As much as I hate Zero, thank you for expressing this, and they are my thoughts as well.
Exactly as my sentiments were after Katrina when the press were lambasting Bush for not visiting NOLA soon enough. Bush wasn't going to personally rebuild the levies or pump the water, so his presence wasn't going to make one bit of difference.
Sorry. It’s not just about stopping the leak.
It was about protecting the beaches beginning over a month ago.
It was about burning off the oil way back on DAY ONE.
IT’S NOT ABOUT THE SPILL, IT’S ABOUT THE CLEANUP
Actually, any Presidential visit to a disaster area of any sort is a major distraction and interference with real disaster relief efforts, so it does make a difference -- a *negative* difference. The last thing needed by anybody who's doing any serious work on either the oil well gusher itself or resulting environmental mess, is to be pulled away from their work for a pointless "briefing" of a visiting President (with or without photo op). And the last thing that anybody dealing with the supporting logistics needs, is to have to prepare for the super-high security of a Presidential visit -- hours of time wasted with Secret Service advance people who need to know every detail of every travel route, every building that will be visited, demand huge special support from local police, etc.
Some Presidential "see how much I really care" trips are harmless, such as Obama's recent participation in the memorial service for the dead miners. But having a President barge into a major disaster area is always harmful to the urgent work underway there.
If he can rub elbows with some oil industry big-wigs at the Gettys' fundraiser, at least there's a chance some tiny bit of real benefit would result. "Assessing the efforts to stop the massive oil leak", whether from the White House or in the disaster area itself, is nothing more than hot air, which he can just as easily blow by conference call from Air Force One on his way to or from the Getty event.