Binary thinking

New York Times writer John Harwood has long struck me as an empty-suited analyst who bends too easily with the conventional wisdom. He is the classic, stick-figure talking head. Cast as the Serious Expert, there is no escaping his handsome face if you watch the cable talk shows. But other than that, he's a good guy. Which is to say there are worst political observers. Harwood's latest, "Risks for Obama in Speech on Libya," graces the front page this morning, thus guaranteeing him a slot on a post-game talk show that (like schoolmarms) will grade Obama's performance tonight. "Politicians define themselves by choosing enemies, and exemplars. Suddenly, President Obama’s choices on Libya are reshaping his profile in unpredictable ways as he heads into the 2012 election season," wrote Harwood, predictably. The bottom line: Obama is the new Winston Churchill if Libya works, and a one-term president if it doesn't. Got that? Either Obama wins or he's doomed. Boom or bust. For Harwood, it's all binary. But it's funny how the president, like the Terminator, keeps emerging from the burning rubble of latest smash-up. (See healthcare, BP oil spill, the midterms, etc.) Obama's defiance of the odds is fascinating. A nuanced analysis of the reasons behind it would be useful. But, unlike his subject, Hardwood doesn't do nuance. Neither do most of his telegenic compatriots. And that's a shame.