulf, announce a moratorium, and have plenty of fun senate commission grillings of BP execs. Australia supported the USA through the entire war on terror - Afghanistan, Iraq and continue to, but still haven't got any boost in domestic popularity for it.

Article is very interesting,thanks for your sharing. I will necessarily add it in the selected works and I will visit this site.welcome to my site:Designer wedding dresses

Given the two options, I like this one much, much better. It comes to my mind that you should, too. Like it or not, this is an AMERICAN problem. I'm glad our American leadership for coach wallet is on-scene, with the Governor of Louisiana. It's really a nice change-of-pace

A modern political campaign almost has to be organized in this way. No one is going to vote for David Axelrod or Robert Gibbs. Government is different, because its responsibilities are so great and so varied that subordinate officials have to be given public grants of authority to make things happen -- the alternative being a massive bottleneck in the White House, with nothing happening unless the President decides to make it happen. In a campaign, everything and everyone is oriented toward supporting the candidate. In government, it's often the President's job to back up his subordinates.

It's fair to say President Obama is not on board with this. I doubt it ever occurred to him to point to one department or agency head -- Sec. Salazar, say, or EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- and announce that he was charging this official with replica omega directing the government's relations with BP, interagency relations with state and local governments, and other aspects of the federal response to the oil spill. That would violate a cardinal rule: never take the spotlight off the candidate. The problem is that Obama is President now, and Presidents are different. They don't have to work for the spotlight; in situations like this, they actually have to work rather hard to ensure they are out of it.

It's obviously absurd for a President without any relevant expertise to decide he needs to remain in the country to oversea the response to an oil spill, while neglecting foreign policy responsibilities that only he can fulfill. Obama, determined not only that decisionmaking should be centralized within walking distance of his White House office but that everyone should see that this is so, has left himself little choice.