Great point! He actually almost insisted on it: Jobs seemed to insist that he interact only with Obama ("On the meeting, Jobs insisted that Obama himself ask for a personal invitation"). He also got annoyed when he was forced to interact with Obama's aides, especially when they didn't do everything he said:

* "Jobs suggested that Obama meet six or seven other CEOs who could express the needs of innovative businesses — but when White House aides added more names to the list, Jobs insisted that it was growing too big and that “he had no intention of coming.”"

* "Jobs even offered to help create Obama’s political ads for the 2012 campaign. “He had made the same offer in 2008, but he’d become annoyed when Obama’s strategist David Axelrod wasn’t totally deferential."

You gotta give Steve Jobs credit for chutzpah!

Yes. For Jobs to treat Obama otherwise seems somehow anti-republican: the fact that Obama is Jobs' peer---and indeed yours and mine---is, I think, a notion deeply rooted in American political culture. Considering the possibility of Jobs showing deference certainly raises my hackles. At the same time, it's natural to be overawed by a man like Obama, with so much political authority (and however much remains of the tremendous moral authority he had when elected).

I see them as two leaders in their respective fields just talking shop.

Should he have put Obama on a pedestal instead?

I would too. Just because he sits on a special chair doesn't put him above me.

Now, I may respect a man for what he's _done_ ; but in Obama's case, that isn't much (ex Obama volunteer & donor here).