These are gloomy times for the wine business, too, as sales and prices take a hit, especially at the high end. Indulging a dose of magical thinking, wine purveyors are jubilant over the election of Barack Obama to the presidency, because he and Michelle drink wine. Their hope is that the First Family’s personal consumption will somehow boost sales. This expectation could be misguided for at least several reasons. George Bush is a teetotaler, yet during his presidency, sales soared to the point that in 2008, Americans consumed more wine than citizens of any other nation in the world. That’s probably not a coincidence. In 2008, the economy was falling apart, but we still had money to manage denial with fine wine. Even if Barack Obama were to be a more inspirational leader than George Bush, and we were driven to imitate his life style, very little is known about how much and what he drinks. The sleuths are hard at work, but so far, they have uncovered very little information.
What we know is that the Obama home in Chicago has a 1000-bottle wine cellar. But we have no information about which bottles or how many might be stored there. Given what we see of Obama’s propensity to think, my theory is that he has stuffed the racks with books. Another bit of information that we have about Obama’s wine purchases came directly from him when he told “People” magazine that Kendall-Jackson Chardonnay was a staple in his house. Along with Obama, legions of Americans buy Kendal-Jackson Chardonnay, and most of it is mass-produced, generic wine. My take on that information is that people, for whom Kendal-Jackson Chardonnay is a staple, like wine alright, but they’re not paying a lot of attention to what’s in their glasses, at least not enough to lead a nation toward increased wine enjoyment. Finally, we know that Michelle Obama likes sparkling wine, specifically a $15 brut from South African producer Graham Beck. That could be a good lead, and I look forward to trying it, although right now, I’m hopelessly enthused about sparkling Ruggeri Prosecco di Valdobbiadene at the same price.
Whether or not the Obamas manage to increase the country’s wine sales in any noticeable way is yet to be seen, but their populist bent may already be influencing wine choices for state dinners at the White House. The Bush administration created a lesser known scandal in November when it hosted an emergency economic summit for world leaders after the global economy began to unravel. Along with dinner, the White House served a Napa cult Cabernet, the Shafer 2003 Hillside Select that retails variously from $250 to $500 a bottle, depending on who’s selling it, when Two Buck Chuck would have been more appropriate for the occasion. Clearly, President Bush had no responsibility for this choice. I blame Dick Cheney. But then I blame Dick Cheney for everything, including bad-hair days.
Instead, the three wine picks for the luncheon that followed Obama’s Inauguration received high praise, the $14 Korbel Natural California Champagne, the $30 Duckhorn 2007 Sauvignon Blanc, and the $50 Goldeneye 2005 Anderson Valley Pinot Noir. California Senator Diane Feinstein may have been responsible for those choices since she was the chair of the inauguration committee.
So now, along with everything else, we need President Barack Obama to fix wine sales. We can all drink to that. Wine is like money. The more we have, the better we feel.
Why presidential taste rarely moves a market
The hope described above rests on an assumption about influence that consumer behavior does not usually support. Wine choices are shaped by price, availability, habit and what a local retailer stocks, and none of those change because a public figure mentions a preference. Attention may produce a brief surge for one label, but a national consumption trend is built out of millions of routine decisions.
The counterexample in the passage above makes the point efficiently. A period of rising consumption under an abstaining president shows that the correlation people expect is not there, and the timing of that increase suggests economic and demographic causes rather than presidential ones. Distribution reach and generational habit explain far more than personal example does.
How official wine choices are actually recorded
State dinner menus are published, which makes them one of the few reliable sources on the subject. Wine selections for official functions have long favored American producers, and the choices are made by White House staff rather than by the president personally, with the food and wine planned together for the occasion. That is why a menu tells you about protocol and the season more than about anyone’s private cellar.
Menus also record more than the wine. They document the season, the guest of honor’s country and the kitchen’s intentions, all of which constrain the wine choice before anyone considers a preference. A summer luncheon and a winter dinner would produce different selections regardless of who was hosting.
Longer-term records end up in a documented archive rather than in press coverage. Presidential materials are transferred into the system of presidential libraries administered by the National Archives, where menus, correspondence and social office files become available to researchers under the applicable rules. Anyone genuinely curious about what was served at a particular event is better served there than by speculation.
What is knowable and what is not
| Source | What it can show | What it cannot show |
|---|---|---|
| Published menus | Wines poured at specific official events | Anything about private consumption |
| Archived social office files | Planning, quantities, correspondence | Personal preference, unless recorded |
| Press interviews | What a public figure chose to say | Whether the statement reflects habit |
| Rumor and inference | Nothing reliable | Everything |
The custom of pouring American wine
Serving domestic wine at official functions is a diplomatic convention rather than a rule about quality. Most wine-producing nations do the same, since a state dinner is partly a display of what a country makes, and the choice is read as a signal by the guests. It also spreads recognition across regions, since a menu can draw on several states over successive events.
That convention has given American producers a form of exposure no advertising could purchase. A wine poured at a widely reported event enters the news cycle attached to a place name, which is one reason regional guides and lists of that kind circulate afterward. Our overview of California’s wine regions covers the areas that appear most often in such lists.
Price, symbolism and public reaction
The controversy sketched above was about symbolism rather than about wine. An expensive bottle served during a financial crisis reads as a statement whether or not anyone intended one, and hosts in public life are judged on that reading. The same bottle at a private dinner would attract no comment at all.
The practical lesson for any host is that context sets the meaning of what is poured. A modest wine served with evident thought lands better than an expensive one served without it, which is the principle behind our notes on choosing wine for celebrations and our guide to California grapes and styles.
FAQ: presidents, protocol and wine
Are White House wine choices public information?
Menus for official events are generally released, and related records eventually reach the presidential library system. Private household purchases are not public.
Does a celebrity endorsement change wine sales?
It can lift one label briefly. Category-wide consumption moves with price, distribution and demographics rather than with individual endorsements.
Why is American wine served at state dinners?
Because a state dinner is a presentation of the host country. Serving domestic wine is standard diplomatic practice in most wine-producing nations.