On Monday, ABC's Ann Compton asked President Barack Obama whether he would visit Ferguson, Missouri, amid the continued unrest. Obama didn't give a firm answer, but he did suggest it's probably not a good idea.
"When they're conducting an investigation, I've got to make sure that I don't look like I'm putting my thumb on the scales one way or the other," he said.
And for now, that's probably the right call.
As with everything Ferguson, there are no easy answers. But at this juncture, it's pretty clear Obama's presence would be a very risky political move.
Obama has studiously avoided taking sides in the matter, offering little more than general comments and urging peaceful demonstrations.
For Obama, visiting Ferguson would seem, on its surface, to be a good way to calm tensions. But as Obama himself suggested, he can't really do that without looking like he's taking sides. And that's about the worst thing he could do for the situation in Ferguson--and nationwide.
The issue is already proving to be racially and politically polarizing--much like the Trayvon Martin case--with African Americans and Democrats much more skeptical of the police and the investigation and much more likely to believe race was a factor in what happened. Whites and Republicans see the situation in a far, far different light.
We've already seen a lot of nastiness on both sides of the debate over Ferguson.
Obama visiting the city might defuse some of the local tensions, but it would probably only exacerbate what is already a very heated national debate.
Things are serious in Ferguson--as the arrests (including that of journalists), the tear gas, the violence and the rhetoric demonstrate--but the temptation to believe an American president can simply show up and put a stop to it all is far too simple.
Editorial on 08/20/2014