We can debate later why the President’s speeches have stopped persuading the public. Here I want to say a word about all these domestic summits. The word is, Why?

Why does the Obama White House keep staging these fiascos?

Has any of them worked? The beer summit was silly and off-putting. The jobs summit highlighted the failure of the President’s economic program. Now the health care summit has exposed the falseness of the claim that the Republicans have no health care programs. And it left the President looking like the rote reciter of talking points, a hat he was trying to slip on the Congressional GOP.

So advice to the White House: enough of the summits already. One senseless summit is understandable. We all make mistakes. The second is questionable. Didn’t you learn the first time? The third makes no sense at all.

In a recent interview Mrs. Obama was asked to opine on former Alaska governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. This came days after White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had taken with a childish, tasteless jab at Mrs. Palin, in the process making his boss and the entire administration look cheap. As most of America knows, Gibbs wrote notes on his hand, making fun of the former governor for doing the same to guide herself in a speech. Innumerable commentators noted that, with a principal who overuses the TelePrompter, it was unseemly for the Press Secretary to have pulled such a belittling stunt.

In contrast, when asked about Mrs. Palin, Michelle Obama was the picture of graciousness, even defending Palin as a strong woman who was bound to draw criticism as a result. Through her generosity and realism, Mrs. Obama enhanced her reputation and by extension her husband’s, even as Mr. Gibbs was guilty of the opposite.

Maybe the know-it-all aides in the West Wing should take a trip over to the East Wing (where First Lady’s traditionally have their offices) for a refresher is good sense.

Ailes was prepared. With predictable left-wing sanctimony, Huffington complained about the tone of Fox News, focusing particularly on Glenn Beck. Ailes quickly and devastatingly pointed out that she had grossly mischaracterized Beck’s words, so grossly (her quote was from a show that explored how nearly identical were the rhetoric and tactics of Hitler and Stalin; she characterized the program as a hit on contemporary Democrat) that the audience could only assume ignorance or malice on her part. In fending off her second attempt to characterize Fox News as beyond the pale, he quoted disgusting, personal attacks on him on the Huffington Post.

In the same program, Barbara Walters, who was hosting, began what seemed to be an attack on Ailes about Fox News’ hiring of Sarah Palin. Ailes noted that Fox (”fair and balanced”) has had as a commentator for the past decade Geraldine Ferraro, the only woman ever to receive the Democratic Party’s VEEP nomination, as Palin is the only woman ever to received the GOP’s nod. Score a knockout for Ailes.

It is great fun to watch a world-class pro at work. Ailes emerged the indisputable champion. By comparison, Walters and particularly Huffington ranked as hapless amateurs.

It came, of course, two days after Mr. Obama delivered his State of the Union address. Drafting an SOU is generally a team effort. I have been on one of those teams (1988), penning the best received, per the pulse polling, section of that speech. My take on this one? A net negative for the president. The internal contradiction (for example, calling for a spending freeze to control the deficit and a new stimulus bill), the petty partisanship (he’s still blaming Bush), and the bad manners (his hit on the Supreme Court) were turn offs for the disillusioned independents he needs to reach.

The visit to the GOP caucus was a different matter. Both sides came out winners, I thought, in part because both engaged issues seriously and courteously. It was exactly the kind of respectful exchange that independent voters have been demanding.

The Republicans made the absolutely true point that the White House has been unwilling to engage with them for a year now, with GOP critiques and alternative proposals belittled or ignored at every turn. The “Party of No” hit has been particularly galling to the GOP members, who have advanced a full suite of alternatives on health reform. GOP members made clear that, from their point of view, the White House’s idea of bipartisanship has been that Republicans should accept every detail of Administration proposals without an edit. Negotiation and compromise have not been in anyone’s vocabulary on the Democratic side.

The president seemed to be sticking by that “my way-or-the-highway” stance in the substance of his remarks. His “you-are-spouting-talking-points” jab sounded as though he was spouting a talking point himself, which he was. But his defense of the substance of his positions — particularly on the spending run-ups he inherited — was, I thought, compelling in places. And his remark that Republicans were happy criticize earmarks even as they sought them for their own districts was totally fair. Most of all, just being there, engaging seriously and promising to keep it up (as in any case he has to do in the wake of the Massachusetts voting), will count in his favor among independents, at least that’s my guess.

So both sides won. The Congressional Democratic leadership may be another matter.

This past week I attended a small dinner that included prominent figures on both sides of the health care debate, among them one of the very most senior Democratic insiders. As the arguments got hot, the Democrat advocated trying for passage through reconciliation or wholesale House adoption of the Senate plan. Either ploy would take the threat of a Senate filibuster out of the game. He didn’t seem to grasp that the cost of the White House and Democratic Congressional leadership’s brushoff of the GOP throughout 2009 is that they probably cannot muster a majority for either approach on the floor of the House today. Democratic backbenchers understand the news from Massachusetts, even if the Senate majority leader and the House speaker don’t.

On one hand, the President can be extremely appealing. Numerous times in the evening, I found myself liking him — particularly when he seemed to break from text and, with a smile, remind both parties of their common duty to the naiton.

But other places I found myself saying “wrong”, “tin ear”, “off note”. The hit on the Supreme Court was one such place. It was too much, a violation of decorum. Even more (for me at least) came when I started to count the “I”’s. A TV commentator said the text had 93. Presidents routinely use the first person plural — “we” this, “we” that, striking a note of common purpose with Congress and the American people — but rarely the first person singular and, in SOUs, never even close to as frequently here. The impression left was of a president not as concerned about common purpose as about personal purpose.

“The real reason I’m calling is this….” He went on to say that Jay Leno wanted to become a Podium Pundits contributor. Seemed odd at the time – after all, Jay isn’t known for his political views – but I figured we’d incorporate him into the scheme.

Then Clark explained that because of some bandwidth issues, we could only accommodate Jay if another contributor dropped off. As the low person on the totem pole, and a George W. Bush appointee, I would have to go….

No, wait, sorry. I’m having my “get paid $30 million for not working” fantasy again.

In truth, I do have to keep working, but I’m going to be doing it somewhere else and that means I won’t be contributing to Podium Pundits anymore.

And I’m leaving at a really interesting time. One year into the era of Obama (and the age of Podium Pundits), it remains to be seen how the president can leverage his considerable communications skills to advance his policy agenda, a task that will only grow more difficult with the crucial 41st Republican vote in the Senate.

As for the Republicans, will 2010 see the emergence of a new spokesperson for the party? Someone who currently holds an office, unlike the party’s most notable and bankable stars in 2009, former vice president Cheney and former governor Palin?

Will Republicans coalesce behind an appealing policy and rhetorical strategy they can employ to erode or overcome the Democratic majority in Congress?

In the face of widespread public disapproval and renewed Republican swagger, will Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid become even more shrill and polarizing, or will they lace their communications with the honeyed words of moderation?

And what about the banks? Can they survive their brush with death and the close scrutiny of politicians whose first instinct is always higher taxes and more regulation?

My guess is that Obama won’t get much done on the domestic scene; Republicans won’t find a leader smarter than Cheney or more exciting than Palin; Reid and Pelosi will spin their wheels trying to keep their grumpy caucuses together (while occasionally contributing an amusingly tone-deaf comment); and banks will keep making money and awkwardly telling the DC folks how smart and handsome and charming they are.

But what do I know? Until about 8:01 last night I didn’t think Scott Brown would actually win Ted Kennedy’s seat. Maybe yesterday’s upset is a sign that 2010 will be an extraordinary year in politics.

The past year has been a lot of fun, especially getting to read and converse with Vinca, Paul, Jeff, Mark, Josh, and Clark. I’m particularly grateful to Adam D’Luzansky of the White House Writers Group for launching this ship and keeping us from running aground on the shoals of WordPress.

And of course the success of this effort relies entirely on readers. Thank you for your time and your patience. I look forward to reading along with you in the months to come.

Will it be” “Last night’s election was a fluke”?  Or? “It was indicative of nothing more than a single vote on a single night.” Or?  “It was a snapshot.” Or? “We had a bad candidate.” Or?  “Don’t read anything more into this than you should.”  Or?  “It was all the old Cosmo pictures that made the difference.” Or? “This means nothing.”

My personal choice is “We had a bad candidate.”

Trust Us, We Know What We're Doing.

“From my own experience with earthquakes, being from San Francisco, I think that this can be an opportunity for a real boom economy in Haiti…. It can leapfrog all over its past challenges – economically, politically, and demographically in terms of the rich and poor and the rest there and have a new – just a new fresh start. And with all of the concern and compassion and enthusiasm to help the people of Haiti, nobody is better suited than President Clinton to channel that energy.”

You may remember that San Francisco, at the time a collection of hovels on the unpleasant side of poverty, used the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake to rededicate itself to economic and political development. Soon, under the channeling leadership of President Clinton, came the rise of the Internet, the development of the iPod, and the world domination of Google.

If a city like San Francisco circa 1989 could pull itself up by the bootstraps and launch into the 21st century, Haitians should see a blanket of opportunity unfolding before them.

So it’s been for Harry Reid. When news broke over the weekend that in 2008 he’d described Barack Obama as a “light-skinned” African American with “no Negro dialect,” it looked like it might be a rough week for Harry. Republicans debated whether to force Reid out of his party leadership position, a la Trent Lott, or let him stew in his own juices and allow his opponents in this year’s Nevada Senate race to keep basting him with the comments.

But now it’s Thursday and the story seems so … three days ago. It’s been supplanted by an almost unimaginable trifecta of more interesting and/or weightier news.

Mark McGwire’s steroid admission, the ongoing Leno-Conan saga at NBC, and, most recently, the devastating earthquake in Haiti have captured the public’s attention and sucked up all the journalistic oxygen. That these three events occurred in separate spheres of public life – sports, entertainment, and world affairs – means that every person who’s not a total political junkie has switched off the Reid fiasco.

But this was bound to happen. Aside from the Democrats’ typically brazen willingness to accept in their own that which they forbid in others, and the media’s complicity in this double-standard (can anyone imagine a Republican keeping his job after using the word “Negro”?), Reid had one major thing going for him: Stupid comments are already written into his storyline.

The overarching narrative of a public figure allows for one major (perceived) character flaw for which the person generally will not be held responsible. He or she has wide latitude to keep making the same mistake within the bounds of public expectations.

So, for instance, Bill Clinton was thought a womanizer. One more lady in his life never did make much of a difference. George W. Bush was portrayed as unintelligent. His strange locutions and mangled syntax became a bore. Barack Obama is considered to be a self-adulator. Further examples of the president basking in his own glow elicit eyerolls at best.

Harry Reid? He’s generally viewed as a boob. So a boob-like comment, once the initial shock wears off, fails to evoke much disgust.

All politicians have one of these character-flaw “safe zones” in which repeated screw-ups get overlooked. Joe Biden’s is similar to Reid’s. Sarah Palin’s is similar to Bush’s. Dick Cheney’s is a sort of all-encompassing evilness. Hillary Clinton’s is hyper-ambition.

The same idea applies to Hollywood, too. Charlie Sheen pulling a knife on his wife over the holidays? Same ole Charlie!

Famous people only really get into trouble when they do something outside the narrative – that’s why questions about George Bush’s veracity were more powerful than concerns about his intellect and why Barack Obama fears being incompetent more than he fears being out of touch and why Jay Leno strives so hard to be seen as a good guy, but doesn’t care about being fresh and edgy.

So Harry Reid played to his weakness – his known weakness – and he’ll get a pass. The onslaught of more interesting and pressing news this week hastened the process.