Olbermann's special comment on Joe Wilson

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

CONTINUE READING...

Obama's Address on Health Care to Congress

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

CONTINUE READING...

PUBLIC OPTION NOW! Edition

Here we go folks... I'd bang my head against the wall, but I'm unsure about the quality of the health care I'd receive...

Again, I can barely turn on CNN in the mornings because I know someone is going to say something about health care that will make me absolutely livid. Someone will say "trigger option" one more time and I'm going to put my head through the TV in an effort to scream directly at Olympia Snowe that people need %*^&%! health care RIGHT NOW. Like this second. Like twenty years ago. Like ONE HUNDRED years ago.

The Power to Cloud Men's Minds....
The debate -- if you can call it that-- is so freaking contorted now that nobody knows what side is up. August was, if you believe the pundits, a total disaster of town hall brawls. People are out there shouting "Keep your goddamned government hands off my Medicare!"

Voices of reason and logic, like Robert Reich--a former secretary of Labor and now professor at UC Berkeley-- are being practically drowned out in the furor. Here's his explanation of the public option, clear and simple.


But summertime's over, babycakes. It's time for the big B.O. to take things in hand because frankly this bipartisanshit-- sorry, bipartisanship thang ain't working out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Character of Our Country
In case you missed it, the full text of Obama's address to Congress is here. (Video here) Thank God, because just as Obama was getting to the emotional peak -- "That large-heartedness – that concern and regard for the plight of others – is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character." my DVR cut off. Doesn't matter. Here's the rest.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter – that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road – to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that's not what the moment calls for. That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history's test.
Because that is who we are. That is our calling. That is our character.

Shape the future. The time to call or email your reps is now.

Contact your individual representatives and senators. Look 'em up, folks -- call your friends in Montana, call your friends in Blue Dog states. It's time to make a squawk --to inform these Congress members that THEIR jobs are on the line. Email is cheap -- health care isn't.

If you're interested in the details of Obama's own plan, visit the White House site.

******************************

In this week's New York Times, Paul Krugman puts out a simple defense of the public option:

Most arguments against the public option are based either on deliberate misrepresentation of what that option would mean, or on remarkably thorough misunderstanding of the concept, which persists to a frustrating degree: I was really surprised to see Joe Klein worrying about the creation of a system in which doctors work directly for the government, British-style, when that has nothing whatsoever to do with the public option as proposed. (Forty years of Medicare haven’t turned the US into that kind of system — why would having a public plan change that?)

==============================


And about the National Health Service...

Much maligned in the news in the month of August was the UK's National Health Service. Eric's mom-- who also sent me a link to this very interesting, and not atypical, story about the NHS-- was out here for a visit last week and happened to be staying in a B&B with a physician from the UK's National Health Service. I'm grateful to her and to Dr. Stephen Shepherd for letting me reprint some of his thoughts on this health care debate.

SOME THOUGHTS OF A VISITING GP

Whilst visiting San Francisco in August 2009 a few thoughts occurred to me concerning the current debate in the US about the proposed changes to the US Health care system and comparisons with the UK's NHS.

In every country in the world there are basically only 3 ways of accessing health care.

The rich simply pay cash for whatever they want.

Those with health insurance received 'managed care'

The poor are thrown on the basic healthcare provided by the State

In the UK the NHS covers both the last two catagorys. The standard of care for ALL is equivalent to the managed care received by US citizens with insurance. A few people in the UK have private health insurance, usually as a perk of their job. In the past this allowed you to bypass some of the NHS queues. Nowadays, with the better financed NHS, private health insurance tends just to allow you to have private room, rather than share a 4-bedded bay, which is the norm in NHS hospitals.

The vast majority of hospital specialists or Consultants do most of their work in the NHS and do private work to supplement their NHS income. Private hospitals are not really set up for complex procedures and if you are seriously ill you are best off with the NHS.

The key to the NHS is the General Practitioner or GP (Primary Care Physician). Your GP will refer you for both NHS and Insurance referrals, but will provide the bulk of your care. Most chronic diseases in the UK are dealt with by the GP, who will know you and your past history and will tailor your healthcare for you personally. Primary Care is very strong in the UK.

Now to deal with a few points:

Rationing: all healthcare is rationed, except for the rich. In the UK most treatments are covered by the NHS and your doctor is free to prescribe any drug or treatment that is marketed in the UK. The exceptions are new expensive treatments whose clinical effectiveness are assessed by an independent body called the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), before they become widely available on the NHS. In the US health care is rationed by the Insurance companies managed care system, or by your ability to pay. I understand it is not unknown for people to die in the US as they lack the money to fund their treatment. I leave the reader to decide which is the better system.

Waiting Times and Choice: in the past the wait for routine procedures could be measured in years, but since the advent of Tony Blair's Labour Government a lot of money has gone to improve matters. As a GP I can use the new Choose and Book computer system to book appointments during a patient's consultation, at a time and date of their choosing. Most routine appointments will be within a month. It is unusual for the wait for surgery to be more than 3 months. If your GP thinks you may have cancer, there is a rapid access system which gets you to see a Specialist within 2 weeks and any definitive treatment started within a month.

Quality: British doctors are trained to the same standard as those in the US and foreign graduates wanting to work in the UK must have a good standard of English and meet the clinical standards set by the various Royal colleges that supervise training in the UK.

Income: when the NHS was set up in 1945 many doctors feared that they would be out of pocket. This has proved to be far from the case. Most GPs earn £120000 from the NHS with very little from private work. Experienced nurses earn from £20-30000. Hospital Consultants earn around £100000 from the NHS, but their additional private income can vary from zero to £100000+ according to their speciality and/or personal choice.

Innovation: the charge that the NHS discourages innovation and invention just makes me laugh. The route to being a hospital consultant is through research. All hospital consultants only get their position once they have done some research and continue to do so once in post. British drug companies are amongst the best in the world and around 40% of current treatments had their origins in the UK.

I admit to wondering what lies behind the opposition to President Obama's health care reforms. I suspect that many Americans realise that sorting out your healthcare system will inevitably lead to other social reforms.

The NHS is a small part of a whole raft of social benefits that make up the British Welfare State.

Benefits are provided if you are unemployed, sick, disabled or caring for someone who cannot care for themselves. Everyone gets an old age state pension from 65. The elderly are one of the main beneficiaries of the NHS. Should you need residential or nursing home care as you get older then the state pays for that and allows you to keep significant personal assets.

The poor and other disadvantaged groups are not left to fend for themselves on the streets. Local government in the UK has a statutory duty to provide social housing for all who need it, together with social services care. The homeless are not left to roam the streets, but are housed in hostels, where they have their own lockable room. These hostels provide temporary accommodation until the local authorities can find somewhere permanent, usually in the form of a one or two bed apartment.

This extensive welfare system is the result of the Socialist Government of 1945 and is the result of the report carried out by Beveridge in the later years of WW2. It is important for Americans to remember that the UK, and Europe in general, is far more left wing than the US. The main British right wing party, the Conservatives, are much more akin to left leaning Democrats. The Labour Party is a left wing party that has moved a little more to the right under Tony Blair. Some of the views I have read from Republicans would have no place in British politics, except in our extreme right wing parties like the British National Party (BNP), who are viewed with contempt by the majority in the UK.

The downside of course to the Welfare state is the cost. Income tax in the UK starts at 20% and rises to 40% on any income in excess of £38000.

On mainland Europe the Social care systems are more generous than the UK, but their income tax rates are higher. In the US it seems you provide very minimal benefits, but have low income tax.

In the UK we have gone for the middle ground between the two.

A UK style system would almost certainly lead to the US middle class losing their mortgage tax relief, as happened in the UK. Perhaps this is the main reason for the opposition?

Benefits in the UK are aimed at providing a comprehensive safety net with benefit levels set to allow you to survive and stay in your own home. No one would choose to stay on benefit as even a modest income will give a better quality of life. For instance, except in times of recession, most people made unemployed would have found a new job within a month. The UK is still a net importer of employees.

A few people do slip through the net, especially in London, but people begging on the street is unusual in the UK and often they are people who have great difficulty engaging with any form of authority. Strenuous efforts are made by many state and charity groups to engage with these individuals.

Remember even these people have the right to see a GP and access all parts of the NHS. I have worked for a practice that provided services targeted at the homeless.

I am shocked whilst in the US, the richest country in the world, to see such affluence along side such abject poverty.

I would like to remind the US: 'No man is an island.'

Dr Stephen Shepherd, GP

Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire

=================================================================


Final words from the Grand Fromage
Watching the funeral of Ted Kennedy last week, I couldn't help but be overwhelmed by how much there is left to do-- and from the top of Ted's list: the "cause of my life", which he outlined in an article for Newsweek last month. As usual, he doesn't just bemoan the opposition they face, but looks at the possibilities.

Incremental measures won't suffice anymore. We need to succeed where Teddy Roosevelt and all others since have failed. The conditions now are better than ever. In Barack Obama, we have a president who's announced that he's determined to sign a bill into law this fall. And much of the business community, which has suffered the economic cost of inaction, is helping to shape change, not lobbying against it. I know this because I've spent the past year, along with my staff, negotiating with business leaders, hospital administrators, and doctors. As soon as I left the hospital last summer, I was on the phone, and I've kept at it. Since the inauguration, the administration has been deeply involved in the process. So have my Senate colleagues—in particular Max Baucus, the chair of the Finance Committee, and my friend and partner in this mission, Chris Dodd. Even those most ardently opposed to reform in the past have been willing to make constructive gestures now.

I long ago learned that you have to be a realist as you pursue your ideals. But whatever the compromises, there are several elements that are essential to any health-reform plan worthy of the name.

First, we have to cover the uninsured. When President Clinton proposed his plan, 33 million Americans had no health insurance. Today the official number has reached 47 million, but the economic crisis will certainly push the total higher. Unless we act now, within a few years, 55 million Americans could be left without coverage even as the economy recovers.

All Americans should be required to have insurance. For those who can't afford the premiums, we can provide subsidies. We'll make it illegal to deny coverage due to preexisting conditions. We'll also prohibit the practice of charging women higher premiums than men, and the elderly far higher premiums than anyone else. The bill drafted by the Senate health committee will let children be covered by their parents' policy until the age of 26, since first jobs after high school or college often don't offer health benefits.

To accomplish all of this, we have to cut the costs of health care. For families who've seen health-insurance premiums more than double—from an average of less than $6,000 a year to nearly $13,000 since 1999—one of the most controversial features of reform is one of the most vital. It's been called the "public plan." Despite what its detractors allege, it's not "socialism." It could take a number of different forms. Our bill favors a "community health-insurance option." In short, this means that the federal government would negotiate rates—in keeping with local economic conditions—for a plan that would be offered alongside private insurance options. This will foster competition in pricing and services. It will be a safety net, giving Americans a place to go when they can't find or afford private insurance, and it's critical to holding costs down for everyone.

We also need to move from a system that rewards doctors for the sheer volume of tests and treatments they prescribe to one that rewards quality and positive outcomes. For example, in Medicare today, 18 percent of patients discharged from a hospital are readmitted within 30 days—at a cost of more than $15 billion in 2005. Most of these readmissions are unnecessary, but we don't reward hospitals and doctors for preventing them. By changing that, we'll save billions of dollars while improving the quality of care for patients.

Social justice is often the best economics. We can help disabled Americans who want to live in their homes instead of a nursing home. Simple things can make all the difference, like having the money to install handrails or have someone stop by and help every day. It's more humane and less costly—for the government and for families—than paying for institutionalized care. That's why we should give all Americans a tax deduction to set aside a small portion of their earnings each month to provide for long-term care

=================================
There have been lots of tributes to Ted Kennedy of course, but I remember this one as especially lovely, from last year at this time, when Ted Kennedy appeared at the Democratic National Convention. But perhaps even more moving was Senator Robert Byrd's tribute:

I had hoped and prayed that this day would never come. My heart and soul weeps at the loss of my best friend in the Senate, my beloved friend, Ted Kennedy.

Senator Kennedy and I both witnessed too many wars in our lives, and believed too strongly in the Constitution of the United States to allow us to go blindly into war. That is why we stood side by side in the Senate against the war in Iraq.

Neither years of age nor years of political combat, nor his illness, diminished the idealism and energy of this talented, imaginative, and intelligent man. And that is the kind of Senator Ted Kennedy was. Throughout his career, Senator Kennedy believed in a simple premise: that our society's greatness lies in its ability and willingness to provide for its less fortunate members. Whether striving to increase the minimum wage, ensuring that all children have medical insurance, or securing better access to higher education, Senator Kennedy always showed that he cares deeply for those whose needs exceed their political clout. Unbowed by personal setbacks or by the terrible sorrows that have fallen upon his family, his spirit continued to soar, and he continued to work as hard as ever to make his dreams a reality.

In his honor and as a tribute to his commitment to his ideals, let us stop the shouting and name calling and have a civilized debate on health care reform which I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name for his commitment to insuring the health of every American.

CONTINUE READING...

Health wealth and...and...I forget what the other one is...

Welcome to a very special health care edition of ME's Political Rant.

So, this is how I know that it's time for a political rant -- when I'm standing in front of the TV SCREAMING at CNN and the monologue goes something like this, "What the $^&*!!^% are you talking about, you &*$$*%! ?/&*!%^!&*!! Why don't you ask that ??%!@&^&%@ #$ &*&^ %^$! what he'd do if his OWN !?#$%&# daughter were #&*^!#%^*$ sick and he didn't have his &^%?!$% precious Congressional health care ???? Are you a MORON????"

Now, far be it from me to take a reductionist view of a complex and byzantine issue, but can I just point out that nobody is getting ANYwhere right now? The truth is that I've had a hankering to put out a rant for a while, but now my blood pressure is up, my throat is sore from yelling at FOX news idiocy and yesterday I almost put my middle finger through the TV screen. Clearly, the time has come.

There's a lot to cover here, but I'm gonna put this right at the top. You wanna know what's in H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, or the Health Care Reform bill? Here it is, in its 1018-page glory. Yes, that sounds like a lot, but consider that it's 80 pages shorter than Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (paperback edition) and it's double-spaced and in a larger font.

So the beauty of the Internet is that you can find anything you want if you just look long enough. As this bill wends its way through committees it obviously gets revised, and you can track the changes on Govtrack.org.

A Little Bird Told Me....

I think there should be a new rule: you may not be on TV, you may not be quoted, you do not get to talk about health care, if you are going to use the phrase "I've heard that..." as in "I've heard that grandma will be called up in front of death panels under this health plan....I've heard that kids under the age of 21 with bad acne and frizzy hair will be sterilized under this health plan...I've heard that Barack Obama wants to recycle old people into Soylent Wafers under this health plan."

The "I've heard that" impulse-- which I readily admit is hard to fight-- accounts for so much of the hysteria out there, like this frustrating email that you may have seen around the net:

On Page 425 of Obama's health care bill, the Federal Government will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling session every 5 years with the objective being that they will explain to them just how to end their own life earlier. Yes... They are going to push SUICIDE to cut Medicare spending!!! And no, I am NOT KIDDING YOU! So those of you who voted for Obama have now put yourself and your own parents in dire straights... Congratulations!

If you check on the famous page 425, you can read for yourself what it says about Medicare paying for-- not forcing people to talk about -- a consultation about end of life care with a doctor. Anyone can read it for themselves.

If you're like me (or like Jon Stewart) you howled when there appeared to be hedging on the idea of a public option ( a government -run insurance plan similar to Medicare). I think it was all a ploy to get the rest of us SOOO riled up at the prospect of the public option being taken off the table that we'd get on the horn, and so here I am, on the horn to you, my friends. (Jeez, I sound like John McCain.) I'm sending out this rant with some special resources on who and how to contact in Congress, so please feel free to pass it on through the same channels we used last year at this very time...

Should there be health care for crazy people?

Wow, I guess in principle I'm for mental health coverage in this reform bill, but there are obviously a lot of Crazy People (Sarah Palin) out there barking at the wind (Sarah Palin). People (Sarah Palin) who really need to schedule those 20 visits with a mental health professional.

Yes, I'm talking about Sarah Palin's Death Panel fiesta. By the way, in case you missed it, it was conservative Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia) who put the so called "death panel" clause into the health care lottery. His comment on Palin's Death Panel crack? "How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up."

Not content with dissing that bastion of socialism, Canada, the misinformation storm has now swept up Britain too. To the point that they're finally hitting back, after watching their NHS system pilloried in the news, e.g. "Oh God, Americans would NEVER want SOCIALIZED medicine disaster like that SOCIALIST REGIME in BRITAIN forces on its people. They would have KILLED someone like Stephen Hawking under a system like the British." Except that Stephen Hawking LIVES in BRITAIN -- and he's not dead. Yeah. Um... yeah. Says Hawking to The Guardian newspaper: "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS." Moving on.

(All figures are for 2007 except for Japan, which is for 2006)

The White House has a website rebutting some of the claims that drive me insane (How many times do you think Obama is going to have to say, "You will be able to keep your own health insurance if you like it"?) But you can also read the excellent Consumer Reports Health Reform blog for up to date and well-researched information -- one of the better reads out there. It's part of their larger website covering Health Care reform, which has other good resources on it.

Consumers Union health policy analyst, Steven Findlay also had an editorial in USA Today back in June that laid out the basics with an historical persepctive pretty clearly. "Socialized medicine. Government-run health care. Rationing. Bureaucrats in charge. "Cookbook" medicine. Waiting lines. It'll break the bank. Welcome to the health care debate 2009. Sound familiar? These notions aim to instill fear. And once again, they bear no more relation to the reality of what is being debated in Washington than was the case when the Clintons had a go at health reform in the 1990s. Don't be misled this time. In fact, far more bipartisan agreement exists on many core elements of reform than you might think... What would be new is that people who don't have access to such coverage (and some who do) would be able to get coverage through insurance "exchanges." They'd be able to choose from a batch of private plans and policies that would have to accept all comers, offer comprehensive coverage, and be barred from "cherry-picking" only healthy people."

Has anyone else noticed that in fact, under he current system, someone-else-who-is-not-you is already making the decisions for us? When your employer gives you a "choice" of either a low-budget, it-would-be-great-if-you-never-get-sick coverage from Kaiser, or pay-through-the-nose-$800-a-month-Blue-Shield-PPO plan, you think you have choice? When insurance companies decide that they don't want to cover someone with a pre-exist, that they don't cover mental-health care, that they don't cover chiropractic, you think you have the power to make choices?

As Consumer Reports observes in their August 2009 issue,

Private health insurance already comes between you and your doctor. And because each company sets its own rules, it’s hard to imagine a more bureaucratic system. Some insurers decide which doctors you can see, which hospitals you can visit, and what drugs you can take and still be covered. And they may require copious paperwork before approving a treatment you and your doctor want. Health-care reform would standardize claim procedures to cut down on all of that. And it would protect you from other abuses, like being rejected for coverage or paying exorbitant premiums if you get sick.

=================================

The LA Times' Noam Levey had a good summary of where everything got left as Congress went on break.

Where does the healthcare overhaul legislation stand?August 2, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- Amid a flurry of activity on healthcare legislation, the House left Friday for its monthlong summer recess. The Senate will take off at the end of this week. The break comes as Democratic leaders are working to cobble together complex healthcare bills to bring to the floors of each chamber for votes this fall.

Here is an update on where the debate stands in Washington:

Has Congress agreed on how to ensure that all Americans will be able get health insurance?
The two major bills that have cleared committees in the House and Senate would establish insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, through which individuals and small businesses could compare a variety of plans that meet basic standards to be established by the federal government. The exchanges would include private plans as well as a government insurance program, which advocates say would pressure commercial insurers to lower costs and improve quality. The government would provide subsidies to help low- and moderate-income people afford the insurance.

Does that mean there will be a government plan?
Not necessarily. The government plan faces opposition from some who fear it could ultimately drive private insurers out of business. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, which is charged with evaluating the effects of legislation, has projected that would not happen. But because Republicans and some centrist Democrats object to a government plan, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the Senate Finance Committee is trying to develop an alternative. That might be a system of health insurance cooperatives owned by consumers.

Will these exchanges really control the cost of healthcare?
Not by themselves. The two major bills include other provisions designed to encourage Americans to be healthier, such as eliminating co-payments for some checkups and other preventive care. Many believe that will ultimately save money. The House bill also contains several pilot programs in Medicare to encourage hospitals and doctors to deliver care more efficiently. For example, one committee inserted a provision to reward programs that provide care to chronically ill senior citizens in their homes to prevent costly hospitalizations.

Will that be enough?
Many business groups, labor unions and others believe the legislation must put even stricter limits on Medicare spending to curb unnecessary and inefficient care. The head of the CBO also has testified that the bills do not do enough to slow the growth of healthcare spending. Senior Democrats have pledged to adjust the legislation to do that over the August break.

Would that mean that Congress won't raise taxes to pay for this healthcare overhaul?
That's still not clear. The House bill would assess a new surtax on individuals who make more than $280,000 and couples who make $350,000 a year to raise $544 billion to help offset the cost. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has indicated that she might move to raise those cutoffs to $500,000 and $1 million. In the Senate, where there is little support for a new income tax, lawmakers are talking about other proposals, including taxing some health benefits or assessing fees on insurance companies. Senior Democrats plan to work on those details over the summer.

==============================

Now, who do we need to call...

So here we are again -- are you up late at night scanning CNN and HuffPo? Are you railing at your TV? Are you seething with undirected rage? Here's my thought -- make up a little form letter that encapsulates how you feel and send it to members of Congress. Send a supportive email to the ones whose views you back, send an irate one to the members whose views make you mad. I don't care which is which, but get in there. Attached is a handy list (in Excel Format) with names, phone and fax numbers and email links -- feel free to use it liberally... Thanks to the visi.com site which keeps this sort of thing updated regularly.

The Roll Call of Shame (please feel free to call, fax or email your rants to these guys, click on his or her name to go to a link to email them directly.)

• Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): “If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” "We're about where Germany was before World War II where they became a social democracy."
• Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): "I don't know for sure, but I've heard several senators say that Ted Kennedy with a brain tumour, being 77 years old as opposed to being 37 years old, if he were in England, would not be treated for his disease, because end of life – when you get to be 77, your life is considered less valuable under those systems." Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.”
  
• Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ): Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.” "The Arizona senator rejected the suggestion that Republicans were to blame for any "scare campaigns" designed to derail healthcare, stating that the party instead is simply reflecting public sentiment."
• House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA): “If it is just another name for government takeover of our health care, I’m not going to be for that,” said on CBS’s “The Early Show.”
  
• Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), chair of the conservative House Republican Study Committee, “Patients should be wary of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
• Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), one of seven senators involved in Finance Committee negotiations, left the bipartisan talks. Hatch informed Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) Wednesday afternoon that he couldn't continue to particpate because there were too many aspects of the bill that he could not back, including the employer mandate, individual mandate, Medicaid expansion and tax increase...Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.”
• Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): George Stephanapolous reports, "Graham told me that the U.S. Senate will not "go down the government-run health care road" despite a new poll showing 72 percent of Americans want a government role in health care -- and are willing to pay higher taxes for it. "The reason you're not going to have a government run health care pass the Senate is because it would be devastating for this country," Graham told me Sunday in an exclusive "This Week" interview.
• Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.): Former big league pitcher Jim Bunning says he won't run for a third term as U.S. Senator from Kentucky. Bunning says his Republican colleagues have been doing "everything in their power" to dry up his fundraising. Bunning, who is 77, had a narrow win in 2004 and has been clashing with GOP leadership...Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.”
• Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho): Crapo sits on the Senate Finance Committee, whose members are instrumental in writing what is expected to be the dominant Senate version of the health care bill. Earlier this month, Crapo signed an op-ed in the Washington Post with 12 other senators calling for bipartisan solutions to the nation's health care crisis. He has expressed dissatisfaction with one of the current Senate bills, saying that it fails to provide affordable coverage for people who don't have it without affecting those who are happy with their existing coverage. Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.”
• Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.): opposes "rationed Health Care"...Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.”
• Sen. John Ensign(R-Nev.): Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, a leading conservative mentioned as a potential presidential candidate, admitted Tuesday he had an extramarital affair with a woman who was a member of his campaign staff....Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.”
• Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.): Congress should approach health care reform in steps, instead of trying to put together a comprehensive package...Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.”
• Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas): Nine Republican senators are urging President Barack Obama to facilitate more inclusive reform of America’s health care system and say the creation of a public insurance option would “inevitably doom true competition.”

And now, Arf Arf: The so-called Blue Dogs (Contact these guys, they need to know how we all really feel!)


Who are these people and why are they doing this anyway? "So far this year, the Blue Dog Political Action Committee is on track to shatter all its fundraising records; in fact, the total for the first six months of 2009 — more than $1.1 million — is greater than what was raised in the entire 2003-04 fundraising cycle. Furthermore, according to analysis by the Center for Public Integrity of CQ MoneyLine data, the energy, financial services, and health care industries have accounted for nearly 54 percent of the Blue Dog PAC’s 2009 receipts (up from 45 percent in 2004). These contributions poured in as President Obama and the Democratic Congress have been making a major push to reform health care, develop a new energy policy, and restructure oversight of the banking sector. Clearly, these Dogs are having their day."

Any other questions on why the Blue Dogs are stalling health care reform?

Updates on what they were up to this week from the RollCall.com site. Are you represented by a Blue Dog? CALL him or her!!!

• Jason Altmire (PA-4)
• Mike Arcuri (NY-24)
• Joe Baca (CA-43)
• John Barrow (GA-12) voted against the health care reform bill last week in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
• Melissa Bean (IL-8)
• Marion Berry (AR-1)
• Sanford Bishop (GA-2)
• Dan Boren (OK-2) Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.) didn’t plan to hold town halls following a Congressional delegation trip, according to the Oklahoman, but he has now scheduled three meetings for Tuesday.
• Leonard Boswell (IA-3)
• Allen Boyd (FL-2) "I cannot support this bill in the version it is in now," he said. "We can do better. We can make it better."
• Bobby Bright (AL-2)
• Dennis Cardoza (CA-18) In California, almost 200 supporters and opponents of health care reform gathered outside the Modesto office of Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D) to demand a meeting with the lawmaker, the Modesto Bee reported.
• Christopher Carney (PA-10)
• Ben Chandler (KY-6) In Kentucky, some of Rep. Ben Chandler’s (D) constituents brought their complaints to a dummy likeness of the Congressman at a town hall in Lexington, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader.
• Travis Childers (MS-1)
• Jim Cooper (TN-5)
• Jim Costa (CA-20)
• Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
• Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3) one of the few Blue Dogs to meet publicly with her constituents this weekend. On Saturday, she tried to “to separate fact from fiction” in Sharon, Pa., according to the Herald in Mercer County. “I’ve read the bill and it does not in any way promote euthanasia,” she told them. “It gives you the ability to sit down with your doctor and talk about end-of-life issues such as will-writing and hospice care, and the doctor will be reimbursed. Before, they weren’t reimbursed for that.”
• Lincoln Davis (TN-4)
• Joe Donnelly (IN-2)
• Brad Ellsworth (IN-8)
• Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8) (AZ Daily Star editorial)I support reform that allows Americans to keep their current health-care program, keep their doctors and keep their hospitals. I support reform that creates competition through a strong public option that lowers everyone’s costs and competes with private insurers. I support reform that allows Arizonans who lose their jobs to afford insurance so they can get back on their feet without fear of getting sick. I support reform that will slow the growth of health-care costs and does not impose new taxes or burdens on our nation’s most valuable economic contributors, small businesses. I support reform that would allow this father to keep his insurance so his daughter and wife don’t have to go without proper care.
• Bart Gordon (TN-6) Overall, the typical Blue Dog has received $63,000 more in campaign than other House Democrats over the past two decades, according to the CRP analysis. The top three recipients were Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), with $1.5 million, and Tennessee Reps. Bart Gordon and John Tanner, both of whom collected over $1.2 million from the industry and its employees, according to the data.
• Parker Griffith (AL-5)
• Jane Harman (CA-36)
• Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration
• Baron Hill (IN-9), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy
• Tim Holden (PA-17)
• Frank Kratovil (MD-1)
• Jim Marshall (GA-8)
• Jim Matheson (UT-2) voted against the health care reform bill last week in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
• Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
• Charlie Melancon (LA-3), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications, voted against the health care reform bill last week in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
• Mike Michaud (ME-2)
• Walt Minnick (ID-1) Blue Dogs are choosing to speak with constituents over the phone
• Dennis Moore (KS-3) Blue Dogs are choosing to speak with constituents over the phone
• Patrick Murphy (PA-8)
• Glenn Nye (VA-2) Blue Dogs are choosing to speak with constituents over the phone
• Collin Peterson (MN-7)
• Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL) Overall, the typical Blue Dog has received $63,000 more in campaign than other House Democrats over the past two decades, according to the CRP analysis. The top three recipients were Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), with $1.5 million, and Tennessee Reps. Bart Gordon and John Tanner, both of whom collected over $1.2 million from the industry and its employees, according to the data.
• Mike Ross (AR-4) "The committees' draft falls short," the former pharmacy owner said in a statement that day, citing, among other things, provisions that major health-care companies also strongly oppose. Five days later, Ross was the guest of honor at a special one of at least seven fundraisers for the Arkansas lawmaker held by health-care companies or their lobbyists this year, according to publicly available invitations.
• John Salazar (CO-3) There will be a hot time in the old town hall meetings when John Salazar returns to his district for the August recess. Traditionally a time for elected federal officials to touch base with constituents, public meetings this year will be dominated by health care reform. Like The Daily Sentinel as stated in their “Blue Dog Salazar quiet on health care reform” editorial, many voters would like these meetings to “give representatives a chance to learn what their constituents have been reading about the measure and allow for a give-and-take about political, medical and moral choices within the system we have now and any kind of reform that might take place.”
• Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
• Adam Schiff (CA-29-Pasadena) During much of the time when Schiff and others spoke, there was yelling from crowd, with individuals calling Schiff a liar and demanding he be recalled. Supporters, meanwhile, repeatedly yelled at the opposition to quiet down. The panel Schiff assembled included a representative from Kaiser Permanente, a consumer advocate, and representatives from smaller health-care groups. All professed some level of support for a public health care option.
• David Scott (GA-13)
• Heath Shuler (NC-11), Blue Dog Whip: addressed 24 questions in a call-in on Thursday night, according to the Asheville Citizen-Times. He also answered two written questions at the Henderson County Democratic Party’s picnic on Saturday, the Times-News in Hendersonville noted.
• Zack Space (OH-18)
• John Tanner (TN-8) Overall, the typical Blue Dog has received $63,000 more in campaign than other House Democrats over the past two decades, according to the CRP analysis. The top three recipients were Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), with $1.5 million, and Tennessee Reps. Bart Gordon and John Tanner, both of whom collected over $1.2 million from the industry and its employees, according to the data.
• Gene Taylor (MS-4)
• Mike Thompson (CA-1)
• Charlie Wilson (OH-6)

Fight the Good Fight!! (If you like what your Senators and Reps are doing, contact them too to tell them to to keep up the good work.)

• Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., Nichols, a health-care economist with the New America Foundation, said he believed that Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, the leading Republican on the Senate Finance Committee and Senate Republicans' most influential voice on health care, was the "linchpin." If he supports the cooperatives as proposed by Obama and Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus - the Finance Committee chair, with whom Grassley has been working for a bipartisan bill - criticism from the far right will lose much of its power and a bipartisan bill will likely pass, Nichols said.
• Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) In an effort to defuse the most explosive issue in the debate over comprehensive health care legislation, a top Senate Democrat has proposed that any new government-run insurance program comply with all the rules and standards that apply to private insurance.(May 2009)
  
• Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) an early supporter of health care, due to his own ailing health he hasn't been vocal in the debate.
  
• Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) Frank lashed out at protester who held a poster depicting President Barack Obama with a Hitler-style mustache during. "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" Frank asked the woman, who had stepped up to the podium to ask why Frank supports what she called a Nazi policy. Frequently, Frank was interrupted by boos. A man in the back kept calling the congressman a "liar". Frank responded by saying "Disruption never helps your cause. It just looks like you're afraid of rational discussion."
• Sen Arlen Specter (D-PA) Specter also told reporters that he still favored the so-called "public option" for a national health care system, despite reports that the Obama administration might be shifting its support to some kind of "co-op" plan. Under the public option, the federal government would act an insurer for many Americans. Under the cooperative alternative, the government would fund start-ups of new types of coverage that could eventually function independently.
• Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., accused Republican leaders of trying to hinder bipartisan progress to deny Obama a political victory.

=============================================

Wanna see a Town Hall for yourself? Here's the updated list of upcoming events -- pull out that oak tag and staple gun that puppy to a stake, then head out and shake it in front of a CNN camera please...

And TOMORROW, Thursday, at 2:30 EDT (11:30 PDT) Obama will be hosting an online forum on the Health Care Reform proposal. Details are here as to how to watch online, or you can Twitter questions to @BarackObama (tag with #hc09).

Special bonus for you Palin watchers out there. Ahh, the good old days of the campaign....

CONTINUE READING...

Obama's Speech to the Muslim World

As usual, the NY Times has an interactive transcript with video.

The White House is making translations of the speech available in 13 languages including Arabic, Chinese, Dari, French, Hebrew, Hindi, Indonesian, Malay, Pashto, Persian, Punjabi, Russian, Turkish and Urdu.

Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu weighs in with a statement:

"The government of Israel expresses hope that President Obama's important speech will lead to a new period of reconciliation between the Arab and Muslim world, and Israel. We share Obama's hope that the American effort will bring about an end to the conflict and to pan-Arab recognition of Israel as the Jewish state.

"Israel is obligated to peace and will do as much as possible to help expand the circle of peace, while taking into consideration our national interests, the foremost of which is security."

Transcript from the White House.

YouTube - President Obama Speaks to the Muslim World from Cairo, Egypt

CONTINUE READING...

BASEBALL: Woman in the News; Strike-Zone Arbitrator -- Sonia Sotomayor - The New York Times

Back in 1992, Sotomayor arbitrated in the baseball strike--from the NY Times article at the time:

In her two and a half years on the bench, United States District Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor has earned a reputation as a sharp, outspoken and fearless jurist, someone who does not let powerful interests bully, rush or cow her into a decision.

She lived up to that billing yesterday morning, when the fate of major league baseball was thrust upon her. After a two-hour hearing in which she grilled both sides on the fine points of labor law, she took only 15 minutes to issue an injunction that could break the deadlock in the baseball strike.

Ruling from the bench, Sotomayor chided baseball owners, saying they had no right to unilaterally eliminate the 20-year-old system of free agents and salary arbitration while bargaining continues. With those provisions reinstated, striking players have promised to play ball this season under the terms of the previous contract while the two sides try to hammer out a new deal.

"This strike has placed the entire concept of collective bargaining on trial," the judge said.

Sotomayor grew up in a Bronx housing project, just three miles from Yankee Stadium, in a neighborhood where baseball was revered. Although her friends say she is not an aficionado of the game, she has been known to slip off to the ball park once in a while to catch an afternoon game.

"I hope that none of you assumed on Monday that my lack of knowledge of any of the intimate details of your dispute meant that I was not a baseball fan," the judge said yesterday as the hearing began. "You can't grow up in the South Bronx without knowing about baseball."

Sotomayor, 40, is the youngest judge in the Southern District of New York. She was the first American of Puerto Rican descent to be appointed to the Federal bench in a city where generations of Puerto Ricans have lived, died and, yes, played baseball.

"She's tough and tenacious as well as smart," said Justice Jose A. Cabranes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a mentor and former professor of Sotomayor's at Yale Law School. "She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media."

...

Since then, Sotomayor has demonstrated a willingness to take the Government to task whenever she believes the circumstances warrant it. She has taken strong anti-Government positions in several decisions, including cases involving the White House, the religious rights of prisoners, and even the Hell's Angels. During her first year, she received high ratings from liberal public-interest groups.

In January, she ordered the Government to make public a photocopy of a torn-up note found in the briefcase of the former White House Counsel, Vincent Foster, who committed suicide. She said the public's interest outweighed the privacy of the Foster family.

Last September, she allowed the Hell's Angels motorcycle club to keep a Manhattan building it owned and called the Government's evidence of drug dealing there "rather scanty indeed."

In May 1994, she ordered New York State prison officials to allow inmates to wear beads of the Santeria religion under their belts. And in December 1993, she struck down as unconstitutional a White Plains law that prohibited the displaying of a menorah in a city park.

Read more at The New York Times.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama Picks Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court

President Obama announced on Tuesday that he will nominate the federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, choosing a daughter of Puerto Rican parents raised in Bronx public housing projects to become the nation’s first Hispanic justice.

Judge Sotomayor, 54, who has served for more than a decade on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, based in New York City, would become the nation’s 111th justice, replacing David H. Souter, who is retiring after 19 years on the bench. Although Justice Souter was appointed by the first President George Bush, he became a mainstay of the liberal faction on the court, and so his replacement by Judge Sotomayor likely would not shift the overall balance of power.

But her appointment would add a second woman to the nine-member court and give Hispanics their first seat. Her life story, mirroring in some ways Mr. Obama’s own, would add a different complexion to the panel, fulfilling the president’s stated desire to add diversity of background to the nation’s highest tribunal.

Read more at NYTimes.com.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama's speech on closing Guantanamo

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

CONTINUE READING...

Cheney's Speech on Torture and Security

What nasty, ugly piece of work this man is. What does he think he has to gain from defending torture? Contrast that with Obama's speech this morning.

Moments after President Barack Obama concluded a sober and wide-ranging address at the National Archives on Thursday, news networks cut to a shot of Dick Cheney stepping up to a podium, set to issue what was hyped as a substantive rebuttal from the former vice president.

Instead, Cheney began by cracking jokes at the length of Obama's speech. "Good morning -- or perhaps, good afternoon," he said to some chuckles. "It's pretty clear the president served in the Senate and not in the House of Representatives because, of course, in the House, we have the five-minute [speaking] rule."

From there, the attacks only became more caustic, vicious, and personal.

Cheney described the president's national security approach as "recklessness cloaked in righteousness." He called Obama's opposition to torture "unwise in the extreme," and accused critics of "phony moralizing" and "feigned outrage" over interrogation practices.

"The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism," Cheney argued. "Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy."

The vice president's speech included other well-worn riffs from the Bush era. Cheney took multiple thinly-veiled shots at the media, noted that Obama has "found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo," and declared that dissent from the Bush national security approach would embolden America's enemies.

Read more at Huff Po.

Rest of post here.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama speaks on closing Gitmo

Protecting Our Security and Our Values
President Barack Obama
National Archives Museum, Washington, D.C.
May 21, 2009

These are extraordinary times for our country. We are confronting an historic economic crisis. We are fighting two wars. We face a range of challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the 21st century. There is no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear.

And we have begun to make progress. Just this week, we have taken steps to protect American consumers and homeowners, and to reform our system of government contracting so that we better protect our people while spending our money more wisely. The engines of our economy are slowly beginning to turn, and we are working toward historic reform of health care and energy. I welcome the hard work that has been done by the Congress on these and other issues.

In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe. That is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It is the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.

This responsibility is only magnified in an era when an extremist ideology threatens our people, and technology gives a handful of terrorists the potential to do us great harm. We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.

Already, we have taken several steps to achieve that goal. For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy. We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world's most dangerous people access to the world's deadliest weapons, and launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. We are better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world.

These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.

I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words - "to form a more perfect union." I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never - ever - turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset - in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval.

Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world.

It is the reason why enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they'd receive better treatment from America's armed forces than from their own government.

It is the reason why America has benefited from strong alliances that amplified our power, and drawn a sharp and moral contrast with our adversaries.

It is the reason why we've been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism, outlast the iron curtain of communism, and enlist free nations and free people everywhere in common cause and common effort.

From Europe to the Pacific, we have been a nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law. That is who we are. And where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology.

After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era - that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law; that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out.

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that - too often - our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us - Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens - fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach - one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable - a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass. And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people.

First, I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States of America.

I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation. What's more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts - they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all.

The arguments against these techniques did not originate from my Administration. As Senator McCain once said, torture "serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us." And even under President Bush, there was recognition among members of his Administration - including a Secretary of State, other senior officials, and many in the military and intelligence community - that those who argued for these tactics were on the wrong side of the debate, and the wrong side of history. We must leave these methods where they belong - in the past. They are not who we are. They are not America.

The second decision that I made was to order the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists. Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years. Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setbacks, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system. Meanwhile, over five hundred and twenty-five detainees were released from Guantanamo under the Bush Administration. Let me repeat that: two-thirds of the detainees were released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.

There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. Indeed, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law - a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear: rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one year.

The third decision that I made was to order a review of all the pending cases at Guantanamo.

I knew when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would be difficult and complex. There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we do not have the luxury of starting from scratch. We are cleaning up something that is - quite simply - a mess; a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my Administration is forced to deal with on a constant basis, and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.

Indeed, the legal challenges that have sparked so much debate in recent weeks in Washington would be taking place whether or not I decided to close Guantanamo. For example, the court order to release seventeen Uighur detainees took place last fall - when George Bush was President. The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican Presidents. In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.

There are no neat or easy answers here. But I can tell you that the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo. As President, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. Our security interests won't permit it. Our courts won't allow it. And neither should our conscience.

Now, over the last several weeks, we have seen a return of the politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several years. I understand that these problems arouse passions and concerns. They should. We are confronting some of the most complicated questions that a democracy can face. But I have no interest in spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years. I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them together as Americans.

And we will be ill-served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue. Listening to the recent debate, I've heard words that are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country. So I want to take this opportunity to lay out what we are doing, and how we intend to resolve these outstanding issues. I will explain how each action that we are taking will help build a framework that protects both the American people and the values that we hold dear. And I will focus on two broad areas: first, issues relating to Guantanamo and our detention policy; second, issues relating to security and transparency.

Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders - highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal "supermax" prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: "The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational."

We are currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo to determine the appropriate policy for dealing with them. As we do so, we are acutely aware that under the last Administration, detainees were released only to return to the battlefield. That is why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past. Instead, we are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and our security demands. Going forward, these cases will fall into five distinct categories.

First, when feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts - courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and juries of our citizens are tough enough to convict terrorists, and the record makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center - he was convicted in our courts, and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison. Zaccarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker - he was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo.

Recently, we prosecuted and received a guilty plea from a detainee - al-Marri - in federal court after years of legal confusion. We are preparing to transfer another detainee to the Southern District of New York, where he will face trial on charges related to the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania - bombings that killed over 200 people. Preventing this detainee from coming to our shores would prevent his trial and conviction. And after over a decade, it is time to finally see that justice is served, and that is what we intend to do.

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are best tried through Military Commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot be effectively presented in federal Courts.

Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. They are wrong. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process and rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal. I did, however, support the use of military commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms. And those are the reforms that we are making.

Instead of using the flawed Commissions of the last seven years, my Administration is bringing our Commissions in line with the rule of law. The rule will no longer permit us to use as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify. These reforms - among others - will make our Military Commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice, and I will work with Congress and legal authorities across the political spectrum on legislation to ensure that these Commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.

The third category of detainees includes those who we have been ordered released by the courts. Let me repeat what I said earlier: this has absolutely nothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do with the rule of law. The courts have found that there is no legitimate reason to hold twenty-one of the people currently held at Guantanamo. Twenty of these findings took place before I came into office. The United States is a nation of laws, and we must abide by these rulings.

The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved fifty detainees for transfer. And my Administration is in ongoing discussions with a number of other countries about the transfer of detainees to their soil for detention and rehabilitation.

Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.

I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

As our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These issues are fodder for 30-second commercials and direct mail pieces that are designed to frighten. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes. And if we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future. I have confidence that the American people are more interested in doing what is right to protect this country than in political posturing. I am not the only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution - so did each and every member of Congress. Together we have a responsibility to enlist our values in the effort to secure our people, and to leave behind the legacy that makes it easier for future Presidents to keep this country safe.

The second set of issues that I want to discuss relates to security and transparency.

National security requires a delicate balance. Our democracy depends upon transparency, but some information must be protected from public disclosure for the sake of our security - for instance, the movements of our troops; our intelligence-gathering; or the information we have about a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these and other cases, lives are at stake.

Several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous Administration's Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, or because I reject their legal rationale - although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush Administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods. The argument that somehow by releasing those memos, we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated is unfounded - we will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach, because that approach is now prohibited.

In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.

On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004. Individuals who violated standards of behavior in these photos have been investigated and held accountable. There is no debate as to whether what is reflected in those photos is wrong, and nothing has been concealed to absolve perpetrators of crimes. However, it was my judgment - informed by my national security team - that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion, and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning and inaccurate brush, endangering them in theaters of war.

In short, there is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particular photos. There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm's way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of these photos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women serving in harm's way.

In each of these cases, I had to strike the right balance between transparency and national security. This balance brings with it a precious responsibility. And there is no doubt that the American people have seen this balance tested. In the images from Abu Ghraib and the brutal interrogation techniques made public long before I was President, the American people learned of actions taken in their name that bear no resemblance to the ideals that generations of Americans have fought for. And whether it was the run-up to the Iraq War or the revelation of secret programs, Americans often felt like part of the story had been unnecessarily withheld from them. That causes suspicion to build up. That leads to a thirst for accountability.

I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued - and never will - that our most sensitive national security matters should be an open book. I will never abandon - and I will vigorously defend - the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war; to protect sources and methods; and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe. And so, whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions - by Congress or by the courts.

We are launching a review of current policies by all of those agencies responsible for the classification of documents to determine where reforms are possible, and to assure that the other branches of government will be in a position to review executive branch decisions on these matters. Because in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers - especially when it comes to sensitive information.

Along those same lines, my Administration is also confronting challenges to what is known as the "State Secrets" privilege. This is a doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. It has been used by many past Presidents - Republican and Democrat - for many decades. And while this principle is absolutely necessary to protect national security, I am concerned that it has been over-used. We must not protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrasses the government. That is why my Administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice.

We plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply a stricter legal test to material that can be protected under the State Secrets privilege. We will not assert the privilege in court without first following a formal process, including review by a Justice Department committee and the personal approval of the Attorney General. Finally, each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why, because there must be proper oversight of our actions.

On all of these matter related to the disclosure of sensitive information, I wish I could say that there is a simple formula. But there is not. These are tough calls involving competing concerns, and they require a surgical approach. But the common thread that runs through all of my decisions is simple: we will safeguard what we must to protect the American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system. I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why.

In all of the areas that I have discussed today, the policies that I have proposed represent a new direction from the last eight years. To protect the American people and our values, we have banned enhanced interrogation techniques. We are closing the prison at Guantanamo. We are reforming Military Commissions, and we will pursue a new legal regime to detain terrorists. We are declassifying more information and embracing more oversight of our actions, and narrowing our use of the State Secrets privilege. These are dramatic changes that will put our approach to national security on a surer, safer and more sustainable footing, and their implementation will take time.

There is a core principle that we will apply to all of our actions: even as we clean up the mess at Guantanamo, we will constantly re-evaluate our approach, subject our decisions to review from the other branches of government, and seek the strongest and most sustainable legal framework for addressing these issues in the long-term. By doing that, we can leave behind a legacy that outlasts my Administration, and that endures for the next President and the President after that; a legacy that protects the American people, and enjoys broad legitimacy at home and abroad.

That is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most clearly at the ballot box in November. And I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission.

I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.

I can stand here today, as President of the United States, and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake: if we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as President. And if we cannot stand for those core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall.

The Framers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the challenges that have unfolded over the last two hundred and twenty two years. But our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights - through World War and Cold War - because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way. It hasn't always been easy. We are an imperfect people. Every now and then, there are those who think that America's safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building. We hear such voices today. But the American people have resisted that temptation. And though we have made our share of mistakes and course corrections, we have held fast to the principles that have been the source of our strength, and a beacon to the world.

Now, this generation faces a great test in the specter of terrorism. Unlike the Civil War or World War II, we cannot count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end. Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and - in all probability - ten years from now. Neither I nor anyone else can standing here today can say that there will not be another terrorist attack that takes American lives. But I can say with certainty that my Administration - along with our extraordinary troops and the patriotic men and women who defend our national security - will do everything in our power to keep the American people safe. And I do know with certainty that we can defeat al Qaeda. Because the terrorists can only succeed if they swell their ranks and alienate America from our allies, and they will never be able to do that if we stay true to who we are; if we forge tough and durable approaches to fighting terrorism that are anchored in our timeless ideals.

This must be our common purpose. I ran for President because I believe that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together. We will not be safe if we see national security as a wedge that divides America - it can and must be a cause that unites us as one people, as one nation. We have done so before in times that were more perilous than ours. We will do so once again. Thank you, God Bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

CONTINUE READING...

Supreme Court Justice Souter to retire ?

OHHH-- HOOOO... Here we go folks... The Supreme Court Test. Minnesota could you PLEASE get your act together????

Supreme Court Justice David Souter plans to retire later this year, according to two media reports – a move that would offer President Barack Obama his first chance to shape the Supreme Court in his own image.

NPR and MSNBC both reported Souter’s retirement, with NPR saying he would retire at the end of the current term, but only after a successor had been chosen and confirmed. That could take until October.

Read more at POLITICO.com.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama Family Photos Sent Out By The White House (SLIDESHOW)

Photos from the White House marking Obama's first 100 days... Wow, a prez that seems so ....normal....

For more slides, visit HuffPo's Obama Family SLIDESHOW.

CONTINUE READING...

Sebelius confirmed to lead Health and Human Services

Well, since we're in the middle of a swine flu outbreak, I guess now would be a nice time to have a Health and Human Services director...

The timely vote will put Sebelius in office as the Obama administration is up against its first public health outbreak.

She steps into the role as swine flu numbers climb worldwide. As of Tuesday morning, at least 90 cases had been confirmed, including 50 in the United States.

Read more at CNN.com.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama on the Washingtonian cover

Our commander-in-chief...command us...

CONTINUE READING...

We don't "torture"...

The military agency that provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as 'torture' in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce 'unreliable information.'

Read more at washingtonpost.com.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama supports the US hosting the World Cup

Having shown his deft touch on the basketball court, President Obama is now testing his prowess in the politics of sport.

The president recently sent a video praising Chicago in its bid to hold the 2016 Summer Games. Now he has endorsed the United States’ effort to hold the World Cup of soccer either in 2018 or 2022.

Obama seems to understand the implications of the world’s favorite sport, in the same way he gave early interviews to Arabic newspapers, stopped off in Turkey on his first European trip and held the first Seder in the history of the White House.

“Soccer is truly the world’s sport, and the World Cup promotes camaraderie and friendly competition across the globe,” Obama added in the letter, a part of which was released to The New York Times by the United States Soccer Federation with permission from the White House.

“That is why this bid is about much more than a game,” he added. “It is about the United States of America inviting the world to gather all across our great country in celebration of our common hopes and dreams.”

Read more at Sports of The Times at the NYTimes.com.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama's speech on the economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Of course, there are some who argue that the government should stand back and simply let these banks fail - especially since in many cases it was their bad decisions that helped create the crisis in the first place.

But whether we like it or not, history has repeatedly shown that when nations do not take early and aggressive action to get credit flowing again, they have crises that last years and years instead of months and months - years of low growth, low job creation, and low investment that cost those nations far more than a course of bold, upfront action. And although there are a lot of Americans who understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly to families and businesses instead of banks - "where's our bailout?," they ask - the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to families and businesses, a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth.

Read more plus the full transcript at HuffPo.

CONTINUE READING...

Classy vs. snobby

As the president stepped up to 10 Downing Street, he leant over, made eye contact, said something courteous, and shook the hand of the police officer standing guard. There’s always a police officer there; he is a tourist logo in his ridiculous helmet. He tells you that this is London, and the late 19th century. No one has ever shaken the hand of the policeman before, and like everyone else who has his palm touched by Barack Obama, he was visibly transported and briefly forgot himself. He offered the hand to Gordon Brown, the prime minister, who was scuttling behind.

It was ignored. He was left empty-handed. It isn’t that Mr. Brown snubbed the police officer; he just didn’t see him. To a British politician, a police officer is as invisible as the railings.

But the rest of us noticed. Because in this country that still feels the class system like a phantom limb, being overtly kind to servants is the very height of manners, the mark of true nobility. Being nice to the staff is second only to being nice to dogs as a pinnacle of civilization. Remember: a butler’s not just for Christmas. Apparently, the Obamas searched every cupboard and closet in Downing Street to personally thank all the servants for looking after them. That’s classlessly classy.

Read more at the NY Times.com.

CONTINUE READING...

Prez Pup Coming to Obama White House Tuesday - TMZ.com

At last we know.... it's a Portuguese Water Dog....

We have lots of exclusive details on the Portuguese Water Dog President Barack Obama and Michelle are getting for Sasha and Malia. The pooch will make its grand entrance on Tuesday, and it's coming from a prominent Texas kennel, with the help of Senator Ted Kennedy's family.

Read more at TMZ.com.

CONTINUE READING...

Daily Show on Baracknophobia

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Baracknophobia - Obey
comedycentral.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

CONTINUE READING...

Obama Makes Unannounced Visit to Iraq

President Obama made an unannounced trip Tuesday to Baghdad, punctuating his week-long overseas trip with a stop to talk to American troops and Iraqi leaders.

Addressing hundreds of troops gathered at a military base here, Mr. Obama said that it was time for Iraqis to “take responsibility for their country,” winning enthusiastic applause. His praise for the performance of the troops was effusive.

Read more at NYTimes.com.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama: "America Is Not a Christian, Jewish or Muslim Nation"

CONTINUE READING...

Hugs and High Jinks, and Protocol Be Damned - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com

As an Anglophile AND an Obama supporter, I can't help but feel the Queen was just disarmed by Michelle, but that's just my opinion...

On Wednesday, Queen Elizabeth II touched — touched! — Michelle Obama on the small of her back with her white-gloved hand and the first lady reciprocated by placing her left arm around the shoulder — the shoulder! — of the 82-year-old monarch, violating the long held No-Touch-the-Royalty Rule.

Once again, those well-sculpted arms of Mrs. Obama set tongues wagging. Only this time they were covered during an eight-second embrace at Buckingham Palace.

There was PLENTY more afoot. Read on at The Lede Blog at the NYTimes.com.

CONTINUE READING...

Let's all go to the G-20...

President Barack Obama left for Europe Tuesday, packing a weighty agenda as he heads for critical economic and political talks in his first journey across the Atlantic since taking office two months ago.

Obama's focus: a G-20 meeting of the world's major economic powers and a NATO summit marking the 60 years since the alliance was founded to blunt Soviet aggression in Europe.

Obama's eight-day, five-country trip begins early Tuesday, sending him to meet with European leaders who split with the United States over the war in Iraq and the treatment of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay under President George W. Bush.

Read more at HuffPo.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama talks about auto companies GM & Chrysler

The president gave another talk about the auto bailouts. I have got to get his schedule so I know when he's speaking!!



Read more at The White House - Blog Post - GM & Chrysler

CONTINUE READING...

Seymour Hershalleges secret ‘assassination wing’ � - Blogs from CNN.com

In an interview on CNN's The Situation Room, Seymour Hersh said the group — called the Joint Special Operations Command — reported to Vice President Dick Cheney and was delegated authority to assassinate individuals based on their own intelligence.

'The idea that we have a unit that goes around and without reporting to Congress — Congress knows very little about this group, can't get hearings, can't get even classified hearings on it…goes around and has authority from the president to go into a country without telling the CIA station chief or the ambassador and whack someone, I am sorry Wolf, yes I have a problem with that,' Hersh said in the interview with Wolf Blitzer."

Read more at CNN Political Ticker.

CONTINUE READING...

Obamas to use own cash to redecorate White House

I like this guy...

The Obamas are using their own money to redecorate the White House residence and Oval Office, the White House confirms, forgoing the $100,000 in federal funds that is traditionally allotted to new presidents for such renovation projects.

The first couple — who made well over $2 million in 2008, largely from book revenues — is also turning down money from the White House Historical Association, the organization that financed a $74,000 set of china for the Bushes.

More at CNN Political Ticker.

CONTINUE READING...

Election maps, just for the nostalgia

CQ politics has sorted out which districts Obama took vs. McCain and generated a nice map of the results.

In winning the 2008 presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama built his 7 percentage-point popular vote margin over Republican John McCain on widespread appeal across the nation's regional lines.

This is evident in the map, based on CQ Politics' analysis of the presidential vote, which shows Obama finished ahead of McCain in 242 of the nation's 435 congressional districts -- including 34 that elected Republicans to the U.S. House on the same ballot. McCain -- who ran strongest in much of the South, rural Midwest and conservative regions of the Mountain West -- took 193 districts, including 49 that split their tickets to elect Democrats to the U.S. House."

Read more at CQ Politics.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama’s Interactive Town Hall Meeting - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

They're liveblogging the President's online Town Hall. Ah Brave New World as my Dad would say....

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Read more at NYTimes.com.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama's Global Op-Ed: "A Time For Global Action"

Obama's Global Op-Ed: More than 30 papers around the world ran an op-ed today by President Obama arguing for 'the urgent need for global economic cooperation.'

Huff Po reports that the op-ed ran in the following papers:

1. Al Watan (Gulf States)
2. Arab Times (Gulf States)
3. Asharq Al Awsat (Arab-wide paper in Arabic)
4. The Australian (Australia)
5. Baltimore Sun (United States)
6. Bangkok Post (Thailand)
7. Chicago Tribune (United States)
8. Clarin (Argentina)
9. Corriere della Sera (Italy)
10. Die Welt (Germany)
11. El Pais (Madrid)
12. El Mercurio (Chile)
13. Eleftyropiea (Greece)
14. Estado de Sao Paulo (Brazil)
15. Gulf News (Gulf States)
16. The Hindustan Times/ The Hindu (India)
17. International Herald Tribune (London)
18. Kristeligt Dagblad (Denmark)
19. Le Monde (Paris)
20. Lidove Noviny (Czech)
21. Los Angeles Times (United States)
22. The News (Pakistan)
23. NRC Handelsblad (Netherlands)
24. Saudi Gazette (Saudi Arabia)
25. South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)
26. Straits Times (Singapore)
27. Sunday Times (South Africa)
28. Svenska Dagbladet (Sweden)
29. Syndey Morning Herald (Australia)
30. WProst (Poland)
31. Yomiuri Shimbun (Japan)

Read the full text after the jump.

A time for global action
By Barack Obama
Monday, March 23, 2009

WASHINGTON: We are living through a time of global economic challenges that cannot be met by half measures or the isolated efforts of any nation. Now, the leaders of the Group of 20 have a responsibility to take bold, comprehensive and coordinated action that not only jump-starts recovery, but also launches a new era of economic engagement to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.

No one can deny the urgency of action. A crisis in credit and confidence has swept across borders, with consequences for every corner of the world. For the first time in a generation, the global economy is contracting and trade is shrinking.

Trillions of dollars have been lost, banks have stopped lending, and tens of millions will lose their jobs across the globe. The prosperity of every nation has been endangered, along with the stability of governments and the survival of people in the most vulnerable parts of the world.

Once and for all, we have learned that the success of the American economy is inextricably linked to the global economy. There is no line between action that restores growth within our borders and action that supports it beyond.

If people in other countries cannot spend, markets dry up -- already we've seen the biggest drop in American exports in nearly four decades, which has led directly to American job losses. And if we continue to let financial institutions around the world act recklessly and irresponsibly, we will remain trapped in a cycle of bubble and bust. That is why the upcoming London Summit is directly relevant to our recovery at home.

My message is clear: The United States is ready to lead, and we call upon our partners to join us with a sense of urgency and common purpose. Much good work has been done, but much more remains.

Our leadership is grounded in a simple premise: We will act boldly to lift the American economy out of crisis and reform our regulatory structure, and these actions will be strengthened by complementary action abroad. Through our example, the United States can promote a global recovery and build confidence around the world; and if the London Summit helps galvanize collective action, we can forge a secure recovery, and future crises can be averted.

Our efforts must begin with swift action to stimulate growth. Already, the United States has passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- the most dramatic effort to jump-start job creation and lay a foundation for growth in a generation.

Other members of the G-20 have pursued fiscal stimulus as well, and these efforts should be robust and sustained until demand is restored. As we go forward, we should embrace a collective commitment to encourage open trade and investment, while resisting the protectionism that would deepen this crisis.

Second, we must restore the credit that businesses and consumers depend upon. At home, we are working aggressively to stabilize our financial system. This includes an honest assessment of the balance sheets of our major banks, and will lead directly to lending that can help Americans purchase goods, stay in their homes and grow their businesses.

This must continue to be amplified by the actions of our G-20 partners. Together, we can embrace a common framework that insists upon transparency, accountability and a focus on restoring the flow of credit that is the lifeblood of a growing global economy. And the G-20, together with multilateral institutions, can provide trade finance to help lift up exports and create jobs.

Third, we have an economic, security and moral obligation to extend a hand to countries and people who face the greatest risk. If we turn our backs on them, the suffering caused by this crisis will be enlarged, and our own recovery will be delayed because markets for our goods will shrink further and more American jobs will be lost.

The G-20 should quickly deploy resources to stabilize emerging markets, substantially boost the emergency capacity of the International Monetary Fund and help regional development banks accelerate lending. Meanwhile, America will support new and meaningful investments in food security that can help the poorest weather the difficult days that will come.

While these actions can help get us out of crisis, we cannot settle for a return to the status quo. We must put an end to the reckless speculation and spending beyond our means; to the bad credit, over-leveraged banks and absence of oversight that condemns us to bubbles that inevitably bust.

Only coordinated international action can prevent the irresponsible risk-taking that caused this crisis. That is why I am committed to seizing this opportunity to advance comprehensive reforms of our regulatory and supervisory framework.

All of our financial institutions -- on Wall Street and around the globe -- need strong oversight and common sense rules of the road. All markets should have standards for stability and a mechanism for disclosure. A strong framework of capital requirements should protect against future crises. We must crack down on offshore tax havens and money laundering.

Rigorous transparency and accountability must check abuse, and the days of out-of-control compensation must end. Instead of patchwork efforts that enable a race to the bottom, we must provide the clear incentives for good behavior that foster a race to the top.

I know that America bears our share of responsibility for the mess that we all face. But I also know that we need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy. That is a false choice that will not serve our people or any people.

This G-20 meeting provides a forum for a new kind of global economic cooperation. Now is the time to work together to restore the sustained growth that can only come from open and stable markets that harness innovation, support entrepreneurship and advance opportunity.

The nations of the world have a stake in one another. The United States is ready to join a global effort on behalf of new jobs and sustainable growth. Together, we can learn the lessons of this crisis, and forge a prosperity that is enduring and secure for the 21st century.

Barack Obama is president of the United States. A Global Viewpoint article distributed by Tribune Media Services.

CONTINUE READING...

Teleprompter Vs. No Teleprompter

More in the category of "They Must Think It's A Slow News Day,"

Critics say Obama relies too heavily on his teleprompter. As Politico notes:

'Obama's reliance on the teleprompter is unusual -- not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.'

More, with hilarious video segment from Dave Letterman at HuffPo.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama, Peres and Colbert on the Persian New Year - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com

The man is good. Think about how this sort of reference to Persian literature will play in a place that is so steeped in history and with such a rich literary culture.

Notable in Mr. Obama’s message is his reference to the words of Saadi, a revered Persian poet. Near the end of his remarks, Mr. Obama said:

I know that this won’t be reached easily. There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi, so many years ago: “The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence.”

Mr. Obama was quoting from a translation Saadi’s poem “Bani A’dam.” The full text of the poem has been rendered into English in several varying translations. During the siege of Sarajevo in 1994, Anthony Lewis quoted the poem in full in a column in The Times. Marizeh Ghiasi, a blogger in Canada who was born in Tehran, published this translation, beneath an image of the original Persian script on her blog:

The children of Adam are the limbs of one body
That share an origin in their creation
When one limb passes its days in pain
The other limbs cannot remain easy
You who feel no pain at the suffering of others
It is not fitting for you to be called human

Read more at NYTimes.com's Lede Blog

CONTINUE READING...

Obama on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno

Read more at NBC.com

CONTINUE READING...

Obama Sends Iran Message On Nowruz

Obama speaks in Farsi!

"I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek," Obama concludes. "It is a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It is a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you, and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater peace and security."

...

Obama ended the address with a Farsi saying, Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak -- which translates to 'have a celebratory new year' -- and included Persian captions in the video."

Read more at HuffPo.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama's bracket picks

The White House has release Obama's picks and full bracket for the NCAA 09 March Madness. Final Four picks: Louisville, North Carolina, Memphis and Pittsburgh

CONTINUE READING...

Gibbs: I Thoroughly Enjoyed Watching Stewart Skewer Cramer (VIDEO)

Yeah, I'll bet he enjoyed it!

Robert Gibbs, who has thrown his share of punches at the CNBC brass, said he took thorough enjoyment in watching Jon Stewart's skewering of CNBC's Jim Cramer during Thursday night's much discussed 'Daily Show' interview.

Read more at HuffPo.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama Science Memo Goes Beyond Stem Cells

Reversing Bush policy, President Barack Obama on Monday cleared the way for a significant increase in federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research and promised no scientific data will be 'distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda.'

Obama signed the executive order on the divisive stem cell issue and a memo addressing what he called scientific integrity before an East Room audience packed with scientists. He laced his remarks with several jabs at the way science was handled by former President George W. Bush.

Read more at HuffPo.

CONTINUE READING...

SNL's The Rock Obama

Please, o ahead, make him angry.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama's Health Care Summit

Looks like single-payer advocates finally got a seat at the table...Almost as if Obama heard my ranting about his early health care positions.

President Obama said on Thursday that though “special interests” and “industry lobbying” had blocked improvements in the health care system for decades, he vowed to end the stalemate this year and ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health care.

“Those who seek to block any reform at any cost will not prevail this time around,” Mr. Obama said in opening a White House conference, where he promised to reduce health costs and expand coverage.

The conference is drawing more than 150 participants, including members of Congress and leaders of labor unions, business groups, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and consumer organizations.

In his opening remarks, Mr. Obama provided no new details of how he would extend coverage to the 46 million people who have no health insurance. Instead, he expressed his hope that a “transparent and inclusive” process would produce a bipartisan consensus, overcoming the objections of those who had a financial stake in the status quo.

Read more at NYTimes.com.

CONTINUE READING...

Gates says Obama more ‘analytical’ than Bush

President Obama is more analytical than his predecessor, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday.

Gates, the only Cabinet holdover from the Bush administration, initially paused when asked what the difference is between working with President Obama and President Bush.

'President Obama is somewhat more analytical, and he makes sure he hears from everybody in the room on an issue. And if they don't speak up, he calls on them,' Gates said on NBC's Meet the Press.

'President Bush was interested in hearing different points of view but didn't go out of his way to make sure everybody spoke if they hadn't spoken up before,' he added.

More from CNN's Political Ticker.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama on the Lehrer Report

Why we elected him: he thinks.

I think until we have a clear strategy, we're not going to have a clear exit strategy. And my goal is to get U.S. troops home as quickly as possible without leaving a situation that allows for potential terrorist attacks against the United States.

Keep in mind something that is important, and that is, Afghanistan is not a U.S. mission, it's a NATO mission, and one of the things that I think has been lost is the sense of international partnership in dealing with the problem of international terrorism.

More from Lehrer's Online NewsHour.

CONTINUE READING...

Jindal gets coached before The Speech

A little over three minutes from the start of the speech, the feed was turned on and showed a static shot of the outside of the mansion. Governor Jindal's microphone was turned on and could be monitored by anyone taking in the feed.

More from wwltv.com plus video!

CONTINUE READING...

Daily Show's take on Jindal's rebuttal

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Bobby Jindal's Republican Response

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

CONTINUE READING...

On the lam at the White House

After weeks on the run, officials have nabbed a fugitive who infiltrated White House grounds: on Wednesday, they announced the capture of one of the raccoons raising mayhem around the executive mansion over the last month.

White House spokesman Bill Burton confirms the National Park Service has captured at least one of the particularly ambitious mammals and released it safely in an 'undisclosed location.'

White House menace caught.

CONTINUE READING...

President Obama’s Address to Congress

The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation. The answers to our problems don't lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and our universities, in our fields and our factories, in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth.

Those qualities that have made America the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history we still possess in ample measure. What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more."

Dang, Poor Nancy Pelosi must have been exhausted after jumping up and sitting down all night.

Other precious moments:
"We can no longer afford to put health care reform on hold." Cut to Hillary Clinton in hot pink in the front row.

"...with the name of Orrin Hatch...." Cut to Orrin, looking down reading his program... Hullo....

Joe Lieberman, slow-clapping at "eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq..."

"I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war." Even John McCain gets up for applause.

"I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture." John McCain is up again. (And yes, he should have led on that issue.)
More stuff:

• Video from the NY Times.
• Transcript from the NYTimes.com.
• HuffPo's take on the applause lines and the laugh lines.
• Reaction from insta-polling, "A CBS News poll of approximately 500 people saw approval of the president rise from 62 percent before the speech to 69 percent afterward."
• Pundit reaction roundup from HuffPo.
  
• CNN calls it Obama's "Morning in America" moment.
• GOP response from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. "Dude, Bobby, hello? This is a rebuttal. BOBBY! Stop nattering on about your childhood. Seriously, WTF? Stop telling stories. Stop it. Now."
  
• "After watching Jindal," one Democratic strategist emailed, "I'd pay a lot of money to be back watching a Palin speech."
• And MSNBC host during the Jindal debacle with an editorial "Oh God."
• The Miami Herald story of Leonard Abess, the Bank CEO who took his $60 million bonus and distributed it to his employees.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama flops my way

HuffPo is calling this a "flip-flop." If so, it's my kinda flip-flop, and I ain't talking the rubber beach sandal...

Multiple senior administration sources [confirm] that the health care proposal in Obama's budget will have a mandate. Sort of.

Here's how it will work, according to the officials I've spoken to. The budget's health care section is not a detailed plan. Rather, it offers financing -- though not all -- and principles meant to guide the plan that Congress will author. The details will be decided by Congress in consultation with the administration.

One of those details is 'universal' health care coverage."

That word is important: The Obama campaign's health care plan was not a universal health care plan. It was close to it. It subsidized coverage for millions of Americans and strengthened the employer-based system. The goal, as Obama described it, was to make coverage "affordable" and "available" to all Americans.

But it did not make coverage universal. Affordability can be achieved through subsidies. But without a mandate for individuals to purchase coverage or for the government to give it to them, there was no mechanism for universal coverage. It could get close, but estimates were that around 15 million Americans would remain uninsured. As Jon Cohn wrote at the time, "without a mandate, a substantial portion of Americans [will] remain uninsured."

The budget -- and I was cautioned that the wording "is changing hourly" -- will direct Congress to "aim for universality." That is a bolder goal than simple affordability, which can be achieved, at least in theory, through subsidies. Universality means everyone has coverage, not just the ability to access it. And that requires a mechanism to ensure that they seek it.

Administration officials have been very clear on what the inclusion of "universality" is meant to communicate to Congress. As one senior member of the health team said to me, "[The plan] will cover everybody. And I don't see how you cover everybody without an individual mandate." That language almost precisely echoes what Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus said in an interview last summer. "I don’t see how you can get meaningful universal coverage without a mandate," he told me. Last fall, he included an individual mandate in the first draft of his health care plan.

The administration's strategy brings them into alignment with senators like Max Baucus. Though they're not proposing an individual mandate in the budget, they are asking Congress to fulfill an objective that they expect will result in Congress proposing an individual mandate. And despite the controversy over the individual mandate in the campaign, they will support it. That, after all, is how you cover everybody.

More at The American Prospect.

CONTINUE READING...

Third time's the charm

President Barack Obama's pick for commerce secretary is likely to be former Washington Gov. Gary Locke, two administration sources told CNN Monday.

More on CNN.com.

CONTINUE READING...

Survey Reveals Broad Support for President - NYTimes.com

President Obama is benefiting from remarkably high levels of optimism and confidence among Americans about his leadership, providing him with substantial political clout as he confronts the nation’s economic challenges and opposition from nearly all Republicans in Congress, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

A majority of people surveyed in both parties said Mr. Obama was striving to work in a bipartisan way, but most faulted Republicans for their response to the president, saying the party had objected to the $787 billion economic stimulus plan for political reasons. Most said Mr. Obama should pursue the priorities he campaigned on, the poll found, rather than seek middle ground with Republicans.

Read more on the NYTimes.com.

CONTINUE READING...

U.S. officials: Hamas slipped note to Obama via Kerry

It said, "Meet me behind the gym after recess...."

Islamic fundamentalist group Hamas passed Sen. John Kerry a letter for President Obama while Kerry visited Gaza on Thursday, senior State Department officials said.

The letter for the president is in the hands of the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem, the officials said Friday.

Kerry, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, toured the devastation in Gaza and met with officials from the U.N. Works Relief Agency, the main provider of humanitarian aid in Gaza.

Frederick Jones, the committee's communications director, told CNN at the end of Kerry's meeting with UNRWA chief Karen Abu Zayed that 'she handed [Kerry] a letter addressed to the president of the United States along with other materials.'

Read more at CNN.com.

CONTINUE READING...

Can Mr. Hope-y be more hopeful?

Former President Bill Clinton gives President Barack Obama an 'A' grade for his first month in office, but tells ABC News that Obama needs to put on a more positive face when speaking to the American people about the economy and must keep pressure on Republicans who try to obstruct his plans.

'Look, the American people, I think, know the president has tried to reach out to Republicans,' Clinton told ABC News' Chris Cuomo. 'And it takes two to tango. I think there are some of them who really believe that just-say-no politics is good politics.

'It was -- briefly, only briefly -- in the '90s. It isn't anymore,' he added. 'So, sooner or later, I think if he just keeps chugging along, just keeps the door open, invite 'em to every economic conference, invite 'em to every meeting, eventually, he'll start getting some votes' in Congress.

Clinton gives former President George W. Bush a harsh review on the economy, however, blaming the Republican for the current fiscal crisis by not moving sooner to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure.

Read more at ABC.com.

CONTINUE READING...

Diagramming Obama's sentences

What Sentence Diagrams Reveal About President Obama:

Something that most people - even his political opponents - agree on is that President Barack Obama is a fairly gifted orator. On those occasions when he speaks extemporaneously, he still struggles with vocalized pauses - those lengthy 'Uhhmmms' and 'Errrrrs' - but in general, he can compose articulate sentences and typically does fine work with a prepared speech.

But is GRAMMAR, itself, in the tank for Obama? Apparently so, and all it takes to reveal this truth is a trip back to the most hated part of your middle school education: sentence diagramming. Below, blogger Garth Risk Hallberg diagrammed a sentence from Obama's recent press conference - coincidentally, his response to the question put to him by our own Sam Stein:

My view is also that nobody's above the law, and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen, but that, generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards.

Grammar nerds of the world, Unite.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama’s Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan

Next up, bailout for the rest of us, who never could afford a house to begin with??

I'm here today to talk about a crisis unlike any we've ever known – but one that you know very well here in Mesa, and throughout the Valley. In Phoenix and its surrounding suburbs, the American Dream is being tested by a home mortgage crisis that not only threatens the stability of our economy but also the stability of families and neighborhoods. It is a crisis that strikes at the heart of the middle class: the homes in which we invest our savings, build our lives, raise our families, and plant roots in our communities.

So many Americans have shared with me their personal experiences of this crisis. Many have written letters or emails or shared their stories with me at rallies and along rope lines. Their hardship and heartbreak are a reminder that while this crisis is vast, it begins just one house – and one family – at a time.

Read more at NYTimes.com.

CONTINUE READING...

The Votemaster lays it out

Bipartisanship: Zero? Fine. So be it. Have fun at the midterms, GOPpers.

"Obama, and especially his chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel, have taken the lessons of the stimulus bill to heart. In the future, there is going to be a lot less talk from the President about bipartisanship and a lot more about the merits of the legislation at hand. Their conclusion from this episode is that no matter how much they involve the Republicans in the legislation and how many concessions they make, all the House Republicans and all but three Senate Republicans are going to vote no anyway, so why bother asking for their help? Serious political observers knew this was going to happen, but it was considered impolite to say so in public. As Winston Churchill put it: 'The job of the opposition is to oppose' and the Republicans are doing their job. If Al Franken is ultimately seated in Minnesota, the Democrats will have to pick off only one Republican senator to get things done."

Read more at Electoral-vote.com.

CONTINUE READING...

From West Wing to the real thing | World news | The Guardian

These days they're rerunning the West Wing episodes with Matt Santos. Reminds me of this old article about the connection between Matt Santos and Barack Obama....

For what those West Wing fans stunned by the similarity between the fictitious Matthew Santos and the real-life Barack Obama have not known is that the resemblance is no coincidence. When the West Wing scriptwriters first devised their fictitious presidential candidate in the late summer of 2004, they modelled him in part on a young Illinois politician - not yet even a US senator - by the name of Barack Obama.

'I drew inspiration from him in drawing this character,' West Wing writer and producer Eli Attie told the Guardian. 'When I had to write, Obama was just appearing on the national scene. He had done a great speech at the convention [which nominated John Kerry] and people were beginning to talk about him.'

More from the The Guardian.

Of course lots of people noticed.... Fan made ads and Youtube mashups abound, Martin Sheen says Obama was a big fan of the show. Me, I think they should consider playing the West Wing theme every time Obama walks into the room, instead of Hail to the Chief. See how well it works?


(I'm also a fan of the Mad TV parody. LOL.)

CONTINUE READING...

Face of the Day

Obama listening to House Republicans. They crowded around to ask for his autograph and then proceeded not to vote for the stimulus bill.

Jerks.

CONTINUE READING...

Wondering if someone might call him up and ask him to be Commerce Secretary

CONTINUE READING...

Obama's poll numbers still high-- take that Rush Limbaugh

"With Barack Obama’s victory in passing a massive stimulus package marred by days of bad press—as not a single House Republican backed the bill, his Health Czar went down in flames and his second pick for Commerce Secretary walked away—the administration has been cut down to size, and lost some of its bipartisan sheen.

Such, at least, has been the beltway chatter, but so far the numbers don’t back it up.

Obama’s approval rating remains well above 60% in tracking polls. A range of state pollsters said they’d seen no diminution in the president’s sky-high approval ratings, and no improvement in congressional Republicans’ dismal numbers.

And that’s before the stimulus creates billions of dollars in spending on popular programs, which could, at least temporarily, further boot Obama’s popularity.

“It’s eerie—I read the news from the Beltway, and there’s this disconnect with the polls from the Midwest that I see all around me,” said Ann Seltzer, the authoritative Iowa pollster who works throughout the Midwest."

Read more on Politico.com.

CONTINUE READING...

Bob Cesca: President Obama Is Driving Republicans Insane

I love this guy -- he's hilarious!

"Seriously, have you ever seen the Republicans more twisted and kerfuffled than they are today? Movie metaphors aside, I've been hard pressed to find greater examples of insanity from the far-right than have been exhibited in the past week alone. Here we have a Republican Party that's been discredited and bloodied, and yet in the face of an enormously popular president who is confounding conventional wisdom while building a working consensus among American voters, the Republicans appear to be reflexively coughing up the most intellectually violent chunks of hooey on record."

Here's my favorite line though: "Speaking of John McCain, he was pilfering extra helpings of rich, creamery crazy from Michelle Malkin this week."

Read more of Bob Cesca.

CONTINUE READING...

Martin Wolf on slaying zombie banks

FT.com / Columnists / Martin Wolf - Why Obama’s new Tarp will fail to rescue the banks.

"The correct advice remains the one the US gave the Japanese and others during the 1990s: admit reality, restructure banks and, above all, slay zombie institutions at once. It is an important, but secondary, question whether the right answer is to create new “good banks”, leaving old bad banks to perish, as my colleague, Willem Buiter, recommends, or new “bad banks”, leaving cleansed old banks to survive. I also am inclined to the former, because the culture of the old banks seems so toxic.

By asking the wrong question, Mr Obama is taking a huge gamble. He should have resolved to cleanse these Augean banking stables. He needs to rethink, if it is not already too late."

CONTINUE READING...

Arianna Huffington: Why is Obama Reluctant to Kill the Zombie Banks Threatening Our Economy?

Arianna Huffington: Why is Obama Reluctant to Kill the Zombie Banks Threatening Our Economy?:

"The big problem is Geithner is acting as if the crisis we are facing is a crisis of liquidity when, in fact, it's a crisis of insolvency. As Ann Pettifor puts it on HuffPost: 'Much of Wall Street is effectively insolvent. It's not that these banks lack cash or capital -- it's just that they're never going to meet all their financial liabilities -- i.e. repay their debts. Ever.'

Trying to prop these zombies up, as Geithner seems intent on doing, will lead to what Roubini calls 'a royal rip-off of the taxpayer' and the risk of 'turning a U-shaped recession into an L-shaped near-depression.'"

CONTINUE READING...

Lessons From Japan in Stemming a Crisis

Ummmm, I have a really bad feeling about this. Anyone else feel like this is familiar sounding?

The Obama administration is committing huge sums of money to rescuing banks, but the veterans of Japan’s banking crisis have three words for the Americans: more money, faster.

The Japanese have been here before. They endured a “lost decade” of economic stagnation in the 1990s as their banks labored under crippling debt, and successive governments wasted trillions of yen on half-measures.

By then, Tokyo’s main Nikkei stock index had lost almost three-quarters of its value. The country’s public debt had grown to exceed its gross domestic product, and deflation stalked the land. In the end, real estate prices fell for 15 consecutive years.

More alarming? Some students of the Japanese debacle say they see a similar train wreck heading for the United States.

“I thought America had studied Japan’s failures,” said Hirofumi Gomi, a top official at Japan’s Financial Services Agency during the crisis. “Why is it making the same mistakes?”

Many American critics of the plan unveiled Tuesday by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said the plan lacked details. Experts on Japan found it timid — especially given the size of the banking crisis the administration faces.

More at the NYTimes.com.

CONTINUE READING...

Judd Gregg Withdraws as Commerce Secretary nominee

What is the freakin' problem here?

"'I couldn't be Judd Gregg and serve in the Cabinet. I should have faced up to the reality of that earlier,' Gregg said. 'I've been my own person and I began to wonder if I could be an effective team player. The president deserves someone who can block for his policies. As a practical matter I can contribute to his agenda better--where we agree--as a senator and I hope to do that.'

'The fault lies with me,' Gregg said in an interview with Politico, refusing to discuss any conversations he has had with Obama himself. Asked if he felt the decision would be an embarrassment for the president, Gregg said, 'I may have embarrassed myself but hopefully not him.'

More in the round-up from HuffPo.

CONTINUE READING...

Homeless Fort Myers woman offered help after Obama's town hall | news-press.com | The News-Press

So remember the homeless woman who broke down in tears at the Obama Town Hall the other day? Well, someone with more than one home as kindly offered her space... Don't get me wrong, the generosity is great, but would it be so crazy if everyone just had one home, one nice little home?

Henrietta Hughes was offered a home by Chene Thompson, wife of State Representative Nick Thompson, who heard the homeless woman’s pleas for help to President Obama before a local and national crowd.

The house is in LaBelle, the first home Scere Thompson bought after law school. She told Hughes, “Just give me the opportunity to help you.”

Read more at The News-Press.

CONTINUE READING...

Deal Reached: $789 Billion

Get it to his desk. Now.

Moving with lightning speed, key lawmakers announced agreement Wednesday on a $789 billion economic stimulus measure designed to create millions of jobs in a nation reeling from recession. President Barack Obama could sign the bill within days.

'The middle ground we've reached creates more jobs than the original Senate bill and costs less than the original House bill,' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of the participants in an exhausting and frenzied round of bargaining.

The bill includes help for victims of the recession in the form of unemployment benefits, food stamps, health coverage and more, as well as billions for states that face the prospect of making deep cuts in their own programs.

It also preserves Obama's signature tax cut _ a break for millions of lower and middle income taxpayers, including those who don't earn enough to pay income taxes."

More from the AP.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama Press Conference-Video

Helen Thomas, who had been snubbed by Bush in his final years, asked if Obama knew of any countries in the Middle East that already have nuclear weapons. Obviously, she meant: Israel (which reportedly has them). He said he wouldn't want to say but any escalation now would be bad. She interrupted him twice in mid-answer, pressing the point. And at very end she was still pressing.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama's Press Conference

Have we ever hung on a President's every word so relentlessly?

We find ourselves in a rare moment where the citizens of our country and all countries are watching and waiting for us to lead. It is a responsibility that this generation did not ask for, but one that we must accept for the sake of our future and our children's. The strongest democracies flourish from frequent and lively debate, but they endure when people of every background and belief find a way to set aside smaller differences in service of a greater purpose. That is the test facing the United States of America in this winter of our hardship, and it is our duty as leaders and citizens to stay true to that purpose in the weeks and months ahead. After a day of speaking with and listening to the fundamentally decent men and women who call this nation home, I have full faith and confidence that we can.

Go to HuffPo for the full transcript.

CONTINUE READING...

The Obamas see Alvin Ailey at the Kennedy Center

You know what I love about this? The Obama's "rewarded" themselves with a night out at Ailey.

The president and his wife, Michelle, took daughters Malia and Sasha to see the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater performance on Friday night at the Kennedy Center.

Though it was announced earlier in the day the president would attend, the Obamas picked the right moment to reward themselves with the show. They left around a flurry of news that lawmakers had reached a deal on a stimulus measure at the heart of the president's plan for reviving the economy.

More from the Associated Press.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama on what a politician might be, from 1995

The Chicago Reader has a fascinating look at Obama from fourteen years ago. The guy is nothing if not consistent. Here's a guy I could vote for--wait, I already did.

'The political debate is now so skewed, so limited, so distorted,' said Obama. 'People are hungry for community; they miss it. They are hungry for change.

'What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer,' he wondered, 'as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them? As an elected public official, for instance, I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer. We would come together to form concrete economic development strategies, take advantage of existing laws and structures, and create bridges and bonds within all sectors of the community. We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions.

Read more from the Chicago Reader, December 8, 1995.

CONTINUE READING...

Polls say Obama Stimulus Effort Backed By Huge Majority

Remember those days of endlessly checking polls? Guess we're going to have to do daily checks again. Jake Tapper of ABC points out that under-reported in the press is that Obama's stimulus plan has HIGH approval ratings (67%), while Republicans DISAPPROVAL ratings on the same issue are high (58%).

Sixty-seven percent of the American people approve of how President Obama's handling his efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill, as opposed to 48% for Democrats in Congress and 31% for congressional Republicans.

In addition, the disapproval rating for Congressional Republicans remains a 'staggeringly high' 58%. And the public continues to view the package as a matter of paramount concern. 51% of those polled consider the plan's passage to be 'critically important,' with 'Only 16% say it is 'not that important.''

Read more details, plus an interesting analysis of Republican stimulus bill changes on HuffPo.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama's Elkhart, Indiana Town Hall Event

I'm watching this guy right now and he's brilliant. This format is perfect for him, but more importantly, it's a visceral reminder to the Republicans of what's happening in real America. Plus he just got a little dig in there at John McCain with his seven (eight, nine?) houses.

President Obama has left Washington today to appeal directly to main street for the backing of his stimulus plans. He's holding a town hall event in Elkhart, Indiana first. The local paper - The Elkhart Truth - has more information on the event. The full text of Obama's remarks is below.

On Tuesday, Obama will be in Fort Myers, Florida. HuffPost is providing live video streams of the Indiana event.

You can watch Obama's Elkhart, Indiana Town Hall Event on HuffPo.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

CONTINUE READING...

Bush Chief Of Staff To Obama: Put On Your Jacket On (VIDEO)

Andy Card wants Obama to wear a suit jacket while in the Oval Office.

"I do expect him to send the message that people who are going to be in the Oval Office should treat the office with the respect that it has earned over history.'"

This is rich. Respect for the office? From the guy whose boss made a gag video about looking for WMDs under the desk in the Oval Office.

Whatever.

In my humble opinion, we're doing just as well without your little country club "Jacket and Tie" only privileged trust-fund baby attitude... Better, in fact.

More absurdity plus video on HuffPo.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama sings "Chain of Fools"

Need some humor, pronto.

CONTINUE READING...

Daschle update

I just find this all upsetting. I mean I want folks who are held to a high standard and I wish Tom had held himself to a higher standard, but really, how many people are we going to lose over taxes?

"Andrea Mitchell of NBC News said she had just spoken to Daschle, who told her, 'I read the New York Times this morning and I realized that I can't pass health care if I am too much of a distraction ... I called the president this morning.' Mitchell described the call as emotional, and said Daschle was near tears."

Read more on HuffPo.

CONTINUE READING...

Daschle withdraws.

Damn. Tom Daschle asked Obama to withdraw his nomination for Health and Human Services Secretary. Can I just ask someone to look at the tax returns EVERY Republican in Congress and see if THEY'VE paid taxes on every damn thing they've gotten??

CONTINUE READING...

Obama on the networks today

Barack Obama is slated to sit down with the five major television news networks tomorrow, a media play that is almost certain to be part of a broader effort to sell his stimulus package to the American public.

The president will conduct interviews in the Oval Office with ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and FOX News on Tuesday afternoon, according to the official White House schedule. The sitdowns come at a delicate time for the president, with concern mounting in Democratic circles that much of the debate over the stimulus has been dominated by the GOP.

More on HuffPo.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama on the cover of Vanity Fair

Annie Leibovitz wasn’t the only proud American to bring a camera to President Barack Obama’s historic inauguration. Over the last two years, Obama has seen millions of flashes, and his face has been digitized and disseminated across the Internet. While it’s conceivable many of America’s first citizens didn’t know what George Washington looked like, the 44th president is recognized in the farthest reaches of the planet. Yet there are startlingly few iconic photographs of him. A picture merely registers the light bouncing off a face; a portrait must draw character from deep within. Leibovitz’s painterly cover shot of Obama, taken shortly after he announced his candidacy, in early 2007 (we had a hunch), is just such a memorable image.

Read more on the Vanity Fair site.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama Talks Football, Troop Withdrawal, Malia And Sasha's School, And Jessica Simpson

Obama Talks Football, Troop Withdrawal, Malia And Sasha's School, And Jessica Simpson

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

CONTINUE READING...

Hilarious Obama sketch on SNL

CONTINUE READING...

Obama On Al-Arabiya

Significant to the Muslim world that Obama's first media interview as President goes to an Islamic outlet...

In his first formal interview since taking office, the president spoke with the Dubai-based station Al Arabiya on topics pertinent to the Arab and Muslim worlds. Much of the interview was spent defining the new approach that the United States would implement in that region: respectfulness over divisiveness, listening over dictating, engagement over militarism. But the president drew the line when it came to terrorist organizations.

"Their ideas are bankrupt," he told host Hisham Melhem, when asked to respond to recent audio clips from al Qaida leadership calling him various epithets. "There's no actions that they've taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them."

More on HuffPo.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama Officials Tells Citibank To Ditch Plans For $50 Million Private Jet

LOVES it.

"ABC News has learned that Monday officials of the Obama administration called Citigroup about the company's new $50 million corporate jet and told execs to 'fix it.'"

'Bout damn time someone these people in hand!!

More on HuffPo.

CONTINUE READING...

Inauguration Day Photos from around the World

The Inauguration of President Barack Obama - The Big Picture:

A collection of terrific photos is up on the Boston.com
website.

CONTINUE READING...

Inauguration panorama

Another fantastic photo from the inauguration -- you can zoom in--WAY in. In far enough to see Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sleeping during Obama's speech.

CONTINUE READING...

And a gentleman too...

Looks like it was a little chilly in the freight elevator on the way to the inaugural balls.

CONTINUE READING...

The West Wing

For many of us, discussion of any of Obama's new senior staff members engenders only one question: "Who was that on 'The West Wing'?"

Well, wonder no more. The UK Guardian has published this helpful guide.

(By the way, don't forget that Obama was the model for Jimmy Smits' character Matt Santos.)

The layout of the White House under the Obama administration.

1. President

Barack Obama. In the West Wing: Jed Bartlett

2. Personal secretary to the president

Katie Johnson. In The West Wing: Dolores Landingham

Johnson, 27, part of the team of 20-somethings accompanying Obama from the Chicago campaign office to the White House, will maintain the president's daily schedule. The personal secretary is typically a low-profile job - or was until Clinton's, Betty Currie, was called as a witness in the Monica Lewinsky affair. She will sit at a desk just outside the Oval Office, next to Reggie Love.

3. Personal aide to the president

Reggie Love. In The West Wing: Charlie Young

Love, 26, the handsome young "body man" to Obama during the campaign, will be at the president's side for much of the day. He will keep the president in snacks, chewing gum and drinks, and tend to his personal needs from a desk in a small office beside the Oval one. A former Duke University basketball player, Love introduced the president to the fist-bump and the rapper Jay-Z.

4. Press secretary

Robert Gibbs. In The West Wing: CJ Cregg

Gibbs, 37, a travelling companion to the president during the campaign, will be the man behind the podium at news conferences. Aside from Obama's, his is the public face of the administration. Gibbs was a top strategist during the campaign, and is said to be close to Obama - a plus for reporters seeking better access to the president's thinking and deliberations

5. Communications director

Ellen Moran. In The West Wing: Toby Ziegler

Moran, 42, is former executive director of Emily's List, an abortion-rights advocacy group that incidentally endorsed Hillary Clinton during the primary campaign. She also worked for the AFL-CIO, a coordinated advertising efforts for the Democratic National Committee in 2004. She will occupy tiny office, barely the size of a broom closet, but one on the first floor of the west wing.

6. Deputy communications director

Dan Pfeiffer. In The West Wing: Sam Seaborn

Pfeiffer, 33, was a travelling press secretary and communications director for the presidential campaign, and is married to Sarah Feinberg, a top aide to Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. He also will sit in a tiny office beside his boss Moran. He previously worked for several Democratic senators, and Al Gore's 2000 campaign for president.

7. Deputy national security adviser

Thomas E Donilon. In The West Wing: Kate Harper

Donilon is a governing partner of O'Melveny & Myers, a giant international law firm. He was a state department aide under Clinton, and was involved in Bosnia and Middle East peace negotiation, Nato expansion, and US-China relations. He will occupy a cubbyhole on the first floor of the west wing, in the opposite corner from the Oval Office.

8. National security adviser

James Jones. In The West Wing: Nancy McNally

Jones, 65, a retired marine corps general, will brief Obama daily on intelligence reports deemed vital to national security (a key paper that went overlooked was entitled "Bin Ladin [sic] determined to strike in US"). In times of crisis he will operate from the White House situation room. He will occupy a large corner office down the hall from Rahm Emanuel.

9. Vice-president

Joseph Biden

10 and 11. Deputy chiefs of staff

Mona Sutphen and Jim Messina. In The West Wing: Josh Lyman

Sutphen, 41, is a former foreign service officer who worked on the National Security Council under Clinton, at the US mission to the United Nations, and at the embassy in Bangkok. Messina, 39, was chief of staff to the presidential campaign, and was a top aide to two Democratic senators and a congresswoman. The two will occupy tiny, windowless offices in the middle of the Oval Office's first floor.

12. Senior adviser

David Axelrod

The man credited with shaping the media message that helped put Obama in the White House is following him there. David Axelrod, 53, a former political reporter and Chicago political consultant, was Obama's chief strategist during the campaign and also led his 2004 senate campaign. He is a trusted political adviser and will occupy a tiny office next to the president's private study.

13. Senior adviser

Pete Rouse

Rouse, 62, another in Obama's close coterie of "senior advisers", was chief of staff in Obama's senate office. Before that he was a top aide to Democratic senators Tom Daschle of South Dakota and other Democratic politicians. He is one of the small group of advisers who helped Obama through the decision to run for president. He will occupy an office next to Axelrod.

14. White House chief of staff

Rahm Emanuel. In The West Wing: Leo McGarry

Emanuel, 49.a former political aide to Bill Clinton, Illinois congressman and investment banker, takes the job described as "chief javelin catcher" in the White House. He will maintain a gruelling work schedule, tasked with briefing the president, managing the White House staff, and acting as gate keeper to the information and people that reach the Oval Office. He will occupy a large corner office down the hall from the Oval Office.

White House counsel

Greg Craig, 64, a former aide to Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy, will be the lawyer to the president, advising Obama on legal prerogatives and authority. As a civil and criminal attorney, Craig has had a hand in some of the most important national affairs in recent decades. He represented the father of Elian Gonzalez, the refugee child who was repatriated to Cuba over demands he stay in the US.

Director of the White House military office

Louis Caldera, 52, will run the White House military office, which handles the day-to-day operations of the White House - keeping its occupants fed and medically sound. In past administrations has been charged with handling the "nuclear football", the briefcase of nuclear launch codes. Caldera was secretary of the army under Bill Clinton, and is former president of the University of New Mexico.

White House social secretary

Desiree Rogers, 49,is a New Orleans native and former insurance executive. She is a long-time Chicago friend to the Obamas. She will be responsible for planning galas and state dinners at which Obama will host heads of state, governors, the world's cultural elite, and other VIPs. It is a enormous task - in one year alone, the Clinton White House threw 400 events.

Director of scheduling and advice

Alyssa Mastromonaco, 32, was responsible for scheduling virtually every minute of Obama's time during the presidential campaign. Her role in the White House will be even more complex, as organisations like the secret service and speech writing offices will have a say in the president's day-to-day activities. She will oversee a staff of about 35 that will include a "diarist" to record the president's moves.

Senior adviser

Valerie Jarrett, 52, is senior adviser and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Relations and Public Liaison. A real estate executive, lawyer and former Chicago city hall aide, Jarrett is a close confidante of Obama - he celebrated her birthday in Chicago in the days after the election. Jarrett occupies the second-floor office once used by Hillary Clinton when she was first lady.

CONTINUE READING...

Literally, a leader who is the face of diversity

The picture of America, for real.

President Obama hugged his half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, at her December 2003 wedding to Konrad Ng, third from right, in Hawaii. From left, his daughters, Sasha and Malia; his grandmother Madelyne Dunham, seated; Konrad’s parents, Joan and Howard Ng, and brother Perry Ng; and Michelle Obama.

For well over two centuries, the United States has been vastly more diverse than its ruling families. Now the Obama family has flipped that around, with a Technicolor cast that looks almost nothing like their overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly Protestant predecessors in the role. The family that produced Barack and Michelle Obama is black and white and Asian, Christian, Muslim and Jewish. They speak English; Indonesian; French; Cantonese; German; Hebrew; African languages including Swahili, Luo and Igbo; and even a few phrases of Gullah, the Creole dialect of the South Carolina Lowcountry. Very few are wealthy, and some — like Sarah Obama, the stepgrandmother who only recently got electricity and running water in her metal-roofed shack — are quite poor.

Read the rest at NYTimes.com

CONTINUE READING...

Clinton and Obama at the State Department

Must not get teary...must not get teary...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

CONTINUE READING...

Obama Sworn In Again, With Right Words

Out of an "abundance of caution" Obama retook the oath of office after Chief Justice John Roberts screwed up the wording on Inauguration Day. The oath is actually in Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Many constitutional experts commented that Obama should redo it, just to defer any potential challenges to the validity.

After flubbing his one role on Inauguration Day -- administering the oath of office to Obama -- Roberts traveled to the White House to re-administer the oath.

Just to make sure.

'We decided it was so much fun . . .,' Obama joked while sitting on a couch in the Map Room. Obama stood and walked over to make small talk with pool reporters as Roberts donned his black robe.

'Are you ready to take the oath?' Roberts asked.

'I am, and we're going to do it very slowly,' Obama replied.

After a flawless recitation that included no Bible and took 25 seconds, Roberts smiled and said, 'Congratulations, again.'

Obama said, 'Thank you, sir,' and then added: 'All right. The bad news for the [reporters] is there's 12 more balls.'

Oh that President of ours...LOL

Read the rest on washingtonpost.com

CONTINUE READING...

Hillary Clinton Confirmed As Secretary Of State

Hillary Clinton Confirmed As Secretary Of State: "The Senate has confirmed Hillary Rodham Clinton to become secretary of state. The Senate vote was overwhelmingly in favor of the former first lady despite lingering concerns by some Republicans that her husband's charitable fundraising overseas could pose a conflict of interest.

Republicans and Democrat alike say her swift confirmation was necessary so that President Barack Obama could begin tackling the major foreign policy issues at hand, including two wars, increased violence in the Middle East and the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

Immediately after the vote, Clinton was to be sworn in during a private ceremony at the Capitol."

CONTINUE READING...

High Expectations

The Brits...with their typically dry take on President Obama's First Day. I like saying that. President Obama.

"...The new First Couple was driven in the armour-plated battle bus that masquerades as a Cadillac limousine, known as the Beast, to Washington's National Cathedral for morning prayers.

There was much about the service that smacked of new era. The sermon was read for the first time by a woman, Rev Sharon Watkins, and prayers were led by representatives of the Protestant, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Jewish and Muslim faiths.

...

It was when a gospel choir began singing that the unique nature of the Obama Age really became apparent. They sang a spirited version of He's Got the Whole World in His Hands. As they ran through the lyrics it was like hearing a psephologist taking stock of Obama's electoral appeal.

"He's got the young and the old, in his hands." True.
"He's got the rich and the poor, in his hands." True.
"He's got the whole wide world, in his hands." True, pretty much.

It was only when they sang the second verse - "He's got the sun and the moon, the wind and the rain, the earth and the sky, in his hands" - that one wondered whether expectations were running wild..."

Rest of post here.

CONTINUE READING...

Inauguration Headlines from around the world

CONTINUE READING...

In the Office

Obama begins day with moment of solitude, then business - CNN.com

CONTINUE READING...

Mr. President

The Speech, Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V

CONTINUE READING...

Clean Up Time

The Day is here, at long last -- has two and a half month ever gone slower?
There are lots of photos of Obama that I love of course, but I especially love this one by Callie Shell for Time.

She noted that everyone was done with the ice cream shop photo-op, the TV cameras were gone, but Obama grabbed a napkin to clean up some drips on the counter.

Clean start. Here we go.

CONTINUE READING...

Would McCain have done the same?

In Bipartisan Appeal, Obama Praises McCain:

"In a major bipartisan appeal on the eve of his inauguration, Barack Obama called John McCain a hero and praised his history as someone who has sought common ground — without mentioning that Mr. McCain evinced little of that side during the presidential campaign.

“There are few Americans who understand this need for common purpose and common effort better than John McCain,” Mr. Obama said tonight at a dinner he is hosting for Mr. McCain at the Washington Hilton. “It is what he has strived for and achieved throughout his life. It is built into the very content of his character.”

CONTINUE READING...

Places to watch the inauguration online

CNN offers a cheatsheet of where to watch online!

• The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, which is in charge of all the inaugural activities at the Capitol, will stream the entire event at its Web site, complete with closed captioning. The site has a wealth of information about what happens on Inauguration Day, including a handful of inaugural videos dating back to President Dwight Eisenhower's 1957 swearing-in ceremony, as well as videos of presidential luncheons dating back to the inauguration of John Kennedy. (It also reveals, for those interested, the recipe for Obama's luncheon meal, which features a main course of pheasant and duck served with sour cherry chutney.)

• Our sister site CBS News will have day-long live coverage January 20 on TV and the Web, starting at 7 a.m. EDT. Katie Couric will also host a special Webcast that night with reporters and punditry, for which viewers can submit questions.

• CBS streaming coverage will also be Webcast on Joost's Everything Obama page, which also features interviews, campaign highlights, and satire clips.

• MSNBC will be live streaming the event on its home page and politics section, and visitors can embed the video into their own sites. Its inauguration page also features videos of inaugurations from decades past.

• Fox News will provide live streaming coverage via Hulu beginning at noon for about two hours. After the live stream, Hulu will provide on-demand access to the ceremony. The live stream is embeddable, as is an inauguration countdown from Hulu. The video site's Obama Presidency page also features related content like speeches, commentary, satire, and past inaugural speeches.

• C-SPAN will debut its Inauguration Hub on January 20, featuring an online "control room"--a multichannel grid designed by Mogulus with Webcasts of inauguration activities. Visitors will be able to choose from one of four live feeds featuring events like the swearing in at the Capitol, the parade, and a number of inaugural balls.

• CNN is partnering with Facebook to provide live streaming of the swearing in and Obama's speech. Viewers can "RSVP" for the event on Facebook, and as they watch, they will be able to provide status updates with their thoughts on the events. A Facebook window on the CNN.com Live channel will show viewers their friends' relevant status updates.

• Current TV and Twitter are teaming up, as they did during the election, to add real-time tweets to Current's broadcast and Webcast of the swearing in, which starts at 11:30 a.m. EDT and will be replayed throughout the day.

• The New York Times, the AP's online video network, and the Online NewsHour will also live stream inauguration coverage.

Rest of post here.

CONTINUE READING...

Photo of the day

CONTINUE READING...

Gates To Be Designated Successor On Inauguration Day - Political Hotsheet

Fear not, SOMEBODY is ready to take over. Poor Gates-- only guy in Washington NOT going to the most historic inauguration ever.

Gates To Be Designated Successor On Inauguration Day - Political Hotsheet: "If the unthinkable happens on Inauguration Day, Robert Gates, the defense secretary, will be available to assume the reins of government.

'In order to ensure continuity of government, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been designated by the outgoing Administration, with the concurrence of the incoming Administration, to serve as the designated successor during Inauguration Day, Tuesday, January 20th,' White House press Secretary Dana Perino said."

Main portion of the post

Rest of post here.

CONTINUE READING...

The Obamas, circa 1996

On May 26, 1996, Mariana Cook visited Barack and Michelle Obama in Hyde Park as part of a photography project on couples in America. What they had to say twelve years ago is revealing in that the couple they were in 1996 is remarkably consistent with who they were during the campaign and how they come across today.

The New Yorker has a photo essay, but if you're interested and want to brush up on your French, Le Monde has more of the interview, transcribed from the 1996 tapes, but translated into French. (Political Punch has it translated from English into French and then back again, so maybe not as accurate as one might like, but you can get the gist.)

Michelle Obama said she initially hesitated to date Barack when they met at the Sidley and Austin law firm in Chicago. He was a student intern, she a first-year associate, and she'd been assigned to show him the ropes. "It was funny, because when there was all this scuttlebutt about him, this sharp, handsome, smart, young first year, you know everybody was oh, Barack, Barack, Barack. And I'm kind of sceptical. I thought yeah, well he's probably kind of a nerd. I always think when lawyers pump someone up they are probably lacking on the social side."

The couple were attracted to each other "because we didn't take the whole scene as seriously as a lot of people do", Michelle said. "He liked my dry sense of humour and my sarcasm."

"It's not often that a girl from the south side of Chicago meets somebody who can speak Indonesian and has travelled and seen a lot of interesting things. That added a dimension to his character that I didn't see in the upper middle-class professional work environment."

CONTINUE READING...

Mr. President

Ah... the official portrait. Get used to seeing this one on T-shirts!

CONTINUE READING...

Barack Obama's career as a food critic

Yes folks, your next president ALSO does restaurant reviews

Barack Obama on Check, Please!, the original Chicago version of this popular PBS show. Local "regular folks" gather for a roundtable discussion about restaurants in your area...

Guess we have to check out Dixie now...

CONTINUE READING...