Oct 29, 2009

Malaysia's opposition alliance mired in troubles

Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim anno...Image via Wikipedia

It is the season of discontent in Pakatan Rakyat, the opposition alliance, with the top leaders in Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) constantly at odds with each other.

At the same time, Pakatan’s lead member PAS, an Islamist party, is woefully divided over whether to bed down with arch-rival United Malays National Organisation (Umno) to advance Malay unity and Islam.

In Perak, the Democratic Action Party-led opposition is no better soldiering on as the government in a make-believe world despite losing the state to Barisan National, the ruling coalition, in February.

The all-round troubles in Pakatan have considerably weakened the camaraderie in the coalition, raised suspicions among leaders and generally created doubts among the people over their political maturity and skill to manage the country if they were to capture power at federal level.

Political commenters, including some who are enthusiastic about Anwar Ibrahim and the PKR, are now openly questioning his status as a unifying national leader and the sole harbinger of national change.

For example, lawyer Haris Ibrahim, in a recent entry under the title “The end days of PKR in Sabah?” in the popular website People’s Parliament, criticised Anwar and his handling of the Sabah leadership crisis.

He also criticised Anwar for wanting a Muslim as PKR leader in Sabah on the grounds that the state is Muslim-majority although PKR’s philosophy is not about race or religion.

Sabah and Sarawak, which were touted as frontline states in his march to Putrajaya, are especially problematic for Anwar.

Historically, Anwar was the man who defeated then chief minister Joseph Pairin Kitingan in the mid-1990s and oversaw the dismantling of the PBS and the rise of Muslim political parties in the state.

But now as challenger to the throne, he needs the two states to help him reach the seat of power. However, his most recent decisions have made the political situation worse for him.

First, he appointed himself as head of Sabah and Sarawak PKR last year on the grounds that the two states have to be carefully nurtured and the Pakatan network expanded in order to capture them from Barisan Nasional.

But constant infighting in PKR in both states and between PKR and the DAP saw to it that nothing useful by way of organisation took place there.

PKR’s defeat in the April 7 Batang Ai by-election showed the great difficulties Pakatan face in Sarawak and in Sabah.
The setbacks in both states simply kept piling up.

In Sarawak, Ngemeh assemblyman Gabriel Adit was hailed as the man who would deliver the state to Pakatan. However, several months on, he has all but quit PKR and is likely to form his own party.

In Sabah, Anwar passed the PKR chairman’s post to his controversial acolyte vice-president Azmin Ali whose alleged “conceited and arrogant style” virtually saw Sabah PKR close to breaking up.

Last week, Anwar made the situation worse by appointing his loyalist Ahmad Thamrin Jaini as the new Sabah PKR chief, by-passing prominent Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, former Berjaya star Ansari Abdullah and another PKR luminary in Kota Kinabalu, Christina Liew.

All three are deeply upset with the selection of Thamrin, who they say is too much an “Islamic person” to unite the different ethnic groups in Sabah.

As a consequence of choosing Thamrin, Dr Jeffery has resigned as PKR vice-president but remains a party member, but, by the looks of it, not for long.

Anwar is desperately sending emissaries to both Dr Jeffrey and Liew to urge them not to do “anything hasty”. But the damage is done, with Dr Jeffrey telling The Star he has burnt “all his bridges”.

Anwar’s dream of reaching Putrajaya would be all but dashed if Dr Jeffrey quits, taking with him at least 15 PKR divisions which are mostly led by non-Muslims.

These leaders had openly supported Dr Jeffrey and demanded that he be made Sabah PKR chairman.

There are similar troubles closer to home, with the well-regarded Zaid Ibrahim taking six months’ leave after losing a battle with Azmin for the ears of the boss.

It would be a major loss for PKR if Zaid does not return and decides to move on.

Lately, another well-regarded PKR luminary, secretary general Salehuddin Hashim, is said to have handed in his resignation letter to Anwar.

Salehuddin has denied resigning but his disagreements with Anwar over the numerous “not logical” decisions from the party supremo have pushed him to the wall, PKR sources said.

“Salehuddin is tired of the backbiting and the favouritism in Anwar’s decisions,” a PKR source said, adding that the “frustration level” in the top PKR leadership is rising dramatically.

Haris, equally exasperated with Anwar and the PKR over the “Sabah and Sarawak situations”, asked several pertinent questions of Anwar in recent postings.

One was whether Anwar was “truly the changed man from your Umno days or are you a closet Malay nationalist (in the way you are making politically expedient decisions)?”

It is a question many people are also asking.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monster terror attack in Peshawar - The Nation

Meena BazarImage by Saad.Akhtar via Flickr

At least 100 persons were killed and over 200 others received injuries as a result of a powerful car bomb explosion here at the Meena Bazaar, one of the most congested parts of the volatile city, on Wednesday afternoon.

Police sources and eyewitnesses informed that explosive-laden white Alto car was parked near a huge building at Meena Bazaar. The intensity of the blast can be judged from the fact that it damaged six buildings, around 30 to 40 shops and a mosque.

A large number of women and children are among the dead and the injured, as some nearby houses were also damaged in the blast. The wife, son and daughter of Provincial General Secretary of JUI-F, Jalil Jan, were also among the injured. It is feared that the death toll may increase, as some dead bodies are still trapped inside the damaged buildings.

The officials of police, Frontier Constabulary, secret agencies and bomb disposal squad rushed towards the site of the blast and cordoned off the area. Police also resorted to aerial firing to disperse the masses for avoiding casualties in any follow-up blast.

Emergency was imposed in all hospitals of the provincial capital and the injured and dead bodies were shifted to Lady Reading Hospital, Khyber Teaching Hospital and Hayatabad Medical Complex. Most of the dead bodies are badly mutilated as fire broke out after the blast. It was learnt that about 62 bodies lying at Lady Reading Hospital were beyond identification. The fire brigade staff succeeded in extinguishing fire after a struggle of half an hour.

Talking to journalists, AIG Bomb Disposal Squad, Shafqat Malik, said that around 150 kilograms explosive material was used in the explosion.

President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani have strongly condemned the blast and reiterated resolve that the government would not be deterred by such cowardly acts.
They said the government would not let the terrorists play with the lives and property of the people and would continue to wage a full-scale operation till their complete elimination. They separately asked the provincial authorities to submit them a report at the earliest and make all-out efforts to arrest the perpetrators.

NWFP (North West Frontier Province) Chief Minister Amir Haider Khan Hoti and Governor Owais Ahmed Ghani also strongly condemned the blast and ordered high-level inquiry of the incident. Senior Minister Bashir Ahmad Bilour visited the blast site. He said that terrorists had no religion and they were only bent upon to defame Islam.

Later, NWFP Information Minister Mian iftikhar Hussain visited Lady Reading Hospital and inquired about the injured. He strongly condemned the attack on innocent civilians and said that Jihad against terrorists would be continued till its logical end.

Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan while strongly condemning the blast said that hidden hands behind such incidents should be exposed, adding that government should ensure safety of lives and public property. He expressed his deep grief and sorrow over the loss of lives and prayed for early recovery of the injured.
Central leader of Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) Zafar Iqbal Jhagra and Chairman Pakistan People’s Party (S) Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao strongly condemned the incident and termed it an inhuman act.

Agencies add: The attack underscored the scale of the militant threat in Pakistan just hours after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Islamabad for three days of talks with political and military leaders.

Angry flames leapt out of burning wreckage and smoke billowed in the air as a building collapsed into dust and rubble. Police evacuated panicked residents from the smouldering wreckage and firemen hosed down the flames.

“It was a car bomb. Some people are still trapped in a building. We are trying to rescue them,” bomb disposal official Shafqat Malik told reporters.

“We have received 92 dead bodies, 213 people were injured, we are facing a shortage of blood,” a doctor in the Peshawar’s main Lady Reading Hospital told AFP as staff declared an emergency.

A hospital official outside the casualty wing made a public announcement, appealing on people to donate blood as doctors spoke of harrowing scenes.

“There are body parts. There are people. There are burnt people. There are dead bodies. There are wounded, I’m not in a position to count. But my estimate is that the death toll may rise,” said Doctor Muslim Khan.

“Several buildings and a mosque have been badly damaged while a fire has engulfed a building,” witness Aqueel-ur-Rehman told Reuters from the scene.

“I can see three bodies lying under the debris,” he said.
Rescue workers and government officials had warned that casualties were trapped under collapsed shops at the bomb blast site, where a large blaze, a toppled building and the narrow streets hampered the relief effort.

“I am counting the dead bodies, 86 are confirmed dead, the injured are more than 200, there are children and women among the dead,” Mohammad Gul, a police official at the hospital, told AFP.

The area was one of the most congested parts of Peshawar and full of women’s clothing shops and general market stalls popular in the city of 2.5 million.

“A building structure has collapsed... People are trapped in the fire and buildings. This is the most congested area of the city,” Sahibzada Mohammad Anees, a senior local administrative official, told a private TV channel.

Peshawar, a teeming metropolis, is a gateway to northwest tribal belt, where the military is pressing a major offensive against Taliban militants blamed for some of the worst of the recent carnage.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Obama Signs $680 Billion Military Bill - NYTimes.com

BERKELEY, CA - OCTOBER 06:  A demonstrator pas...Image by Getty Images via Daylife

When the Obama administration proposed canceling a host of expensive weapons systems last spring, some of the military industry’s allies in Congress assumed, as they had in the past, that they would have the final say.

But as the president signed a $680 billion military policy bill on Wednesday, it was clear that he had succeeded in paring back nearly all of the programs and setting a tone of greater restraint than the Pentagon had seen in many years.

Now the question is whether Mr. Obama can sustain that push next year, when the midterm elections are likely to make Congress more resistant to further cuts and job losses.

White House officials say Mr. Obama took advantage of a rare political moment to break through one of Washington’s most powerful lobbies and trim more weapons systems than any president had in decades.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said Wednesday that the plan was to threaten a veto over a prominent program — in this case, the F-22 fighter jet — “to show we were willing to expend political capital and could win on something that people thought we could not.”

Once the Senate voted in July to stop buying F-22s, Mr. Emanuel said in an interview, that success “reverberated down” to help sustain billions of dollars of cuts in Army modernization, missile defense and other programs.

Mr. Emanuel said the strategy emerged when the defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, told Mr. Obama they needed to “shake up sacred cows and be seen as taking on fights.”

Military analysts said Mr. Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, also aimed at the most bloated programs. And Senator John McCain of Arizona, the former Republican presidential candidate, who has criticized the Pentagon’s cost overruns, provided Mr. Obama with political cover to make the cuts without being seen as soft on the military.

“They probably get an ‘A’ from the standpoint of their success on their major initiatives,” said Fred Downey, a former Senate aide who is now vice president for national security at the Aerospace Industries Association. “They probably got all of them but one or maybe two, and that’s an extraordinarily high score.”

Still, Mr. Obama said at Wednesday’s signing ceremony, there is “more waste we need to cut.”

The act authorizes $550 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget in fiscal 2010 and $130 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That compares to a total of $654 billion for both accounts in fiscal 2009.

The measure also includes a ban on hate crimes that Democratic leaders attached to the bill.

Mr. Obama has said that he does not intend to reduce military spending while the nation is engaged in two wars. But Mr. Gates also wants to cut more futuristic programs to free money for simpler systems like helicopters and unmanned spy planes that can help the troops now.

Winslow T. Wheeler, a military analyst at the Center for Defense Information, a Washington analytical organization, said another key to Mr. Gates’s success was regaining control of the budget from the armed services.

But the administration has had to make some compromises, and some issues remain to be decided in a separate spending bill.

Mr. Obama had wanted to cancel an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a new plane that is expected to be a mainstay for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines. He had also threatened to veto the military bills if they took money from plane purchases to keep developing that engine.

But Congressional leaders say they believe that the second engine will provide crucial insurance for the $300 billion fighter program. And they say they will take money from other parts of the military budget to save it.

Mr. Obama has also threatened to veto any attempts to salvage an early version of a new presidential helicopter that the administration canceled. The policy bill that he signed Wednesday does not contain any money for it. But the House version of the spending bill does, and that issue remains to be resolved.

Still, even White House officials say they were surprised at how far they got in reshaping the weapons programs.

“In terms of sort of bringing fiscal responsibility to Washington and changing the way the place works, you couldn’t have picked a more challenging area than the defense budget,” said Rob Nabors, the deputy director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

A New Boeing Plant

The Boeing Company said Wednesday that it would open a second assembly line for its long-delayed 787 jetliner in North Charleston, S.C., expanding beyond its longtime manufacturing base in Washington State.

Boeing, based in Chicago, already operates a factory in North Charleston that makes 787 parts and owns a 50 percent stake in another plant there that also makes sections of the plane.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Singer, David Carroll, Uses Video to Complain About United Airlines - NYTimes.com

LegendImage via Wikipedia

United Airlines learned its lesson the hard way that David Carroll was not just another customer.

After baggage handlers at United broke his guitar last summer and the airline refused to pay for the $1,200 repair, Mr. Carroll, a Canadian singer, created a music video titled “United Breaks Guitars” that has been viewed more than 5.8 million times. United executives met with him and promised to do better.

So how was Mr. Carroll’s most recent flight on United?

This Everyman symbol of the aggrieved traveler was treated, well, like just another customer. United lost his bag.

In an interview, Mr. Carroll said that for more than an hour on Sunday, he was told he could not leave the international baggage claim area at Denver International Airport, where he had flown from Saskatchewan. He said he had been told to stay because his bag was delayed, not lost, and he had to be there to claim it when it came down the conveyor belt.

“I’m the only person pacing around this room,” Mr. Carroll said, recalling how he was caught between an order from United staff members to stay and collect his bag, and a federal customs official telling him he had to leave the baggage claim area. The bag never showed.

A United Airlines spokeswoman, Robin Urbanski, said, “We will fully investigate what regretfully happened.”

Mr. Carroll’s life has taken more surprising routes than his luggage. He enjoyed modest popularity as a singer-songwriter in Canada until his video, which has made him a sought-after speaker on customer service.

His father-in-law, Brent Sansom, has become his business adviser to help him sort requests.

This latest episode provided him with fresh material for his most recent performance, which was why he was flying on United — to speak to a group of customer service executives on Tuesday (though without his best shoes and “United Breaks Guitars” CDs that were in his still missing suitcase).

When Mr. Carroll asked members of the audience if they ever had a similar problem, he saw a sea of hands.

“It crosses all income levels and languages and geographies,” he said. “We all don’t like feeling disrespected or insignificant.”

Greg Gianforte, the founder and chief executive of RightNow, a customer service software company, and the person who organized the meeting, said he was sorry to hear what happened to Mr. Carroll, even if it made for a livelier meeting.

“We were thrilled to have Dave come here,” Mr. Gianforte said. “But since United was the only carrier he could take from Canada to Colorado Springs, in a certain sense, we’re responsible.”

Mr. Carroll was reunited with his bag on Wednesday morning.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Global Asia, Fall 2009 Issue

V4N3 Fall 2009


In the National Interest:
Economics, Security and Foreign Affairs
in Southeast Asia

How much do a country’s economic and security relations with other nations — in the form of trade, capital and labor flows, and participation in multilateral organizations or arrangements — tell us about what to expect of its foreign policy?

A Letter from the Editors
Chung-in Moon and David Plott
Dear Reader,
The month of August left a hole in the heart of Asia and the world with the passing of presidents Corazon Aquino of the Philippines and Kim Dae-jung of South Korea. Their remarkable lives embodied the great struggle for democracy, justice and human rights in Asia, and will endure as an example for future generations.
SPECIAL TRIBUTE

In Memoriam:
Corazon Aquino and Kim Dae-jung

By A. Lin Neumann
Cover Stories

Deconstructing National Interests, Divining Future Foreign Policy
By Satu Limaye
There are plenty of articles and essays examining the foreign policies of Asian countries. The contributions to the cover story in this issue of Global Asia, prepared in cooperation with the East-West Center’s Washington DC office, take a somewhat different approach to what one might find elsewhere. mistakes of past policies toward North Korea.
A Journey of Change: Indonesia’s Foreign Policy
By Dewi Fortuna Anwar
During the last half of the 20th century, Indonesia lurched from the revolutionary nationalism of founding president Sukarno to the authoritarian capitalism of Suharto, which spurred economic growth but caused deep concerns over human rights issues. With Suharto’s fall in 1998, the country began a difficult transition to a stable democracy with an increasingly open and positive international image. It took the end of the Cold War and democracy for Indonesia to begin to realize more of its potential as a regional and world actor.
Domestic Woes and Overseas Tactics in the Philippines
By Renato Cruz de Castro
In perhaps no other Southeast Asian nation is the need to couple domestic political priorities with foreign policy tactics as pronounced as in the Philippines. International relations professor Renato Cruz De Castro outlines how a reinvigorated alliance with the US, aimed at thwarting international and domestic terrorism, and an emerging partnership with China form the backbone of the country’s bilateral relations. He also illuminates the unique place of the country’s overseas workers in the conduct of its foreign affairs.
Punching Above its Weight: Malaysia’s Foreign Policy
By Tang Siew Mun
Malaysia has for decades illustrated how a relatively small country can have a disproportionate influence on regional and international affairs. Malaysian political scientist Tang Siew Mun describes how the eclipsing of Japan by China, as well as Malaysia’s enduring commitment to greater regional integration, are shaping its foreign policy priorities.
Battle Between Continuity and Change: Thailand’s Topsy-Turvy Foreign Policy Directions
By Thitinan Pongsudhirak
Thailand has long been praised for its adroit handling of foreign relations. While its neighbors were being colonized on all sides, it remained flexibly independent. Its skillful use of shifting alliances allowed it to successfully maneuver through two world wars and the Cold War. But Chulalongkorn University political scientist Thitinan Pongsudhirak argues the turmoil that began with the government of Thaksin Shinawatra and worsened with the 2006 coup has destroyed the country’s domestic foreign policy consensus.
Doi Moi and the Remaking of Vietnam
By Hoang Anh Tuan
It has been more than two decades since Vietnam unleashed the forces of economic and political reform, and the results are clear in the form of sustained economic progress. Less obvious are the numerous ways that reform has reshaped Vietnam’s regional and international agenda, writes Vietnamese diplomat Hoang Anh Tuan.
The Debate

Is an Asian Community Really Possible?
An Asian Community will Emerge from Existing Structures
By Andy Yee
Asia has seen a proliferation of multilateral organizations in recent decades, and much of the debate over the possibility of an Asia-Pacific or East Asian community has centered on their strengths and weaknesses. Understanding the political and economic realities behind these organizations is the key to fathoming the future shape of that community.
A Skeptical View of Asia’s Rise
By Ali Wyne
Advocates for the creation of an Asian Community are confident that the 21st century will be an “Asian century,” in which the region’s rapid economic growth will unleash its potential to exercise global leadership. There are important reasons to be skeptical that this outcome will prevail, at least in the foreseeable future.
Feature Essays

New Multilateralism in East Asia:
Building on Common Interests, Expanding on Common Ground

By Ban Ki-moon
Increasingly, the world’s problems call for global solutions. Whether these problems involve security issues, the economy or the environment, the need for nations to work together has never been greater. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon argues that Asia has a special obligation to accelerate its efforts at greater regional integration in order to confront the challenges ahead and enhance the region’s voice in global affairs.
Envisioning a New World Order and its Implications in the Digital Age
By Mahathir Mohamad
With the growing strength of Asia’s economies, there is widespread debate about the emergence of a new world order to replace the post-World War II system. Some argue that the Digital Age will help shape that new order. But former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad argues that without a fundamental change in values and culture, there are plenty of reasons not to be optimistic about the possible outcome.
Time to Step Forward: Asia’s Role in a New Global Financial Architecture
By Masahiro Kawai
While the negative effects of the current global financial crisis are severe and obvious, one possible benefit is that it affords Asia a unique opportunity to step forward and take a more decisive role in shaping the global financial architecture of the future. Masahiro Kawai, Dean of the Asian Development Bank Institute, argues that Asian policymakers should seize this opportunity to reshape their economies and regional relationships in order to give Asia its rightful place at the global table.
Weathering the Storm: Lessons from the Financial Crisis
By David Edwards
The global financial crisis has triggered a lively debate over the need to reform the world’s financial architecture to better prepare for future storms. But Standard Chartered banker David Edwards argues that banks themselves could do a lot more to prevent future crises by reemphasizing the basics of better risk management.
Asia After the Global Financial Crisis
By William H. Overholt
The dislocations caused by the global financial crisis have highlighted the economic relationship between Asia and the West. It remains to be seen whether efforts to deal with the current crisis are only sowing the seeds of the next crisis. William H. Overholt, a leading American expert on Asia, argues that stark choices facing Asian politicians from Japan to China and India to South Korea will ultimately shape the future relationship between Asia and the West.
Battling Protectionism in the Global Financial Crisis
By Shujiro Urata
Asia’s export-oriented economies were particularly hard hit by the effects of the global financial crisis, as demand from major importing countries plunged in response to the crisis. Despite the temptation to resort to trade protection, now is the time to renew commitment to trade liberalization, argues leading Japanese economist Shujiro Urata.
Trade Protectionism and Economic Growth: The Chinese Example
By Li Wei
The global financial crisis has triggered an acceleration in the use of protectionist trade measures, even among the G-20 countries that have pledged not to do so. China has been especially singled out as a target of protectionism, argues Chinese economist Li Wei. This ultimately could damage the countries imposing the measures, he says. The world should work together to combat barriers to trade.
Toiling with Potential: Educating Asia’s Migrant Women
By Sarah Mavrinac
The economic potential of Asia’s millions of migrant women represents one of the great untapped resources for tackling poverty, according to educator Sarah Mavrinac. Citing the work of a non-profit educational organization in Singapore, she argues that providing the right kind of financial education to migrant women can unleash that potential.
Book Reviews

China’s Peaceful Rise
By Chung-in Moon
Zheng Bijian is a seminal figure in the origin of the concept of China’s peaceful rise. Global Asia Editor-in-Chief Chung-in Moon reviews three books by and about Zheng that document the importance of the concept in understanding the priorities of China’s leadership.

URL for html version of article:

Chung-in Moon is Editor-in-Chief of Global Asia.
A Letter from a Reader: All God’s Creature
From Richard H. Schwartz
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Magazine Preview - The Obamas’ Marriage - NYTimes.com

Barack and Michelle ObamaImage by Wa-J via Flickr

I.

Another Washington dusk, another motorcade, another intimate evening played out in public view. On Oct. 3, just a day after their failed Olympics bid in Copenhagen, Barack and Michelle Obama slipped into a Georgetown restaurant for one of their now-familiar date nights: this time, to toast their 17th wedding anniversary. As with their previous outings, even the dark photographs taken by passers-by and posted on the Web looked glamorous: the president tieless, in a suit; the first lady in a backless sheath.

The Obama date-night tradition stretches back to the days when the president spent half his time in Springfield, Ill., reuniting at week’s close with his wife, who kept a regular Friday manicure and hair appointment for the occasion. But five days before he ventured out for his anniversary dinner, the president lamented what has happened to his nights out with his wife.

“I would say the one time during our stay here in the White House so far that has. . . .” He paused so long in choosing his words that Michelle Obama, sitting alongside him, prompted him. “Has what?”

“Annoyed me,” the president answered.

“Don’t say it!” the first lady mock-warned. “Uh-oh.”

“Was when I took Michelle to New York and people made it into a political issue,” he continued, recalling the evening last spring when they flew to New York for dinner and a show, eliciting Republican gibes for spending federal money on their own entertainment.

We were in the Oval Office, nearly 40 minutes into a conversation about the subject of their marriage. Watched over by three aides and Gilbert Stuart’s portrait of George Washington, the two sat a few feet apart in matching striped chairs that made them look more like a pair of heads of state than husband and wife. The Obamas were talking about the impact of the presidency on their relationship, and doing so in that setting — we were in the room that epitomizes official power, discussing the highly unofficial matter of dates — began to seem like a metaphor for the topic itself.

“If I weren’t president, I would be happy to catch the shuttle with my wife to take her to a Broadway show, as I had promised her during the campaign, and there would be no fuss and no muss and no photographers,” the president said. “That would please me greatly.” He went on to say: “The notion that I just couldn’t take my wife out on a date without it being a political issue was not something I was happy with.”

Everything becomes political here, I offered, gesturing around the room.

“Everything becomes political,” he repeated very slowly. Then he said: “What I value most about my marriage is that it is separate and apart from a lot of the silliness of Washington, and Michelle is not part of that silliness.”

Perhaps she is not. But the Obamas mix politics and romance in a way that no first couple quite have before. Almost 10 months ago, they swept into Washington with inauguration festivities that struck distinctly wedding-like notes: he strode down an aisle and took a vow, she wore a long white dress, the youthful-looking couple swayed to a love song in a ceremonial first dance and then settled into a new house. Since then, photograph after official White House photograph has shown the Obamas gazing into each other’s eyes while performing one or another official function. Here is a shot of the Obamas entering a Cinco de Mayo reception, his arm draped protectively around her back. Next, a photo of the president placing a kiss on his wife’s cheek after his address on health care to Congress. Poster-size versions of these and other photographs are displayed in rotation along the White House corridors. It’s hard to think of another workplace decorated with such looming evidence of affection between the principal players.

The centrality of the Obama marriage to the president’s political brand opens a new chapter in the debate that has run through, even helped define, their union. Since he first began running for office in 1995, Barack and Michelle Obama have never really stopped struggling over how to combine politics and marriage: how to navigate the long absences, lack of privacy, ossified gender roles and generally stultifying rules that result when public opinion comes to bear on private relationships.

Along the way, they revised some of the standards for how a politician and spouse are supposed to behave. They have spoken more frankly about marriage than most intact couples, especially those running for office, usually do. (“The bumps happen to everybody all the time, and they are continuous,” the first lady told me in a let’s-get-real voice, discussing the lowest point in her marriage.) Candidates’ wives are supposed to sit cheerfully through their husbands’ appearances. But after helping run her husband’s first State Senate campaign in 1996, Michelle Obama largely withdrew from politics for years, fully re-engaging only for the presidential campaign. As a result, she has probably logged fewer total sitting-through-my-husband’s-speech hours than most of her recent predecessors. Even the go-for-broke quality of the president’s rise can be read, in some small part, as an attempt to vault over the forces that fray political marriages. People who face too many demands — two careers, two children — often scale back somehow. The Obamas scaled up.

“This is the first time in a long time in our marriage that we’ve lived seven days a week in the same household with the same schedule, with the same set of rituals,” Michelle Obama pointed out. (Until last November they had not shared a full-time roof since 1996, two years before Malia was born.) “That’s been more of a relief for me than I would have ever imagined.”

The couple now spend more time together than at nearly any other point since their early years together. On many days, they see Malia and Sasha off to school, exercise together and do not begin their public schedules until 9 or even 10 o’clock. They recently finished redecorating the White House residence, the first lady requesting an outdoor rocking chair for her husband to read in, the president scrutinizing colors and patterns, said Desirée Rogers, the White House social secretary. The pair recently began playing tennis. (He wins, she admitted; for now, he added.) This summer, the first lady surprised her husband for his birthday by gathering his old basketball buddies for a weekend at Camp David.

Barack and Michelle Obama are also a more fully fused political team than ever before, with no other jobs to distract them, no doubts about the worthiness of the pursuit dogging them. Theirs is by no means a co-presidency; aides say the first lady has little engagement with banking reform, nuclear disarmament or most of the other issues that dominate her husband’s days. But their goals are increasingly intertwined, with Michelle Obama speaking out on health care reform, privately mulling over Supreme Court nominees with the president and serving as his consultant on personnel and public opinion. When they lounge on the Truman Balcony or sit inside at their round dining table, she describes how she believes his initiatives are perceived outside Washington; later, say advisers, the president quotes the first lady in Oval Office meetings.

If winning the White House represents a resolution of the Obamas’ struggles, it also means a new, higher-stakes confrontation with some of the vexing issues that fed those tensions. Their marriage is more vulnerable than ever to the corrosions of politics: partisan attacks, disappointments of failed initiatives, a temptation to market what was once wholly private. Some of the methods the Obamas devised for keeping their relationship strong — speaking frankly in public, maintaining separate careers, even date nights — are no longer as easily available to them. Like every other modern presidential couple, the Obamas have watched their world contract to one building and a narrow zone beyond, and yet their partnership expand to encompass a staff and two wings of the White House. And while the presidency tends to bring couples closer, historians say, it also tends to thrust them back to more traditionbound behavior.

For all of their ease in public, the Obamas do not seem entirely comfortable with the bargain. As they talked about their marriage, they seemed both game and cautious, the president more introspective about their relationship, the first lady often playing the big sister dispensing advice to younger couples.

Then I asked how any couple can have a truly equal partnership when one member is president.

Michelle Obama gave what sounded like a small, sharp “mmphf” of recognition, and the fluid teamwork of their answers momentarily came to a halt. “Well, first of all. . . .” the president started. His wife peered at him, looking curious as to how he might answer the question. “She’s got. . . .” he began, but then stopped again.

“Well, let me be careful about this,” he said, pausing once more.

“My staff worries a lot more about what the first lady thinks than they worry about what I think,” he finally said, to laughter around the room.

The question still unanswered, his wife stepped back in: “Clearly Barack’s career decisions are leading us. They’re not mine; that’s obvious. I’m married to the president of the United States. I don’t have another job, and it would be problematic in this role. So that — you can’t even measure that.” She did add that they are more equal in their private lives — how they run their household, how they raise their children, the overall choices they make.

Interpreting anyone’s marriage — a neighbor’s, let alone the president’s — is extremely difficult. And yet examining the first couple’s relationship — their negotiations of public and private life, of conflicts and compromises — offers hints about Barack Obama the president, not just Barack Obama the husband. Long before many Americans, Michelle Obama was seduced by his mind, his charm, his promise of social transformation; long before he held national office, she questioned whether he really could deliver on all his earnest pledges. For nearly two decades, Michelle Obama has lived with the president of the United States. Now the rest of us do, too.

II.

JUST BEFORE THE Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. pronounced Barack Obama and Michelle Robinson man and wife on the evening of Oct. 3, 1992, he held their wedding rings — signifying their new, enduring bonds — before the guests at Trinity United Church of Christ. Michelle’s was traditional, but Barack’s was an intricate gold design from Indonesia, where he had lived as a boy.

Neither needed a reminder of just how fragile family — the black family, marriage, life itself — could be. Barack Obama Sr.’s relationships, not just with his wives but also with his children, were fleeting; in 1982, he died at the age of 46. Michelle’s parents had a long, stable marriage, but her maternal grandparents split without ever formally divorcing, and her paternal grandparents separated for 11 years.

Before Michelle, Barack had brought only one woman to Hawaii to meet his family, according to his younger half-sister, Maya Soetoro. He in turn was Michelle’s first serious boyfriend, according to Craig Robinson, Michelle’s brother: none of the others had met her standards.

During their three-year courtship, the couple shared thrilling moments, like when Barack became the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. But there were crushing ones too. In early 1991, Fraser Robinson, Michelle’s father, came down with what seemed to be the flu. Just a few days later, he was brain-dead, and his family had to decide whether to end life support, according to Francesca Gray, his sister. Barack was in the middle of classes, with no money to speak of, but he flew to Chicago anyway. At the wedding the following year, Craig Robinson took his father’s place in walking Michelle down the aisle.

The Obamas were married just a month before the presidential election, a time of mounting excitement for Democrats in their neighborhood of Hyde Park and beyond. Bill Clinton looked as if he might take the White House back from Republicans. Barack was helping by running a voter-registration drive so successful that he won notice in Chicago newspapers and political circles. (Clinton ended up carrying Illinois, then a tossup state.) Obama’s efforts also helped make Carol Moseley Braun, a fellow Hyde Park resident, the first African-American woman in the U.S. Senate. Suddenly politics seemed full of new possibilities. Barack had talked to Michelle about running for office; she had misgivings but thought the day was not imminent.

For the moment, he was enmeshed in writing his memoir, “Dreams From My Father.” He had retreated to Bali for several weeks to work on the manuscript and was still preoccupied with it after his return. “Barack was just really involved in the book. [Michelle] and I would do lots of shopping and movies,” Yvonne Davila, still a close friend, remembered.

“Barack doesn’t belong to you,” she told me she warned Michelle.

III.

IN THE ANNALS of presidential coupledom, the Obamas more than slightly resemble the Clintons: a pair of Ivy League-trained lawyers, the self-made son of an absent father and a wife who sometimes put her husband’s ambitions ahead of her own. But unlike Bill Clinton, who turned his wife into an unlikely Arkansan, Obama planted himself on his wife’s turf. And while the Clinton marriage seems forged in shared beliefs about the promise of politics, the Obama union has been a decades-long debate about whether politics could be an effective avenue for social change. Even as a community organizer, Barack aimed to prod elected officials into action. His wife, who was more skeptical of politicians, tried to bypass them: when she took a job promoting community-organizing techniques, she focused on what neighborhoods could accomplish without their help.

In 1995, a State Senate seat was opening up, and Barack, then 34, announced his candidacy. “It allowed me to get my feet wet in politics and test out whether I could get something done,” he told The Times two years ago. Because he wasn’t from Chicago, had degrees from two elite schools and a background that others found odd, a friend said, he felt he had to begin by running for a relatively modest office.

As the Obamas sat with friends around their dining room table, eating Michelle’s chili and planning the run, she was plainly hesitant. “She was very open about not wanting to be in politics,” Davila said. Michelle had always wanted to be a mother, three years had passed since their wedding and now her husband — with his all-consuming memoir just finished — would be gone several days a week. Michelle “just wasn’t ready to share,” Carol Anne Harwell, who became the campaign manager, recalls. Besides, he was the former president of the Harvard Law Review, a writer and a teacher at a premier law school, the University of Chicago. Springfield was home to financial scandal so pervasive it was barely considered scandalous. “I married you because you’re cute and you’re smart,” Michelle later said she told her husband, “but this is the dumbest thing you could have ever asked me to do.”

She became his most energetic volunteer anyway. “She did everything,” Craig Robinson says. Every Saturday morning, she and Davila knocked on doors for petition signatures that would put Barack on the ballot.

As a first-time candidate, Barack could be stiff; friends remember him talking to voters with his arms folded, looking defensive. Michelle warmed everyone up, including her husband. “She is really Bill, and he is really Hillary,” one friend recently put it. But like Hillary Clinton — and countless other political wives — Michelle sometimes took on the role of enforcer. If a volunteer promised to gather 300 petition signatures, “299 did not work because 300 was the goal,” Harwell says. “You met the wrath of Michelle.”

Harwell also noticed that the candidate’s wife was constantly trying to upgrade the campaign, eliminating anything that seemed tacky or otherwise redolent of the less-than-exalted standards of Illinois state politics. Instead of a beers-in-a-bar fund-raiser, Michelle arranged a party at the DuSable Museum of African American History with a band and a crowd of young professionals. When Harwell found an inexpensive office space with dingy walls, Michelle vetoed it. “She was like, ‘Oh, no, no, no,’ ” Harwell says. “ ‘Why would we reduce ourselves to this?’ ”

IV.

ONE DAY LAST SPRING, I walked into the Hyde Park apartment the Obamas bought when they married, hoping to find clues to their old lives.

Their unit, part of a complex of redbrick houses turned condominiums, had a few appealing touches — a green-tiled fireplace, a dining room with elaborate woodwork and a small porch in the back (where Michelle let her husband smoke, a friend said). But the apartment was narrow and worn, with fixtures that must have been aging even several years ago.

The Hole — as Michelle called her husband’s tiny, dark office — lived up to its name. The cramped master bedroom had a closet barely big enough for one wardrobe. Where did Michelle keep her clothes? The apartment was neat, friends said, but bursting with children’s gear and toys. The dining table tilted so much that food sometimes skidded south, eliciting an embarrassed look from Barack.

He would eventually learn to make his way in the State Senate, but his initial reports home were dismayed: Republicans held control, legislation he drafted was not even heard and even some Democrats teased him about his name. “He would call me and say: ‘This person is an idiot. They get an F,’ ” Harwell says.

“He went to Springfield without fully appreciating all of the consequences,” said Judson Miner, Barack’s boss at the civil rights law firm where he’d been working for several years. Shortly after arriving, Barack called Miner to tell him that he was scaling back his legal work: he could not stay on top of it from downstate. Barack took on a heavier teaching load to compensate for the lost income. Michelle, who had given up corporate law, now earned less than $50,000 a year at her nonprofit job training young leaders, a former colleague estimates.

For Barack’s swearings-in, Michelle would travel to Springfield. Harwell remembers Barack calling up with a report from downstate: “ ‘Michelle just couldn’t believe it, she had to come down to see this mess for herself.’ ”

As she heard Barack’s tales from Springfield, Michelle learned “how good legislation vanished overnight for political reasons,” Valerie Jarrett, one of the Obamas’ closest friends, told me recently in her White House office, where she is senior adviser to the president. This, Jarrett said, left Michelle even more frustrated than her husband. “He’s more of a pragmatist,” Jarrett says. Michelle “takes a very principled position, and she thinks everyone should do the right thing.”

If Barack’s career was not going quite as he had hoped, Michelle did not seem settled on what she wanted to do professionally. She had taken a new position organizing student volunteers at the University of Chicago. After she became a mother in 1998, she was tempted to stay home, but like many political spouses, she felt financial pressure to work.

“Michelle would say, ‘Well, you’re gone all the time and we’re broke?’ ” the president recalled when I spoke to the two of them. “ ‘How is that a good deal?’ ”

“You do the math,” Michelle told her friend Sandra Matthews, one day as the two sat on a playground bench. “The time is coming pretty soon when I’m going to have to decide. I’m torn.”

When she interviewed for a job at the University of Chicago Medical Center, her baby sitter canceled at the last moment, and so Michelle strapped a newborn Sasha into a stroller, and the two rolled off together to meet the hospital president. “She was in a lot of ways a single mom, and that was not her plan,” recalls Susan Sher, who became her boss at the hospital and is now her chief of staff.

In addition to serving in Springfield and teaching law, Barack Obama was making his first bid for national office, challenging Bobby Rush, a popular South Side congressman. The race placed further strains on the Obamas. Unlike the wife who smiles tightly and insists everything is fine, Michelle sent a clear series of distress signals not only to her husband but to everyone around her. “Barack and I, we’re doing a lot of talking,” she would say when asked how she was holding up, according to the Rev. Alison Boden, a former colleague at the University of Chicago.

Barack initially seems to have seen his absences as a manageable issue, something to be endured, just as he had as a child when living apart from his mother. Entering politics would be hard on a family, he knew, but he didn’t quite understand until he lived it, Jarrett told me. Sher remembers Michelle “talking to him, after the kids were born, about the importance of sheer physical presence, which wasn’t something he was really used to. She ­talked about how important it was for them to at least talk every day.”

Barack helped as much as possible: on top of juggling jobs, he paid the household bills and did the grocery shopping, often wandering supermarket aisles late at night. When business in Springfield was done for the week, he always drove home that same night, sometimes arriving past midnight. “As far as I was concerned, she had nothing to complain about,” he wrote in his second book, “The Audacity of Hope.”

One afternoon in July, sitting in Jarrett’s airy West Wing office, I asked her how the young politician responded to his wife’s assertions that he was leaving her to raise their children alone. Jarrett, whose own marriage ended in part because of career-related conflict, not only recalled Barack’s replies but she also started reciting them. “ ‘I’ll make it work,’ ” said Jarrett, speaking in his voice. “ ‘We can make it work. I’ll do more.’ ” It sounded as if she could have been describing the Barack Obama of today, certain of his ability to juggle an intimidating number of priorities.

Two months later in the Oval Office, I asked the Obamas just how severe their strains had been. “This was sort of the eye-opener to me, that marriage is hard,” the first lady said with a little laugh. “But going into it, no one ever tells you that. They just tell you, ‘Do you love him?’ ‘What’s the dress look like?’ ”

I asked more directly about whether their union almost came to an end.

“That’s overreading it,” the president said. “But I wouldn’t gloss over the fact that that was a tough time for us.”

Did you ever seek counseling? I asked.

The first lady looked solemnly at the president. He said: “You know, I mean, I think that it was important for us to work this through. . . . There was no point where I was fearful for our marriage. There were points in time where I was fearful that Michelle just really didn’t — that she would be unhappy.”

Several years later, he devoted several pages of “The Audacity of Hope” to the conflict. (Judging from interviews, more than a few Chicagoans knew that Michelle once openly resented what her husband’s political career had cost her, so he may have been wise to raise the issue before anyone else.) In the end, what seems more unusual than the Obamas’ who-does-what battles — most working parents have one version or another — is the way they turned them into a teachable moment, converting lived experience into both a political message and what sounds like the opposite of standard political shtick.

“If my ups and downs, our ups and downs in our marriage can help young couples sort of realize that good marriages take work. . . .” Michelle Obama said a few minutes later in the interview. The image of a flawless relationship is “the last thing that we want to project,” she said. “It’s unfair to the institution of marriage, and it’s unfair for young people who are trying to build something, to project this perfection that doesn’t exist.”

V.

IN THE HISTORYof Barack Obama, his landslide loss against Rush is now regarded as a constructive political failure, the point at which he shed some early dreaminess and hubris and became a cannier competitor. For the Obamas, this period was also one of constructive personal failure, forcing them to reckon with their longstanding differences.

Michelle Obama accepted that she was not going to have a conventional marriage, that her husband would be away much of the time. “That was me, wanting a certain type of model, and our lives didn’t fit that model,” she told me in an Iowa lunchroom in the summer of 2007. “I just needed the support. It didn’t have to be Barack.” Craig Robinson later told me that he and his sister, Michelle, had another realization: if their father, a city water worker, had the kinds of opportunities their generation did, he probably would not have been home for dinner every night, either.

Michelle’s mother, Marian Robinson, offered crucial help, often picking up Malia and Sasha after school. The Obamas’ closest friends — doctors, lawyers, M.B.A. types — also faced the strains of two-full-time-careers-plus-kids marriage. Now they banded into a kind of intergenerational urban kibbutz, a collective that shared meals and carpools and weekend activities.

Unlike many political wives, Michelle was almost never alone. And she mostly skipped public events. When Barack spoke at the 2002 rally protesting the impending invasion of Iraq, now considered a pivotal moment of his career, his wife was not present. “I’ve had to come to the point of figuring out how to carve out what kind of life I want for myself beyond who Barack is and what he wants,” she told The Chicago Tribune during his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign.

During that race, Michelle was still a somewhat reluctant partner: at the outset, they made a deal that if he lost, he would get out entirely. “It was a compromise,” Marty Nesbitt, one of the president’s closest friends, told me. “O.K. One. More. Try,” he explained, banging out each word on a side table.

When her husband was far outspent by a local millionaire in the primary, Michelle “was almost like the mama cub coming to protect her young,” says Kevin Thompson, a friend and former aide. By the time it became clear that Barack might be the third African-American senator since Reconstruction, she was headlining a few campaign events herself. “It really clicked with her that this may be the destiny everyone was always talking about,” Thompson said.

Michelle, who was often wary of her husband’s ambitions, may have also pushed him ahead with her high expectations of what he could achieve. “Forward propulsion” is the quality Maya Soetoro says her sister-in-law brought to Barack’s career.

Two years after the Senate race, despite lingering reservations, she helped her husband define his reasons for running for president. On an autumn day in 2006, the Obamas sat in the Chicago office of the consultant David Axelrod, surrounded by advisers, weighing whether Barack should move forward.

“What do you think you could accomplish that other candidates couldn’t?” Michelle asked, according to Axelrod. The question hung in the air. Clearly, an Obama agenda would not look very different from that of Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.

“When I take that oath of office, there will be kids all over this country who don’t really think that all paths are open to them, who will believe they can be anything they want to be,” Barack replied. “And I think the world will look at America a little differently.”

VI.

A FEW DAYSbefore the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, Anita Dunn, a political consultant who joined the Obama campaign, was reading the newspaper when a voter’s quote, expressing surprise that Barack Obama was a good family man, leapt out at her.

Ever since Obama made his debut on the national stage, he’d been a solo act, telling the story of his singular, even lonely-sounding journey. In Pennsylvania, where Obama lost, “the visuals of so many of our rallies was him alone,” Dunn told me, which did nothing to allay voters’ concerns that the candidate was too distant — too foreign, professorial or precocious. Now Michelle and sometimes the girls were appearing more frequently onstage with Barack. Dunn shared the quote about Barack being a good family man with advisers, reinforcing their growing view that he was a more appealing candidate when surrounded by his family. The candidate beat expectations in both Indiana and North Carolina, all but locking up the nomination.

The Obamas began the presidential campaign, it seems, still thinking of politics as Barack’s pursuit, not Michelle’s. She would need to participate heavily only at the beginning and end, and not much in the middle, Michelle told Sher. Despite her outward confidence, there were clues she was not entirely comfortable in her new role: staff members recall that of the 26 primary debates, forums in which he struggled, she attended only two or three. At the first, in Orangeburg, S.C., she sat frozen in the audience, so anxious she was unable to speak. “It was like sitting next to a pillar of salt,” says Melissa Winter, now her deputy chief of staff. She refused to even watch the remaining debates, avoiding television screens lest she catch a clip.

She also struggled to figure out where she fit in her husband’s organization. Political operatives have a habitual disdain toward candidates’ spouses, one adviser told me, which Michelle, who had trouble obtaining even routine information like talking points, initially could not overcome. She had only two staff members and no speechwriter, and when she raised issues like the need to reach out more to women voters, she wasn’t sure she had any influence on her husband’s advisers.

Because the couple rarely campaigned together, interactions between them swelled with intermediaries. Winter would get a nightly phone call from Barack, then pad down a hotel hallway and tap on her boss’s door. For Michelle’s 44th birthday, Barack deputized Winter to prepare his gift, a silver pendant necklace. “He wanted to be sure I had it wrapped appropriately, that it had a ribbon on it,” she told me. “There was a lot of back and forth.”

When Jarrett officially joined the campaign at the behest of both Obamas, in addition to a long list of duties, she served as Michelle’s representative, as well as a kind of marital guardian and glue. Michelle took her concerns about Barack — for instance, her worry that his schedule allowed him no time to think — to Jarrett, who passed them on to aides. Barack worried, Jarrett said, that his wife had taken on too much. “Was that O.K. with her?” Jarrett says he wanted to know.

From the beginning, Michelle turned Barack’s courtship all those summers ago into a parable of political conversion, casting herself as a stand-in for the skeptical voter. When she first heard of him, his name and background seemed weird, she told voters who probably felt the same way. The first time Barack asked her out, she refused. He was a newcomer, her mentee, so it would be strange for him to become her boyfriend (or the president). But slowly he worked on her. One day she heard him give a speech and found herself captivated by the possibilities of what might be.

“When you listen to her tell that story,” Robert Gibbs, the campaign spokesman and now the White House press secretary, told me, voters thought, “It’s O.K., yeah, this could work.”

She also played a vital role in heading off the most promising female candidate in United States history. It was essential for the Obama campaign to present some sort of accomplished female counterweight to Hillary Clinton, to convince Democratic women that they could vote for Barack Obama and a powerful female figure besides. Consciously or not, Michelle made herself into an appealing contrast to the front-runner. She was candid; Hillary was often guarded. Michelle represented the idea that a little black girl from the South Side of Chicago could grow up to be first lady of the United States; Hillary stood for the hold of the already-powerful on the political system. And Michelle seemed to have the kind of marriage many people might aspire to; Hillary did not.

As the campaign accelerated after the first voting contests, Michelle Obama went from headlining intimate campaign events to enormous ones. Television cameras appeared, and some of her more forceful comments were endlessly replayed. When cable shows, bloggers and opponents fixated on her — on her supposed lack of patriotism, her supposedly angry streak — Barack was irate. As unflattering reports played on television, he would tell aides stories about her parents, about her as a mother, according to Gibbs, as if defending his wife in private could somehow help. Barack even met with the Fox executives Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes in part to insist that they treat her more respectfully.

Michelle was annoyed that advisers — who had noticed for months that she could grow a bit too vehement in speeches — had never informed her of the developing problems, according to aides. Fearful of hurting her husband’s chances, she even raised the prospect of ceasing to campaign, said one adviser who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. Jarrett recalls that “she felt she had not gotten support.” According to Sher, “She was hurt at the idea that it was possible she wouldn’t be an asset.” It was almost as if she was reverting to an old pattern in her marriage: let Barack be a politician, and she would stay out of it.

But unlike other times, Michelle did not withdraw. In fact, the woman who had once resisted campaigning now told friends she enjoyed the crowds, the laughs and the votes she was earning. Her husband promised that the staff could fix whatever problems she faced. And he clearly needed her help. After years of leaving his family behind, he now turned to his wife to help carry him to the presidency.

“I’ve never done this before,” she said to her husband’s team, according to two aides. “I just need you to tell me what to do.”

Campaigns often prove toxic to participants’ personal lives, but Jarrett says the Obamas’ relationship improved in the crucible of the race. “They both rallied to each other’s defense and support,” she says. “By having to work hard at it, it strengthened their marriage.”

VII.

ON A HUMID September day, Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago stood on a platform on the South Lawn of the White House hawking his city’s Olympic bid. The Obamas flanked him, consciously or unconsciously assuming a series of identical positions as he spoke. When Michelle Obama clasped her hands in a downward triangle, the president did, too. When he folded his arms across his chest, so did she. During their own short speeches they gave outsize laughs at each other’s mild jokes and even mimed what the other was saying. As the president noted that the White House was just a tad larger than their home in Chicago, the first lady pinched her fingers to demonstrate. Milling around afterward, watching judo and fencing demonstrations, the couple leaned into each other, talking and nodding.

Friends who visit the White House describe occasionally turning corners to find the first couple mid-embrace. They also seem unusually willing, for a presidential couple, to kiss, touch and flirt in public. It may be that they are broadcasting their affection to the rest of us, an advertisement of their closeness. Or they may simply be holding tightly to each other as they navigate new and uncertain terrain. “Part of what they provide each other with is emotional safety,” Jarrett explained.

In many ways, the Obamas have made the White House into a cocoon of sorts, with weekends full of movie-watching (“Where the Wild Things Are”), Scrabble games and children’s talent shows. They have surrounded themselves with those who have known them longest and best: Marian Robinson, the first lady’s mother, has settled in (unaccustomed to being waited on, she won’t let the staff do the laundry). Marty Nesbitt and his wife, Dr. Anita Blanchard, left Chicago to rent a house nearby for the summer, while Maya Soetoro, the president’s half-sister, and her husband, Konrad Ng, just moved here temporarily from Hawaii.

Though the president reads aloud with his children in the evenings — he and Sasha are finishing “Life of Pi” — parenting in the White House is more complicated. Because the first couple cannot move freely about, their relatives take Malia and Sasha to the bookstore, on a walk through Chinatown, to the multiplex to see “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs.” Last spring, according to Sher, well-meaning White House residence staff members tried to give the girls cellphones, so their parents could always reach them; the first lady stepped in to refuse.

Even the Obamas’ jokes seem like coping mechanisms for the epic changes in their lives. They are still in their 40s, and they appear to deal with the grandeur and ritual of their new home with a kind of satirical distance that is hard to imagine coming from first couples of a pre-Jon Stewart generation. The president playfully addresses his wife using her official acronym, “Flotus” (first lady of the United States). She keeps up a running commentary on her husband as he navigates his new home, according to friends and relatives. Seeing him in the Oval Office cracks Michelle Obama up, she told me. “It’s like, what are you doing there?” she said, gesturing to the president’s desk. “Get up from there!” In September, as they waited to greet a long, slow procession of foreign dignitaries and their spouses at the Group of 20 Summit in Pittsburgh, the first lady whispered in her husband’s ear about things “that I probably shouldn’t repeat,” he said.

“She can puncture the balloon of this,” he added, making him feel like the same person he was 5 or 10 years ago.

VIII.

CLEARLY, THE OBAMAS prefer to think of themselves as largely unaltered. “The strengths and challenges of our marriage don’t change because we move to a different address,” the first lady said, the president studying the carpet as she answered. But even as they serve as sources of continuity for each other, their own partnership is undergoing significant change, not just in outward circumstance — the city, the exposure, the security, the staff, the house and so on — but far more fundamentally. Michelle Obama has gone from political skeptic to political partner to a woman with a White House agenda of her own, and an approval rating higher than the president’s.

Initially, her office was seen as so peripheral by some in the West Wing that one aide referred to it as Guam: pleasant but powerless. Now Michelle Obama is towing the island closer to the mainland. In June, she appointed Sher — a lawyer, health care expert and member of the tight knot of hometown friends — her chief of staff. “The first lady wants her office to be fully integrated into the president’s agenda,” Sher says. Early this summer, for example, the first lady directed her staff to plan events that could help support health care reform and then volunteered to speak publicly on the topic. The president and first lady share a speechwriting staff, the East Wing’s press and communications team attends their West Wing counterparts’ meetings and every week, Dunn, Sher and Jarrett meet to discuss the integration of the president’s and first lady’s business.

When asked about how her insights affected the president’s thinking, the first lady seemed to bristle at the question. “I am so not interested in a lot of the hard decisions that he’s making,” she said, drawing out the “so.” “Why would I want to be in politics? I have never in my life ever wanted to sit on the policy side of this thing.” Earlier in my conversation with them, the president faced forward, even leaning a bit away from his wife, but now he uncrossed his legs, swiveled and studied her, looking amused.

“Did she say she’s not interested in policy?” Sher, who also attended the Oval Office interview, tried to recall the next day, shaking her head and smiling. “She always says that.” (The first lady may have learned from Hillary Clinton’s example the perils of appearing too involved with policy.) While her boss has a limited appetite for policy details on many subjects, Sher explains, she regularly reads briefing papers from her staff on social issues. Early next year, aides say, the first lady will become the administration’s point person on childhood obesity, working with her husband’s policy advisers as well as her own on a problem that has stymied public-health experts for years. While the overall success of the administration is Barack Obama’s test, Michelle Obama is beginning to gauge her ability to affect public opinion and behavior as well — which means risking criticism and failure.

The first lady also speaks to her husband about White House management and personnel decisions. “She is not shy about expressing her views at all,” Sher told me, recalling a conversation last spring between Barack and Michelle about a personnel problem. “She was like, you should do this, dah dah dah dah and dah dah dah,” Sher said, smacking the table. The first lady was so forceful, Sher said, that the president just grinned back until they both started to laugh. “It’s probably great that she does get worked up about injustices,” Sher went on to say. “It ­clearly seems to have an impact on him.”

Michelle Obama is also one of her husband’s chief interpreters of public sentiment. On almost every “domestic issue that’s come up — up and through health care,” the president told me, the first lady has offered “very helpful” insights on “how something is going to play or what’s important to people.”

“She’s like a one-person poll,” he explained. “Everyman!” the first lady called out.

“We’ll sit at the dinner table,” the president said. “If our arguments are not as crisp or we’re not addressing a particular criticism coming from the other side, Michelle will be quick to say, I just think the way this thing is getting filtered right now is putting you on the defensive in this way or that way.” (Sometimes, Sher says, when the president is describing some complicated issue, his wife interjects: “You know what? People don’t care about that.”)

During the campaign, Michelle Obama made much of her regular-person credentials, but they may now be expiring. She has not only a personal trainer and a stylist but also a staff of chefs and gardeners. Her world is somewhat less rarefied than that of her husband: she can steal away with less fuss, and her events bring her into more contact with ordinary citizens than his constant march of briefings. But her celebrity is nearly as great as her husband’s, her world nearly as artificial. (By the time of the Democratic National Convention, Michelle told friends, she stopped knowing what the weather was each day: she lived in the permanently controlled climate zone of airplanes, cars and hotels.) A year or two ago, when Barack Obama talked about staying grounded, he mentioned his wife; now he tends to talk about his children or his dog instead. All presidential couples experience this sort of isolation, which is part of why they tend to come to resemble each other more than they do the rest of us.

As the great experiment of the presidency rolls on, the Obamas may finally learn definitive answers to the issues they have been debating over the course of their partnership. The questions they have long asked each other in private will likely be answered on the largest possible stage. They will discern whether politics can bring about the kind of change they have longed for and promised to others, or whether the compromises and defeats are too great. They will learn whether they were too ambitious or not ambitious enough. And even if they share the answer with no one else, the two will know better if everything does in fact become political — if their marriage can both embrace politics and also at some level stay free of it.

Then, in three or seven years, the president’s political career will end. There will be no more offices to win or hold, and the Obamas will most likely renegotiate their compact once more — this time, perhaps more on Michelle Obama’s terms.

The equality of any partnership “is measured over the scope of the marriage. It’s not just four years or eight years or two,” the first lady said. “We’re going to be married for a very long time.”

Jodi Kantor is a Washington correspondent for The New York Times.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]