A Highly Logical Approach

What He's Learned
A Conversation with Barack Obama

Jon Meacham
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue

dated May 25, 2009

In a 30-minute interview aboard Air Force One en route from Washington to Phoenix last Wednesday, President Obama talked with NEWSWEEK's Jon Meacham about Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Dick Cheney—and Star Trek. Edited excerpts:
Meacham: The theme here is what you've learned. What's the hardest thing you've had to do?

The President: Order 17,000 additional troops into Afghanistan. There is a sobriety that comes with a decision like that because you have to expect that some of those young men and women are going to be harmed in the theater of war. And making sure that you have thought through every angle and have put together the best possible strategy, but still understanding that in a situation like Afghanistan the task is extraordinarily difficult and there are no guarantees, that makes it a very complicated and difficult decision.

Can anything get you ready to be a war president?

Well, I think that it certainly helps to know the broader strategic issues involved. I think that's more important than understanding the tactics involved because there are just some extraordinary commanders on the ground and a lot of good advisers who I have a lot of confidence in, but the president has to make a decision: will the application of military force in this circumstance meet the broader national-security goals of the United States? And you can't do that without understanding, let's say in Afghanistan, how that connects to Pakistan and what the nature of the insurgency there is, and what the history of the Soviet invasion was. So having some context, I think, is critical.

The other thing that's critical, I think, is having spent a couple of years on the campaign trail and then a number of years as a senator, meeting with young men and women who've served, and their families, and the families of soldiers who never came back, and knowing the price that's being paid by those who you're sending.

Can you talk about how you reached the surge decision?

I think the starting point was a recognition that the existing trajectory was not working, that the Taliban had made advances, that our presence in Afghanistan was declining in popularity, that the instability along the border region was destabilizing Pakistan as well. So that was the starting point of the decision.

We then embarked on a strategic review that involved every aspect of our government's involvement—Defense, State Department, intelligence operations, aid operations. Once that strategic review had been completed, then I sat in a room with the principals and argued about it, and listened to various perspectives, saw a range of options in terms of how we could move forward; asked them to go back and rework their numbers and reconsider certain positions based on the fact that some of the questions I asked could not be answered. And when I finally felt that every approach—every possible approach—had been aired, that all the questions had either been answered or were unanswerable, at that point I had to make a decision and I did.

Was the change-in-command decision that was made this week [Gen. David McKiernan was relieved as commander of the forces in afghanistan] part of the ongoing reaction to facts on the ground?

That is, I think, a reflection of a broader recognition that we have to apply some fresh eyes to the problem. General McKiernan has done an outstanding job; he's an outstanding military commander and has served his country with great distinction. But I have an obligation to make certain that we are giving ourselves the best possible opportunity to succeed, and at this moment there was a strong recommendation from the secretary as well as [Joint Chiefs of Staff] Chairman [Adm. Mike] Mullen that the team that we're now putting in place is best equipped to succeed.

Are you open to sending more troops in if this particular number can't make the progress you need to make?

I think it's premature to talk about additional troops. My strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on more and more troops. The Soviets tried that; it didn't work out too well for them. The British tried it; it didn't work. We have to see our military action in the context of a broader effort to stabilize security in the country, allow national elections to take place in Afghanistan and then provide the space for the vital development work that's needed so that a tolerant and open, democratically elected government is considered far more legitimate than a Taliban alternative. And the military component is critical to accomplishing that goal, but it is not a sufficient element by itself.

Moving to Pakistan, would you be willing to keep the option alive to have American troops secure those nuclear weapons if the country gets less stable?

I don't want to engage in hypotheticals around Pakistan, other than to say we have confidence that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is safe; that the Pakistani military is equipped to prevent extremists from taking over those arsenals. As commander in chief, I have to consider all options, but I think that Pakistan's sovereignty has to be respected. We are trying to strengthen them as a partner, and one of the encouraging things is, over the last several weeks we've seen a decided shift in the Pakistan Army's recognition that the threat from extremism is a much more immediate and serious one than the threat from India that they've traditionally focused on.

Several of the folks around you have said that the situation with Senator Daschle [the former senate democratic leader who had to withdraw his nomination for secretary of health and human services because of a tax issue] early on was a learning experience for you. what was the lesson of that?

Well, you know, Tom is a close friend and, I believe, an outstanding public servant—somebody who I think would have served wonderfully as HHS secretary … There was a unique mix of talents that he possessed: understanding the Senate, understanding how Congress worked and being deeply passionate about health care.

What I realized, though, is that if we're going to set a higher bar on transparency, openness, ethics, then we have to apply it even when it's inconvenient, and that means we have to work harder and smarter. And I'm sorry that I did not face up to that realization earlier so that Tom wasn't put in the position that he was in.

An adviser of yours told us that you quickly came to realize that you had obtained the largest megaphone in the world. Has there been a moment when you've said something or mused out loud in a way that a senator or even a candidate could have done, but a president can't do?

You know, precisely because I realized it pretty quickly, I think that I've been fairly careful about how you use the microphone. I'm sure I have made remarks that, in retrospect, I would have polished up a little bit more, and I'm sure that there's more to come on the gaffe front.

But one of the things I've actually been encouraged by—and I learned during the campaign—was the American people, I think, not only have a toleration but also a hunger for explanation and complexity, and a willingness to acknowledge hard problems. I think one of the biggest mistakes that is made in Washington is this notion you have to dumb things down for the public. I've always been struck by the fact that, if you can get me in a room with a group of people, even who disagree with me violently on an issue, they'll still take the time to listen. They might not, at the end of it, agree with me, but having seen how I'm thinking about a problem, having a sense of how I'm making decisions, that I understand their point of view, that I can actually make their argument for them, and that that's part of the decision-making process, it gives them a sense, at least, that they've been heard, and I think clarifies—well, it pushes us away from the dogmas and caricatures that I think get in the way of good policymaking and a more civil tone in our politics.

What have you learned watching the Republican party the past 115 days or so?

What I've learned, I think, [is] that the Republican Party, like the Democratic Party after Ronald Reagan's election, when it's been in power for a long time, has trouble making an adjustment—not just to minority status but also to self-reflection. I think there's a certain period of time where you insist on talking only to your base instead of to the American people more broadly. And I suspect that they'll make an adjustment. There are some smart people over there and some good people who may disagree with me on specific policies but I think have sincere convictions and want to see the country succeed.

Right now they're sort of trapped in the pattern of having to appeal to the most ideologically pure wing of their party as opposed to thinking a little bit more practically. And that, I think, is putting a lot of Republicans who would like to work with us on specific, select issues—they might disagree with us on one thing but want to work with us on another thing—in an awkward position.

If you start marginalizing too many of those people, sooner or later the party starts figuring out, "Well, you know what, this is probably not going to work for us long term," and the adjustment is made. But it's a painful process. As I said, the Democrats went through it, and I expect the Republicans will get through it as well.

What's your reaction to Vice President Cheney's ongoing [criticism]?

He's not quite twittering your administration [ laughter ] but he's coming fairly close. You know, Dick Cheney had a strong perspective about national security. It was tested in the early years of the Bush administration, and I think it resulted in a series of very bad decisions. I think what's interesting is that, in some ways, Dick Cheney actually lost these arguments inside the Bush administration.

And so he may have won early with Colin Powell and Condi Rice, but over the last two or three years of the Bush administration, I think there was a recognition among Republicans and Bush administration officials that these enhanced interrogation techniques that were being applied—that they had applied early on—were potentially counterproductive; that a posture of never talking to our enemies, of unilateral action, of framing national security only in terms of the application of force, often unilateral—that that wasn't producing.

And so it's interesting to me to see the vice president spending so much time trying to vindicate himself and relitigate the last eight years when, as I said, I think, actually, a lot of these arguments were settled even before we took over the White House.

On the subject of terrorism, the Austrian Interior Minister—you may know this—has said if the detainees are no longer dangerous, why don't they just stay in the U.S.?

Well, look, this is an example of a hard problem. And I acknowledged this before I was sworn in. You've got a situation where, in some cases, individuals should not have been detained, but after having been detained for six years may not have a very friendly view towards the United States.

You have some people who definitely should have been detained and should have been immediately charged, but were not and, in some cases, because of the manner in which evidence was obtained, it makes—it's going to be very difficult for us to prosecute them in Article III courts.
So this is a mess that we've got to clean up and it's not going to be neat. But what we're striving towards is a situation in which Guantánamo is no longer a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda; that we are following core principles of due process; that individuals who are dangerous are still detained, but they are detained and/or tried in some fashion that has international and national legitimacy and is consistent with our Constitution.

And so that's going to require some work and there are going to be instances where not everybody is happy with our decisions, but over time we're going to be able to work through this.

On that specifically, are you expecting to continue some preventive detention?

We're still in the process of review. We'll have an announcement about that in the coming months.
Prime Minister Netanyahu is coming [to Washington this week]. How do you expect to talk to him about the possibility of Israeli military action against Iran? And some people have argued that we should not take [American military action] off the table. I've been very clear that I don't take any options off the table with respect to Iran. I don't take options off the table when it comes to U.S. security, period. What I have said is that we want to offer Iran an opportunity to align itself with international norms and international rules. I think, ultimately, that will be better for the Iranian people. I think that there is the ability of an Islamic Republic of Iran to maintain its Islamic character while, at the same time, being a member in good standing of the international community and not a threat to its neighbors. And we are going to reach out to them and try to shift off of a pattern over the last 30 years that hasn't produced results in the region.

Now, will it work? We don't know. And I assure you, I'm not naive about the difficulties of a process like this. If it doesn't work, the fact that we have tried will strengthen our position in mobilizing the international community, and Iran will have isolated itself, as opposed to a perception that it seeks to advance that somehow it's being victimized by a U.S. government that doesn't respect Iran's sovereignty.

And you would expect the Israelis, as an ally, to follow along with that and not take unilateral [military] action?

No, look, I understand very clearly that Israel considers Iran an existential threat, and given some of the statements that have been made by President Ahmadinejad, you can understand why. So their calculation of costs and benefits are going to be more acute. They're right there in range and I don't think it's my place to determine for the Israelis what their security needs are.

I can make an argument to Israel as an ally that the approach we are taking is one that has to be given a chance and offers the prospect of security, not just for the United States but also for Israel, that is superior to some of the other alternatives.

Were you surprised at how quickly your family became part of the cultural iconography? You know, the nice thing is that, partly because of temperament, partly because of Michelle's unbelievable parenting skills, I've just got some happy, normal kids. And all that stuff that's going on around them, they just kind of miss. We have not seen any effects, any fishbowl effects, yet on them. Now, I worry about them when they're teenagers where, you know, you're already embarrassed about your parents and even more embarrassed on TV all the time. And dating I think will be an issue because I have men with guns surrounding them at all times [laughter], which I'm perfectly happy with, but they may feel differently about it.

Did you consult any former presidents or celebrities about the fishbowl effect in raising the girls?

Well, you know, the truth of the matter is that the campaign was the equivalent of me being the frog in the saucepan of water and the temperature slowly being turned up. By the time the inauguration had taken place, we had pretty much gotten accustomed to it.

What are you reading?

I'm reading this book called Netherland by Joseph O'Neill … It's about after 9/11, a guy—his family leaves him and he takes up cricket in New York. And it's fascinating. It's a wonderful book, although I know nothing about cricket.

And as you divide up your time, when do you steal the time to do that?

I'm a night owl. My usual day [is]: I work out in the morning; I get to the office around 9, 8:30 a.m. to 9 a.m.; work till about 6:30 p.m.; have dinner with the family, hang out with the kids and put them to bed about 8:30 p.m. And then I'll probably read briefing papers or do paperwork or write stuff until about 11:30 p.m., and then I usually have about a half hour to read before I go to bed … about midnight, 12:30 a.m.—sometimes a little later.

Do you watch any cable news?

I don't watch cable news at all. The only television I'm watching these days is sports.
And the last movie you saw? Now, movies I've been doing OK [with] because it turns out we got this nice theater on the ground floor of my house … So Star Trek, we saw this weekend, which I thought was good. Everybody was saying I was Spock, so I figured I should check it out and—[the president makes the Vulcan salute with his hand].

Very good. Yes, absolutely.

Did you watch that when you were growing up?

I used to love Star Trek. You know, Star Trek was ahead of its time. There was a whole—the special effects weren't real good, but the storylines were always evocative, you know, there was a little commentary and a little pop philosophy for a 10-year-old to absorb.

A lot of U.N. stuff.

Yes, exactly, right.

The Other 100 Days
Sunday 03 May 2009
by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t Columnist

I will not speak with disrespect of the Republican Party. I always speak with respect of the past. - Woodrow Wilson

President Obama marked the 100th day of his term with a prime time press conference on Wednesday night, during which he highlighted a few key accomplishments while reminding the American people that he has quite a lot of crazy crap to deal with. A swine flu outbreak tickling the pandemic edge, an economy still hemorrhaging jobs and money, a ballooning deficit, bad banks, a new eruption of violence in Iraq, an ongoing war in Afghanistan, a looming war and a shaky government in Pakistan, and a bunch of very strange people waving tea bags and yelling about Lord only knows what, because they sure didn't. I got this, Obama seemed to be saying, but damn.

The "100 Days" benchmark is a relic from the first trimester of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal reform push, and is for the most part a meaningless milestone used primarily by news media types to fill air time and column inches. Still, the Obama administration can lay claim to a series of important victories, with more still to come if he keeps the wind at his back. The poll numbers are universally positive, and the American people seem willing so far to be patient and give the process time to play out.

For the Republican Party, however, the last 100 days have been something out of a Roger Corman flick: blood on the walls, body parts everywhere, lots of screaming and no plot to speak of. The last 30 months have brought a litany of disasters for the GOP - electoral wipeouts in '06 and '08, a poisoned party "brand," mass voter defections to the Democrats, the total repudiation of their whole ideological slate, and an ex-president about as popular as the mumps - culminating with a run of incidents since the inauguration so unutterably bad as to beggar likeness.

Let's review.

Most recently, of course, was the high-profile departure of Arlen Specter from the Republican caucus. The arrival of this new Democrat into the Senate majority does little to change the political calculus on Capitol Hill - with Al Franken still waiting to be seated, the magic number 60 has yet to be reached, and Specter can't be counted on to vote with the majority unless there's something in it for him, as usual - but it was a body blow for the GOP on the public perception level. The party elders and notable mouthpieces turned on each other like rabid wolverines in a meat pit, with some decrying the loss of so-called "moderate" voices like Specter's, and others saying fine, be gone, don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya, because the GOP is purifying itself by purging all within who make the Baby Jesus cry.

Sarah Palin spent the last 100 days front and center on the national stage being a national embarrassment for the GOP at large. The front-runner for the 2012 GOP nomination and her insane brood just kept coming and coming, emerging on the news day after day like the occupants of some deranged clown car. Every time Palin or any of her people opened their mouths, the futures market for GOP electoral prospects cratered like a sub-prime hedge fund being run out of a burning building.

Only one out of every four Americans now identify themselves as Republicans, a shattering statistic with the '10 midterms not so far away. "The number of self-identified Republicans has dropped from 30% in 2004," reported Greg Sargent on Thursday, "when President Bush won re-election and seemed to have a fairly stable Congressional majority, to 23% today. Since 2004, of course, Bush and the GOP's policies caused his popularity to crater, triggering the loss of Congress in 2006, the White House in 2008, and the loss of 'roughly a quarter' of the GOP's base, as Pew puts it. Self-identified Democrats, by contrast, have increased from 33% to 35% since 2004, which is not much of a gain and suggests that Dem numbers aren't increasing as a result of GOP losses. Indeed, Pew also finds that since the beginning of the year the number of self-identified Democrats has dropped at the same rate as among Republicans, with Independents showing big gains."

RNC chairman Michael Steele can't seem to get out of his own way, Dick Cheney keeps opening his gob despite being the most despised man in America, Glenn Beck thinks there are FEMA camps being built to incarcerate conservatives and hasn't been shy about sharing his theories in public, and Rush Limbaugh has been ... well ... Rush Limbaugh. Even McCain is facing a primary challenge in Arizona from the same anti-immigration right flank that dogged him into last November's national humiliation.

Even when they try to put a brave face on the situation, Republicans wind up sounding like the trombone player in the Titanic brass band. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, was asked to comment about Specter waking up on the left side of the bed. "I will tell you that in 2010 we are working very hard to make sure that we have the kind of candidates across the country on a national scale," said Cornyn, "that will allow the Republican Party to regain our status as a national party, and run competitive races in blue states, and purple states, and in red states." Regain our status as a national party? That was, accidentally or otherwise, one of the most starkly accurate statements you're ever likely to hear from a Republican politician.

The GOP mudfight between cleanse-the-ranks conservatives and broaden-our-appeal moderates shows no sign of abating. "A fundamental debate broke out among Republicans on Wednesday," reported The New York Times, "over how to rebuild the party in the wake of Senator Arlen Specter's departure: Should it purge moderate voices like Mr. Specter and embrace its conservative roots or seek to broaden its appeal to regain a competitive position against Democrats? With consensus growing among Republicans that the party is in its worst political position in recent memory, some conservatives applauded Mr. Specter's departure. But Republican leaders in Washington argued that Republicans would be permanently marginalized unless they showed flexibility on social issues as well as economic ones."

In a New York Times op-ed titled "It's Still My Party," former GOP governor Christine Todd Whitman sounded the alarm on the future prospects for Republicans in America. "Mr. Specter's announcement portends a challenge for Republicans, in terms of both governance and political prospects," wrote Whitman. "To those Republicans counting on the usual phenomenon of off-year election losses for the party holding the presidency, I say do not forget the examples of Roosevelt and George W. Bush, whose parties prospered in 1934 and 2002, respectively. Besides, given the re-election rate of incumbents and the number of Republicans from competitive districts who have retired, the chances of gaining more than a handful of seats is remote. I also worry about the impact of this defection on the gubernatorial races this year in New Jersey and Virginia. Mr. Specter did not reach his decision in a vacuum. He was responding to what he and others saw as a trend in the party - a trend that will make it harder to get out a centrist message."

Harder? Try virtually impossible. The Republican Party is trapped within a toxic fused loop of it's own design. It relied on hate-peddlers like Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage to gin up the party base against all things Democrat, and now must live with that berserk party core being the most muscular component of their coalition. They embraced the Taliban Christians of the South and West, and are now bogged down in a culture war they are losing on all fronts. Every stitch in their trickle-down free-market economic ideology has popped and frayed. Worst of all, they are confronted by a massively popular Democratic president and near-total irrelevancy in Congress. Under these dire conditions, any vaguely moderate GOP voices are bound to be drowned out by the screechers and screamers.

It is now day 104 for the GOP under President Obama. If recent history is any guide, all surviving party members would be well advised to pack a lunch and wear a helmet, because the road ahead looks long, bumpy and headed right for a cliff.

President's PDA
Obama achieves a goal: keeping his BlackBerry
Sunday, January 25, 2009 3:21 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama is keeping his cherished BlackBerry, becoming the first sitting president to use e-mail.
"The president has a BlackBerry through a compromise that allows him to stay in touch with senior staff and a small group of personal friends," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday. He did not say with whom the compromise was struck.
Gibbs said the president will limit its use, and security has been enhanced to ensure that Obama can communicate in a way that's protected.
Gibbs said the presumption from the White House counsel's office is that e-mails will be subject to the Presidential Records Act, the law that requires the National Archives to preserve presidential records. But he also said that some exemptions in the law allow for "strictly personal communications." He did not say how that classification would be determined but made clear that the device could be used for both business and personal communication.
Obama's BlackBerry has been a constant companion during the campaign and transition, and he had noted publicly that he was in negotiations to find a way to keep the device despite security concerns and record-keeping issues.

Obama Isn't the First President to Retake Oath -- or Forgo Bible
By Garance Franke-Ruta
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 23, 2009; A03
President Obama's awkward swearing-in ceremony and subsequent do-over of the oath of office drew a great deal of attention, but the double-dip does not make him unique in American history. Nor is he the first president to take the oath without a Bible, as occurred during his second swearing-in ceremony Wednesday night.
According to records compiled by the Architect of the Capitol and maintained by the Library of Congress, Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible at his 1901 swearing-in.
And in 1963, when Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on Air Force One at Love Field airport in Dallas after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, he used a Roman Catholic missal, a liturgical text.
"I had given this Bible or missal to the judge on Air Force One, which I had taken off the side table in the president's bedroom in Air Force One," Democratic strategist Lawrence F. O'Brien, a Kennedy aide, recalled in an oral history interview with Johnson's presidential library in 1986. It turned out not to be a Bible, though it was "a book with a cross on the cover, leather-bound" and new.
The use of the Bible at presidential swearings-in is a matter of tradition rather than law, according to experts.
"That tradition just was begun by George Washington and has been pursued ever since, but there's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about a Bible," said Laurence Tribe, a constitutional scholar at Harvard Law School and an informal adviser to Obama.
The oath itself, however, is the only oath whose exact terms are specified in the Constitution. But Tribe noted that when it has been misstated and not corrected, nothing happens, as the presidency automatically transfers to the elected successor upon the departure of the previous president from the White House.
Obama is the seventh president to have restated his oath of office. Four -- Rutherford B. Hayes, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan in 1985 -- restated their oaths publicly because in those years Jan. 20 fell on a Sunday, meaning only private ceremonies were held on those Inauguration Days.
Chester Arthur took the oath for the first time at his home in New York in the wee hours of Sept. 20, 1881, following the death of James Garfield, who had been wounded by an assassin's bullet in July. He restated the oath at the U.S. Capitol two days later.
Calvin Coolidge's repetition of the oath followed a similar course. He took it for the first time at 2:47 a.m. on Aug. 3, 1923, while visiting his native Vermont, after being roused from sleep following the death of Warren Harding. Coolidge had a Bible on a nearby table while taking the oath but did not lay his hand on it, "as it is not the practice in Vermont or Massachusetts to use a Bible in connection with the administration of an oath," he said.
Questions were later raised about the propriety of his being sworn in by his father, a notary public, leading a federal judge to readminister the oath.

Person of the Year 2008 - Barack Obama

In one of the craziest elections in American history, he overcame a lack of experience, a funny name, two candidates who are political institutions and the racial divide to become the 44th President of the United States.

.

Why History Can’t Wait

.

The InterviewWhy We Chose Obama

Helping to Write History

At 27, Jon Favreau is the youngest person ever to be named chief White House speechwriter. He is working on the inaugural address.
(By Lois Raimondo -- The Washington Post)

By Eli SaslowWashington

Post Staff Writer

Thursday, December 18, 2008; A01
The job requires him to work unnoticed, even in plain view, so Jon Favreau settles into a wooden chair at a busy Starbucks in the center of Penn Quarter. Deadline looms, and he needs to write at least half a page by the end of the day. As the espresso machines whir, Favreau opens his laptop, calls up a document titled "rough draft of inaugural" and goes to work on the most anticipated speech of Barack Obama's life.

Barack Obama's speechwriting team includes, from left, Adam Frankel, Sarah Hurwitz, Ben Rhodes and Jon Favreau. During the campaign, "we were always informal -- that's Favs's style," Rhodes said. (By Lois Raimondo -- The Washington Post)

During the campaign, the buzz-cut 27-year-old at the corner table helped write and edit some of the most memorable speeches of any recent presidential candidate. When Obama moves to the White House next month, Favreau will join his staff as the youngest person ever to be selected as chief speechwriter. He helps shape almost every word Obama says, yet the two men have formed a concert so harmonized that Favreau's own voice disappears. "He looks like he's in college and everybody calls him Favs, so you're like, 'This guy can't be for real, right?' " said Ben Rhodes, another Obama speechwriter. "But it doesn't take long to realize that he's totally synced up with Obama. . . . He has access to everything and everybody. There's a lot weighing on his shoulders."
Especially now, as Favreau and the rest of Obama's young staffers begin a transition that extends far beyond new job titles. Three months ago, Favreau lived in a group house with six friends in Chicago, where he rarely shaved, never cooked and sometimes stayed up to play video games until early morning. Now, he has transformed into what one friend called a "Washington political force" -- a minor celebrity with a down payment on a Dupont Circle condo, whose silly Facebook photos with a Hillary Rodham Clinton cutout created what passes for controversy in Obama's so far drama-free transition.
Favreau believes he will transition well if he focuses exclusively on writing, which is why he has buried himself in the inaugural address. He moves while he writes to avoid becoming stale -- from the Starbucks, to his windowless transition office, to his new, one-bedroom condo, where the only furniture in place is a blow-up mattress on the hardwood floor. He sometimes writes until 2 or 3 a.m., fueled by double espresso shots and Red Bull. When deadline nears, a speech consumes him until he works 16-hour days and forgets to call home, do his laundry or pay his bills. He calls it "crashing."
Last month, Favreau met for an hour in Chicago with Obama and adviser David Axelrod, as is their habit before important speeches. Obama told him to make the inaugural address no longer than 15 or 20 minutes, and they agreed to theme it around, Favreau said, "this moment that we're in, and the idea that America was founded on certain ideals that we need to take back." Obama asked for a first draft by Thanksgiving. Favreau explained that he had planned a vacation and promised a draft by this week.
During his vacation, Favreau e-mailed notes to himself via BlackBerry while visiting friends in Manhattan and talked about structure at his family's Thanksgiving dinner. He listened to recordings of past inaugural addresses and met with Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's speechwriter, to seek advice. One of Favreau's assistants researched other periods in history when the United States faced crises; another interviewed historians such as David McCullough.
Still more daunting is the list of things Favreau can't think about as he writes the inaugural. He went for a run to the Lincoln Memorial last month and stopped in his tracks when he imagined the mall packed with 3 million people listening to some of his words. A few weeks later, Favreau winced when Obama spokesman Bill Burton reminded him: "Dude, what you're writing is going to be hung up in people's living rooms!"
"If you start thinking about what's at stake, it can get paralyzing," Favreau said.
Obama sometimes jokes that Favreau is not so much a speechwriter as a mind reader. He carries Obama's 1995 autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," with him almost everywhere and has memorized most of his famous keynote speech from the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He has mastered Obama's writing style -- short, elegant sentences -- and internalized his boss's tendency toward reflection and ideological balance.
Favreau's job is "to be like a baseball umpire," one co-worker said, and perform his task so deftly that nobody notices him. He listens to Obama tell stories in his office and spins them into developed metaphors, rich in historical context. When Obama delivers a speech on the road, Favreau studies the recording and notes the points at which Obama departs from the text so he can refine the riffs and incorporate them next time.
In four years together, Obama and Favreau have perfected their writing process. Before most speeches, Obama meets with Favreau for an hour to explain what he wants to say. Favreau types notes on his laptop and takes a crack at the first draft. Obama edits and rewrites portions himself -- he is the better writer, Favreau insists -- and they usually work through final revisions together. If Favreau looks stressed, Obama sometimes reassures him: "Don't worry. I'm a writer, too, and I know that sometimes the muse hits you and sometimes it doesn't. We'll figure it out together."
"The president-elect understands that Jon is a rare talent. He knows what he's got," said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor, who also worked in the Senate office. "There's a mutual respect and appreciation between them, and the president-elect trusts Jon's instincts and ability. It's a partnership."
They stumbled upon it by accident in 2004, when Obama, just elected to the Senate, needed to hire a speechwriter. He brought Favreau, then 23, into the Senate dining room for an interview on his first day in office. They talked for 30 minutes about harmless topics such as family and baseball before Obama turned serious.
"So," he said. "What's your theory on speechwriting?"
Awkward silence. Favreau, just graduated from Holy Cross, had talked his way onto Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential campaign in 2003 and had become a press assistant, arriving at the office at 3 a.m. to clip newspapers. The speech he had given as class valedictorian circulated around the staff, and Favreau eventually got a shot at speechwriting. He wrote well and rose to the top of the department, but there was never any time to formulate theories. Now, Favreau looked at Obama and went with his gut.
"A speech can broaden the circle of people who care about this stuff," Favreau said. "How do you say to the average person that's been hurting: 'I hear you. I'm there. Even though you've been so disappointed and cynical about politics in the past, and with good reason, we can move in the right direction. Just give me a chance.' "
"I think this is going to work," Obama said.
Favreau worked for more than two years in Obama's Senate office before moving to Chicago to help with the presidential campaign. He hired speechwriters Rhodes and Adam Frankel -- and, a year later, former Clinton speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz -- and together they crafted the speeches Obama delivered on the night of each primary.
The writers could sometimes crank out a 1,500-word speech in one or two days, working in Obama's Chicago headquarters almost until sunrise. Sometimes, it took Favreau and his team hours to conceptualize the opening few lines. They gathered in a tiny office and formed sentences out loud, each word mulled and debated, until suddenly -- yes! -- they could envision the whole speech.
"When we were on, we could finish each other's thoughts," Frankel said. "We knew where we were going next. We were in total alignment on those speeches."
One Saturday night in March, Obama called Favreau and said he wanted to immediately deliver a speech about race. He dictated his unscripted thoughts to Favreau over the phone for 30 minutes -- "It would have been a great speech right then," Favreau said -- and then asked him to clean it up and write a draft. Favreau put it together, and Obama spent two nights retooling before delivering the address in Philadelphia the following Tuesday.
"So," Obama told Favreau afterward. "I think that worked."
Favreau wrote a first draft of the Democratic National Convention acceptance speech, but his boss thought it lacked direction. Obama rewrote it, and it ended up almost 15 minutes too long. Favreau spent three days traveling across the country with Obama so they could trim the speech, editing until a few hours before Obama stepped to the lectern in front of more than 84,000 people in Denver.
For Election Day, Favreau wrote two speeches -- one in case of a win and another for a loss. After Obama learned that he had won Pennsylvania and essentially secured the presidency, he called Favreau to make final word edits on the victory address. "Okay, this all sounds good," Favreau said when Obama finished making his changes. "And hopefully we never have to think about that other one again."
All told, Favreau spent more than 18 months on almost constant deadline, staying up until 5 a.m. during the financial crisis to craft speeches for the next day and waking up at 8 a.m. to obsess over the daily tracking polls, which he started calling "daily crack."
When the pressure wore on Favreau, he unwound like a 27-year-old, sending prank e-mails to friends at the Obama offices or playing the video game Rock Band in the Lincoln Park group house he shared with six campaign staffers. He visited Axelrod's office and sought advice. He called his best friend, Josh Porter, when he felt ready to break down.
"A few times he called at midnight, sounding just done," Porter said. "He would be like, 'I don't know if I can do this anymore. I'm in over my head. I'm starting to freak out.' "
But there were also moments of euphoria, when Favreau would catch himself choking up while riding in the motorcade or rehearsing with Obama backstage. Before he entered Grant Park on election night, to stand in the VIP section with his parents and younger brother to hear Obama speak, Favreau sent a quick e-mail to Porter at 9:07 p.m. The subject line read: "Dude."
"We won," Favreau wrote. "Oh my God."
Two weeks after the election, Favreau accepted a new job that essentially came with a new life. He moved back to Washington, hired a real estate agent, bought his first apartment and ordered furniture from Pottery Barn that sits unopened in nine boxes lined against his wall. He will need to buy more jackets and ties to replace his preferred outfit of jeans and a sweater. Friends joke that Favreau suddenly turned 40 this year -- but he still shows flashes of 27.
At a party at his parents' house over Thanksgiving vacation, he danced and posed awkwardly next to a cardboard cutout of Clinton. A buddy uploaded photos onto Facebook, reporters discovered them, and suddenly experts were debating Favreau's maturity on television. Favreau called Clinton and Obama to apologize. They told him not to worry, but he still does.
How is this supposed to work, anyway? Do Favreau and the rest of Obama's young staffers transform to meet the formalities of the White House, or does the White House change to accommodate them? For almost two years during the campaign, Favreau and his speechwriting staff came to work in jeans and communicated via instant messaging. When they needed to write, they crammed together into a closet-size room, feet on the table, downing energy drinks and ordering takeout late into the night.
"We were always informal -- that's Favs's style," said Rhodes, one of the speechwriters. "I don't think he ever scheduled a meeting where we all sat down at a table and said, 'Here's what we have to do this week.' And if he had, we probably would have laughed at him."
But now Favreau and the other senior speechwriters are preparing to move into separate offices and expand their staff. Favreau expects to hire four or five more writers -- including a few who focus on foreign policy -- and he's unsure how to manage them. "My biggest strength isn't the organization thing," he said. A few of the other speechwriters have volunteered to help train and direct new hires.
Obama's speeches are likely to evolve, too. Some will focus more on policy, Favreau said, and a few dozen bureaucrats will want to parse each word. Andrei Cherny, a former White House speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore, called Favreau after the election to congratulate him and then warned that, in the White House, "the scrutiny and the power is unlike anyplace else."
"We know that we're going to have to approach the White House our way and have some fun with it," Favreau said, "because that kind of attitude is what made us successful."
No matter how it goes, Favreau believes this will be his last job in politics -- "anything else would be so anticlimactic," he said. Someday, he wants to write in his own voice, for himself.
"Maybe I'll write a screenplay, or maybe a fiction book based loosely on what all of this was like," Favreau said. "You had a bunch of kids working on this campaign together, and it was such a mix of the serious and momentous and just the silly ways that we are. For people in my generation, it was an unbelievable way to grow up."