With President Barack Obama set to address the nation Tuesday night from the oval office about the BP oil leak, The Washington Post offers a good look at how past presidents have used such addresses.

But the piece seems to analyse too much some perception that Obama is showing desparation with the move or may flop because he has not done one before as president.

" ... the president has waited so long to use the Oval Office that there may be some reluctance to start now," the story says. “If Obama were to use that setting to address the nation about the oil spill, for example, people might read more into the speech than the White House would want. It might suggest that the administration 'is scrambling and in crisis mode' and make Obama seem 'out of control,' said Ari Fleischer, one of George W. Bush's press secretaries."

Sometimes, reporters can seek to analyze things a bit too much, especially with this president.

I asked James Carville, who has been open about his disdain for the oil leak and its reaction and even criticized Obama about it, what he thinks of such a move. Carville should know having advised Bill Clinton for many years.

“I think an Oval Office address is warranted here, it is the largest environmental disaster in the country,” Carville told me. “People are concerned to say the least.”

Asked about the pluses and minuses of such an address, Carville said: “The minus is if he gives a bad speech or doesn't say anything. The speech has to convey something. I suspect it will.” As for critiques of the speech even before it is given, Carville said, “People criticize what he puts on a hamburger. I am not surprised.”