The President -- Too Proud for Hand-to-hand Politics?

President Obama invited all 20 women senators to dine at the White House Tuesday and made the 17 Democrats and three Republicans feel at home. Nobody ever said he's not the zenith of grace, made of some sophisticated stardust. His lightning wit will be on show at the White House Correspondents Dinner Saturday.

Therein lies the flaw. Dazzling, yes, but the president seems above it all — politics itself. The lost gun control votes in the Senate are cause for serious pause, for he lost some public confidence in his ability to deliver.

Some Senate Democrats are no easier than House Republicans — another irony in the April air.

I am coming to the conclusion there's nothing Obama hates more than losing his cool, sweating and dealing hard for a vote, chit or favor — the very stuff of democracy as the game is played. Backstage bargaining happens all the time, and often the president plays a major part when it counts. But not Obama, though he made gun control a promise to the American people. Even as a senator, he kept a regal distance from the Senate's daily rhythms. Which may explain why he has so few friends in the chamber.

Camaraderie over dinner is a fine thing, but breaking bread together may be too little, too late to give Obama's presidency a second wind and greater cohesion.

For example, the Senate 20 dinner came on the heels of a major legislative defeat for the president, on gun control in the wake of the Newtown school shooting. A handful of his dinner guests, such as freshman Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, voted against Obama's clear wish on a crucial vote early in his second term. That's no way to govern, as pundit Maureen Dowd declared in The New York Times. But it does seem to be the way of Obama's world, reluctant as he is to play the heavy when stakes are high — notably on health care reform and the debt ceiling crisis, close calls in his first term.

He is, perhaps, a gentleman to a fault. And an introvert who needs more time alone than most politicians, gregarious by nature.

Last week's column questioned whether Obama had asked — or demanded — that another defector on gun control, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., stick with him. Now we hear Baucus is leaving the Senate, so he could have taken a tough vote. Did the president insist on him standing with his party on a big deal, for a change? I don't think so. Baucus is contrary, but Obama had every reason to press.

In the end, a powerful senior senator, Baucus, and a freshman senator, Heitkamp, both got a pass. Neither feared crossing Obama, who doesn't practice the ancient art of retaliation.

In fairness, for the first time in his presidency, Obama has practiced outreach and diplomacy toward Congress, starting this winter. He's either invited a group of senators out to dinner or gone to Capitol Hill to meet with party caucuses. This is the administration's response to perceptions that the proud president is aloof from allies in Congress. While Obama seeks to strengthen personal ties, to his credit, how strategic these sessions are is an open question. Many political insiders compare Obama to the consummate political animal, President Lyndon Johnson, as portrayed by biographer Robert Caro. I prefer considering Bill Clinton making calls from the Oval on a key vote on the economy early on. He got engaged in a shouting match with then-Sen. Bob Kerrey, a doubting Democrat from Nebraska.

According to George Stephanopoulos, it went something like this:

"If you want to bring this presidency down, then go ahead. ... You go do it."

For the record, what matters is Clinton made the tough call — and got Kerrey's vote.

To find out more about Jamie Stiehm, and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM