Jodi Kantor at the Editorial Board

Jodi Kantor, a reporter from the New York Times, talks to the editorial board about her meticulously researched book about U.S. President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. She covered the Obamas during the 2008 presidential campaign and conducted hundreds of hours of interviews with more than 200 people for the book.

Q: What has been the reaction to the book?

I fact-checked the whole book so I was very surprised by the [negative]reaction from the White House last week. I think it was in part because there was definitely a tabloidization of the book. There was en embargo of the book and so people couldn't read it in advance. And that didn't stop them from opining on it on television, and really exaggerating it. For example, the Huffington Post described Michelle Obama and [chief of staff]Rahm Emanuel clashing in the hallway.. which is not what my reporting indicated at all. So the White House had an exceedingly harsh response.

And Michelle Obama goes on TV without having read the book and said the book tried to portray her as some kind of angry black woman. It's a mystery why she said that because she hasn't read the book. She is not portrayed that way but as a strong, impassioned woman.

Q: Why are people so focused on the First Lady?

Part of the confusion is nobody can even say whether First Lady-hood is a job or not. It comes with tremendous responsibilities but you can't get hired for it, you're not elected to it and you're not paid for it. So the nature of this role remains so undefined. It really is an empty vessel and every first lady has to find a way to make it meaningful.

First Ladies are incredibly influential in a way that is not really supposed to be acknowledged. We have stereotypes of First Ladies versus the reality. They often present a beaming image to the public. But in private they have a lot of steel in their spines. The role lags behind the real status of American women. A First Lady can never work or hold a paying job so she is never going to be up-to-date with the reality of what it means to be an American woman.

Q: What does the book reveal about managerial style?

Internal management has been a real issue in the presidency. This stems from fact that President is not an organization man and didn't have a lot of executive experience. And he was never really a believer in traditional hierarchies and really was an outsider. He brings in a group of advisers. And the cliche is not true that they are a tight, insular group of Chicago advisers. This group is not unified and there was a lot of tension and disagreement within this group about what sort of president he should be and how he should do things.

Q: Is there a certain elusive quality to the President?

He is so introverted and she is really clear about with aides about where she is on any given issue. And so in a way in my reporting I often felt there was a little bit of a Plato's Cave I had to look at the reflection, at Michelle Obama in order to see what was really happening. because the president himself is so hard to read. She is willing to be more vocal in her criticisms and tougher on his staff than he is. Hillary Clinton was not dissimilar.

Q: This is a person who wanted to bridge divides, yet it has been very difficult for him. How has power changed him?

Everybody truly does treat him differently now that he is president. He knows it and there is not that much he can do about it. There is a funny scene in the book with Brad Pitt. He comes to the Oval Office and he is pushing low-cost, environmentally sustainable housing in New Orleans... but even he is totally star-truck. The White House advisers couldn't understand why he was so quiet in the meeting. Even a guy as confident and famous as Brad Pitt becomes overwhelmed when he meets the President.

This is a guy who came to power based on a speech in 2004 in which he said there is no conflict between Red and Blue America. That is the podium on which his reputation and candidacy is built. By the end of book we are in the debt ceiling crisis. Things have become so polarized in Washington he can't get even in Republicans and Democrats to sit down and agree to a reasonable solution and has to capitulate to the Tea Party.

In a narrative way, it has been terrible to watch someone whose aspirations were so high and ideals were so inspiring confront that in many ways he was wrong. There is something a bit painful about it.

Q: Has he suffered a psychological crisis he had to nurture in private?

There is quite a lot of evidence that the president was struggling with a lot of these issues. By the end of my reporting, advisers described him as being in a real funk. It was a combination of the debt ceiling crisis and approaching the 2012 election and feeling how much of his support had vanished. He could still see crowds of 100,000 people from 2008 at rallies. Think about how unique that is. How few people in recent world history have experienced that in world history, and then losing some of that power. And the debt ceiling crisis did prompt questioning behind the scenes. How could we have been so out-manoeuvred, was the thinking. It was completely visible on TV that the president was so frustrated. The famous quote when he said, my daughters get their homework done a day ahead of time but these high-level Washington officials cannot assume the same level of responsibility. Politically, it wasn't a smart comment to make because it was so derisive. But it was so honest.

Q: To what extent is the failure to bridge that gap his own?

Some in Washington question whether he really believed bipartisanship in the first place, or was it just inspiring rhetoric to launch his career? I think he did believe in it, based on my reporting.

The question of how bipartisan co-operation went so far south you could do a 25-point list of reasons, many to do with the Republican side. George W. Bush said the same thing. He wanted to create a more harmonious tone in Washington and he could not. He acknowledged that that was a part of his presidency he was not able to achieve. Same with Barack Obama. Republicans launched strategy of complete and total opposition. There are a couple of things Obama did that may have hurt his quest for bi-partisan co-operation. One was appointment of Emanuel as his chief of staff because in the Washington universe he is a fighter, not a conciliator. Another question is how Obama approached the Republicans in the very first weeks of the presidency. The Obama people say that the stimulus package involved a lot of Republican ideas, but the Republicans said they didn't feel Obama came to them, but assumed he knew what they wanted. Obama people say that it was an emergency situation and there wasn't time for tremendous back-and-forth.

Q: How does he view bipartisanship now?

Obama's original idea of bipartisanship is pretty much dead. Since Labour Day he has been running his "We can't wait" strategy. It translates roughly into forget the Republicans we are not going to sit around and wait for them to co-operate with us. He has been pushing his jobs bill. Their strategy from here to the election is to run against the Congress. He has said he likes his job but the worst part is dealing with legislators. Their values and morals, they are so craven. And Obama is going public with that message now, especially with the Republican Congress.

Q: Did you have access to the First Couple?

I went into the book knowing that interviews with the two of them were not a certainty. Michelle Obama doesn't want books written about her. She did give me access to the East Wing. In 2009 I had a huge interview with the First Couple in the Oval Office talking about their marriage. It took me months to get it. Looking back, I am amazed I got as much access as I did. When I told them I was going to start a book project, their attitude was, you just had this huge interview, and there are limits here and we don't want you to presume. I felt that it was fine to go ahead. I really don't believe in access journalism. I feel very strongly that the fact that politicians are giving fewer interviews doesn't mean we should stop writing about them. Aides and staff were able to tell many stories that the Obamas couldn't and wouldn't tell.