When it comes to Republicans, President Obama sees himself as a kind of reverse Sally Field: They don't like him. They really, really, don't like him.
Judging by the junior high school behavior of House members who snarkily live-tweeted the president's closed-door meeting Wednesday, this seems a rather accurate assessment.
"Stuck getting Obama 'charm offensive' right now when we should be talking about #balancedbudget ... or is it 'offensive charm'?" tweeted Arizona Republican Matt Salmon, as chronicled by Slate's David Weigel.
"President to House GOP: Closing WH to Americans was not his decision, it was the Secret Service. (eyes rolling)," added John Fleming of Louisiana.
Fiddling with your smartphone while anyone is talking is rude. Fiddling while the president is talking is really rude. And fiddling to send juvenile tweets while the president is talking is really, really rude.
Obama anticipated this churlish response in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos the previous day, when he described his theory of bargaining with congressional Republicans.
Obama: "You know - I think whatever I'm for, it's very hard for a Republican to also be for. I think they always have to be a little bit - you know, maintain some distance ... Which is why, at some point, I think I take myself out of this."
The president portrayed himself as a sort of maitre d' for budget negotiations, setting the table for others to forge an agreement. "What I'm trying to do is create an atmosphere where Democrats and Republicans can go ahead, get together and try to get something done," he said.
It's true that there are times when presidential intervention in delicate congressional negotiations can be counterproductive. It's certainly true that there are times when congressional Democrats have advised the White House to butt out. But leading through diffidence is not a traditional presidential strategy, nor is there much reason to expect it to produce results.
In the end, as Obama himself understands and has told the other side, he is the one who is going to have to sell the notion of unpopular changes - curbing Medicare spending, reducing Social Security benefits or curtailing popular tax breaks - to a nation that says it wants a balanced bargain but may balk when that bargain is translated into painful specifics.
For the moment, the White House has decided, in concert with Senate Democrats, to hold back on submitting its budget. Democrats say the delay is no biggie because the president's blueprint would be dead whenever it arrives.
In a strange way, though, the waiting-for-Obama budget scenario may increase its importance. Will the White House, for example, include its proposal to change the way Social Security cost-of-living adjustments are calculated? This provision is noticeably absent from the budgets offered both by House Republican Paul Ryan and Senate Democrat Patty Murray. For Obama to include it would inflame liberals; to omit it would raise questions about his sincerity.
Speaking to Stephanopoulos, the president sounded distinctly pessimistic about the prospects for such a bargain, and disturbingly unconcerned about failing to reach one. That, he said, would be more missed opportunity than "crisis."
Perhaps he's posturing; if the president is seen as coveting a deal too much, he won't be able to get the kind he wants. Perhaps it's simple realism.
But failure would not only tarnish Republicans - it would stain Obama's legacy. Great presidential leadership entails figuring out how to deal with even those who do not like you.
Email Ruth Marcus at firstname.lastname@example.org