Why not a Chicago ‘date night?’

I’m outraged over the concept of President Barack Obama choosing to take a day trip to New York City last weekend so he and first lady Michelle could have dinner and catch a Broadway show.

No, I’m not going to spew the ridiculous rhetoric of the right, which is trying to claim that Obama is some sort of elitist because he took one of the official government airplanes (albeit, not Air Force One – that would be gaudy) for the trip from Washington to JFK International Airport, before being flown into Manhattan by helicopter.

WHAT THEY'RE REALLY upset about is the fact that we don’t have a “President McCain” these days (although I suspect some of them really wanted us to have a “President Huckabee”). So they’re going to nitpick every single detail of the Obama administration to try to make it sound like something more significant than it truly is.

The simple fact is that a president of the United States is an expensive concept to maintain. The constant security required to ensure that no one can successfully take a shot at him (or someday, her) requires certain measures that would seem excessive to the daily routine of a Joe Schmo.

So unless we expect our nation’s president to live within a White House that is turned into a fortress (erect a few turrets with cannons, ready to fire upon anyone who gets with 100 yards of the front gates), we are going to have to expect the high-security measures.

That includes using a government-owned airplane to give the Obamas a private flight to New York. I couldn’t begin to imagine how stressful it would be on the Secret Service to ensure the security of a commercial flight if anyone seriously tried to put the first couple on the D.C. to New York shuttle.

AND I'M NOT some type who wants to think that anything associated with Broadway is somehow elitist (even though I will be the first to admit I have never understood the appeal of NASCAR, and likely never will).

So if the Obamas want to have dinner, then catch a show (for the record, they went to see “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone” at the Belasco Theater), the concept doesn’t bother me much in theory.

The problem I have with the idea is the fact that they went to New York, which I do understand is just a short flight from the District of Columbia. But what about Chicago?

We have our own fledgling theater district in this city, along with many world renowned restaurants. What would have been wrong with the first couple choosing to come back “home” for a weekend? I’d think that could have been just as relaxing.

I SEEM TO recall once that a then-President-elect Obama said he likely would try to return to Chicago on a regular basis, similar to how the former President George W. Bush had his pseudo-ranch in Crawford, Texas (actually more of a luxury house in a rural town) that he could travel to whenever he felt the need to get away from D.C.

Obama himself made a comment that Chicago was, in a sense, his “oxygen,” as though he couldn’t survive without a dose of the Second City on a regular basis.

Apparently, our air has become polluted. Since his inauguration, we have had one Valentine’s Day-type Obama appearance in Chicago (even though I’m sure the residents of the Hyde Park neighborhood probably find it relaxing not to have the Secret Service watching their every move just because they happen to live near the Obama residence).

But what could have been wrong with having the first couple come back to Chicago for that weekend – except that Malia and Sasha likely would have taken it as a personal slight that they were not included in a quick trip back to the city for a couple of days.

SO NOW, WHEN Obama needs his “quick” getaway, he and Michelle hightail it for a restaurant in Greenwich Village.

I’m just wondering if this is the first stage of the Obamas thinking their lifelong goal is to live in “the Big Apple.” It doesn’t matter if neither of them has any real ties to that city (even if the president himself got his bachelor’s degree from Columbia University). Our top officials have a knack for adopting New York as their home after they leave office.

One needs to look no further than the Clintons. Bill of Arkansas and Hillary Rodham of suburban Park Ridge didn’t give thought to either of those places as a home when their time in the White House ended in early 2001.

If not for the ridiculously high cost of living in Manhattan, they’d be a part of that whole scene – instead of having the big house in the suburbs that puts them close enough to the scene to feel comfortable.

THERE ALSO IS Richard Nixon, who in between being vice president under Dwight Eisenhower and having his own term-and-a-half as president moved to New York and became an attorney with incredible political connections.

I would hope that this “date night” was just a mild flirtation with the New York scene, and not the initial step in trying to reincarnate their image as urban hipsters who think nothing of significance exists west of Connecticut.

Now I realize that, for all practical purposes, the Chicago portion of Obama’s life is over.

He’s never again going to be one of the local politicals. His daughters are going to be largely D.C.-educated. Their days in Chicago schools (albeit private ones) are over. Even if he does decide to return to the city once his term (if not two) as president is complete, he will be the awkward presence of the Second City.

A PART OF me would not be surprised if the Obamas decide that their mini-mansion in Hyde Park (the one enhanced with the extra yard space provided courtesy of Antoin Rezko, remember him?) is a part of their past. A part of me wonders if a Hawaii retirement is in their future, but that is subject matter for future commentary.

But I always figured that day was to come some time in the future. As a Chicago buff, it’s sad to see that it may have already arrived.

-30-