The Note, 3/31/09: Special Deliveries — As Obama heads for Europe, a pre-midterm exam

By RICK KLEIN In roughly descending order, the importance of various groups in determining how much President Obama enjoys his week: 5. The people of Europe.  4. The voters of New York’s 20th Congressional District.  3. The Michigan congressional delegation. 2. The respondents in the new ABC News/Washington Post poll.  1. The next CEO whose gilded, golden parachute shoots open on page one of a newspaper. President Obama heads to Europe Tuesday with everything in flux back home, and his image in flux abroad. The celebrity days are long gone, and so might be the dreaming, as the president gets down to the business of governing and deal-making with skeptical world leaders. “His is now the face of American capitalism, which many blame — rightly or wrongly — for the world’s economic woes,” ABC’s Jake Tapper reported on “Good Morning America,” from London. Yet for a team that covets polls, this is fun reading for that long flight to Great Britain, mostly: President Obama enjoys a 66-29 approval rating in the new ABC/Post poll — with a huge jump in the right track/wrong track split, up to 42 percent from as low as 8 percent a month before Election Day.  This poll is a weapon — but a blunt instrument at a time of surgical incisions at home and abroad. Partisanship is still around, and feeling proud of itself. The president will still be making the case to a public that’s not convinced about where it needs to be headed. (And might a special election in upstate New York Tuesday — the first contest of the Obama presidency — wind up leaving a longer impression? Somebody will leave the day with at least the possibility of momentum, and more than the appropriate number of press clippings pronouncing lessons learned.) First, there’s an Obama bounce in the nation’s step: “Americans’ views of the country’s direction have improved sharply since President Barack Obama took office 70 days ago, fueled by better hopes for the economy and broad support — albeit sharply partisan — for his administration’s recovery efforts,” ABC Polling Director Gary Langer writes.  As for your new politics: “Obama’s approval rating is more divided by partisanship than any president’s at this stage in office in available data back to 1953,” Langer writes. “Sixty percent approve of his handling of the economy, an accomplishment, given its dire condition. And his overall job approval rating, at 66 percent, is essentially steady from a month ago and the best in 20 years for a president at this stage in office.” “The number of Americans who believe that the nation is headed in the right direction has roughly tripled since Barack Obama’s election, and the public overwhelmingly blames the excesses of the financial industry, rather than the new president, for turmoil in the economy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll,” Jon Cohen and Dan Balz write in the Post.  “Despite the increasing optimism about the future, the nation’s overall mood remains gloomy, and doubts are rising about some of the administration’s prescriptions for the economic woes. Independents are less solidly behind Obama than they have been, fewer Americans now express confidence that his economic programs will work, barely half of the country approves of how the president is dealing with the federal budget deficit, and the political climate is once again highly polarized.” (Plus — a number that matters as a foreign trip begins: “Seventy-six percent of Americans now report an overall favorable opinion of Michelle Obama, a new high for her and toward the high end historically,” Langer writes.)  The polls only matter in how they’re acted on — and we haven’t been lacking action. Your daily audacity — more than enough to frame an opposition party around, too: “President Obama’s plan to save failing U.S. automakers — and make them the instruments for creating a cleaner, greener transportation system — marked a major step across the line that traditionally separates government from private industry,” Peter Wallsten and Jim Tankersley write in the Los Angeles Times. “It put the Obama administration squarely in the position of adopting a so-called industrial policy, in which government officials, not business executives or the free market, decided what kinds of products a company would make and how it would chart its future.” This is a president as CEO, and this is putting popularity on the line: “His statement from the White House on Monday — an aggressive move, particularly from a Democratic president, to force the industry to revamp itself or lose government aid — represented an extraordinary moment in American manufacturing history, and another weighty moment in a presidency that has been filled with them,” Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Bill Vlasic write in The New York Times. “It was a decision that he didn’t ask us about, he informed us of,” said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., on the ouster of GM chief Rick Wagoner. Detroit News columnist Daniel Howes: “But what the president didn’t say Monday, as he detailed his administration’s prescription for Detroit’s two sickest automakers, is what he actually did — oust a sitting CEO, GM’s Rick Wagoner, and begin the process of remaking a board of directors deemed to have done too little, too late to prevent GM’s slide into the arms of the federal government.” Taking action: “President Barack Obama’s decision to effectively fire the CEO of General Motors is the latest sign that the new president is unafraid to wield power aggressively and act in ways that do not require Congress’ approval,” Roll Call’s Keith Koffler writes. The involvement with automakers “would represent one of the biggest-ever government incursions into private enterprise,” Jeffrey McCracken, John D. Stoll, and Neil King Jr. write in The Wall Street Journal. “And it would be fraught with political risk and controversy for the Obama administration, now that it is becoming clear that government involvement in the operations of GM and Chrysler will dwarf that of any other company receiving U.S. aid.” “The risks he faces are myriad, including a backlash from his union faithful and from voters worried that he may be taking too strong a role in deciding the fate of private companies,” King and Joseph B. White write. Said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn.: “This is a marked departure from the past, truly breathtaking, and should send a chill through all Americans who believe in free enterprise.” From the other side, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.: Bank CEOs “were irresponsible in the way that they created this bubble, and they too deserve to be brought down, if necessary,” Waters said on ABCNews.com’s “Top Line.” Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson sees Obama fetching pillows for Wall Street: “Through a series of logical decisions, the Obama administration has maneuvered itself into an illogical and uncomfortable place. The president is telling Detroit to shape up or die while at the same time politely asking Wall Street, whose recklessness and greed caused this economic crisis, if it would be so kind as to accept another heaping helping of taxpayer funds.” Not always an easy balance: “The president’s plan balances two competing forces that are swirling around Americans’ economic anxieties: growing public outrage over corporate bailouts and fear that if the auto industry sinks, it will take millions of jobs and the fragile economy down with it,” USA Today’s Sharon Silke Carty writes. Will he take the advice of the left? “Now the president’s aggressive move against GM has left some banking executives wondering whether they are next in line,” Tomoeh Murakami Tse reports in The Washington Post. Where it all might end regardless: “Bankruptcy is very much on the table right now, and Obama administration officials tell me it’s likely the leading option,” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos reports. “But the Obama administration emphasized today that a structured bankruptcy does not mean that GM would go out of business entirely, and could emerge stronger from this.” But David Brooks sees the plans getting . . . restructured: “And yet by enmeshing the White House so deeply into G.M., Obama has increased the odds that March’s menacing threat will lead to June’s wobbly wiggle-out. The Obama administration and the Democratic Party are now completely implicated in the coming G.M. wreck. Over the next few months, the White House will be subject to a gigantic lobbying barrage. The Midwestern delegations, swing states all, will pull out all the stops to prevent plant foreclosures. Unions will be furious if the Obama-run company rips up the union contract. Is the White House ready for the headline ‘Obama to Middle America: Drop Dead’? It would take a party with a political death wish to see this through.” The tensions are already made plain: “Critics of President Obama’s do-or-die plan for General Motors and Chrysler are making this a fight over fairness: Why do banks get carrots and the autos get the heavy stick?” Politico’s Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen write. “It is impossible to divorce any of these bailout decisions from politics. For Obama, this is a great opportunity to show he’s intolerant of big bailouts that could leave taxpayers forever holding the bag.” Said a “White House adviser”: “The politics of wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in  . . . failed efforts to save this company are worse than the politics of allow them to die after taking real but not extreme measures.” Who owns it? “Playing car salesman is an unusual role for a president of the United States — but, then again, Obama has taken the presidency to many unusual places in his 70 days on the job,” Dana Milbank writes in his Washington Post “Sketch” column. Anyone have a role for the GOP picked out? “President Barack Obama may or may not be able to save the U.S. auto industry, but his dramatic [restructuring] plan is already having some effect: It’s sent the highly disciplined GOP message machine careening out of control,” Lisa Lerer and Martin Kady II report for Politico. This must be what it means to be special: 1/435th of the nation chooses a new House members, and then gets 435 times the normal coverage of a House race. Read and over-read we will, but the first congressional election since Obama became president will set a tone — for a marching Obama army, or a Republican Party that has at least the hope of catching a rhythm. It’s Republican Jim Tedisco vs. Democrat Scott Murphy, in Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s old district: “The longtime state legislator who sounds more pugnacious than polished has become the vehicle of a broader message — that Republicans are the only hope to derail the White House’s economic agenda,” Jim Oliphant writes in the Los Angeles Times. “Because of that, today’s election has been transformed into a bit of an early national referendum on President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress.” “Mr. Murphy, 39, a venture capitalist who says he has created 1,000 jobs, has made the economy the focus of his campaign, boosting the federal stimulus package at every step and hammering Mr. Tedisco first for equivocating on where he stood on it, then for coming out against it,” David Halbfinger writes in The New York Times. There are severe limits to what any outcome will tell us, demographically or politically: This remains one race in one district that could go either way for any number of reasons. But winning is nice: “The party that wins the election to fill the House seat vacated by now-Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) will seize political momentum. But it will also inflate — or puncture — the power base of high-profile politicians on both sides of the aisle, including President Obama,” The Hill’s Reid Wilson writes. More on the race on ABCNews.com’s “Top Line,” our new daily political Webcast, hosted by Rick Klein and ABC political director David Chalian. We’re live at noon at abcnews.com/politics.(It’s also available as a podcast at The Note blog, and via iTunes.)  Be part of the conversation at Twitter: http://twitter.com/thenote

And looking to the next round of contests . . . The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Tuesday will “launch a new effort to remind voters who got us into this economic mess and who is running away from their responsibilities to fix it. We commence this campaign with a new web video entitled ‘Hit and Run.’ “    The president’s departs for Europe Tuesday morning, for a busy week of summits. “The President is about to embark on his first major foreign mission — a day trip to Canada in February doesn’t really count — and is going to have to start living up to his campaign pledge to improve the battered US image abroad,” writes AFP’s Steve Collinson. How many summits can a few news cycles handle? “President Barack Obama’s European spring break promises to be a giddy carousel of summits, speeches, town hall meetings and parades. But Europeans might well ask, how much Obama is too much?” Time’s Leo Cendrowicz writes. “While most of these leaders will be meeting him for the first time, an entire week with the same cast of characters might leave Obama wondering if he’s experiencing Groundhog Day in Europe.” Somehow, without a memo, everybody got the memo: “After days of confusion and denial about whether the Obama administration was officially no longer using the term ‘War on Terror,’ Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that the Obama administration is no longer speaking of a ‘War on Terror,’ ” ABC’s Jake Tapper, Teddy Davis, and Kirit Radia report. “The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself,”
Clinton said. “Obviously.” Notes NPR, “Pundits have noted the absence, but top administration figures have had little to say on the subject.” “That’s pretty dopey, is it not?” Bill O’Reilly said to ABC’s Robin Roberts on “Good Morning America” Tuesday. “That’s the kind of stuff that hurts President Obama. It is the War on Terror, and if somebody in France doesn’t like it, that’s tough.” Will there be a Senate Republican budget alternative? No — sorry, Sen. John McCain. Some links that are catching George Stephanopoulos’ eye on Tuesday. The Kicker: “I think it bears mentioning that, in the recent dependability study that was put out, you know, Buick was tied for first.” — White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, as salesman. “Believe us when we say we have no plans to take government loans and our plan is being worked every day so that we don’t have to do that.” — Ford Executive Chairman Bill Ford, to the Detroit Free Press, maybe a bit wary of government involvement this week. Follow The Note on Twitter: http://twitter.com/thenote For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/