WEEK IN REVIEW: JAN 26-30

The first full week of the Obama administration was a bit bipolar - the president had some important victories, as well as a few surprising stumbling blocks. Here's a rundown of the biggest stories in the past five days:

PROGRESS:

• As expected, President Obama's stimulus plan, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday. However, it received not a single Republican vote, despite the fact that the president watered it down to bring at least some of the Republican caucus on board. Their opposition shouldn’t surprise anyone - any stimulus that does pass is not going to end the recession; the best it can hope to do is keep unemployment lower than it otherwise might be. But of course, if it passes no one will ever know what would have happened without the stimulus - they'll just know unemployment was still high. So the Republicans can make plenty of noise about opposing a "useless" stimulus. A great political move, if an unprincipled one.

• Another legislative victory for liberals came with the president’s signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The law overturned the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which held that a pay discrimination claim based on sex must be brought within 180 days of the first discriminatory payment. Ledbetter, who only became aware of the discrimination years later, argued that each paycheck constituted a new discriminatory act re-triggering the 180-day period for filing of a suit. The Act made her claim law.

• On the financial front, President Obama also suggested decisive government action was on its way. On the one hand, he chastised Wall Street upon reports that $18.4 billion in bonuses were distributed to executives in 2008. On the other, the White House gave indications of several courses of action it might pursue to break the credit crisis, among them the creation of a so-called "bad bank" to buy up risky bank assets, prop up balance sheets and get banks lending again.

• The president's Middle East Envoy, George Mitchell, is wrapping up a several-stop trip through the Middle East this weekend. Mitchell, who played an instrumental role in negotiating peace in Northern Ireland years ago, is feeling out the parties in the region to gauge the feasibility of restarting the peace process. There has been little said about Gaza lately, however (other than the spat at Davos between Israeli President Shimon Peres and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan), and it's unlikely Obama will get anywhere by simply delegating the peace process to Mitchell and staying on the sidelines.

• In a fascinating move, President Obama appears interested in appointing Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire as his Commerce Secretary. Because New Hampshire has a Democratic governor, this raises the question of whether the Democrats might get their filibuster-proof 60 vote majority in the Senate after all. It's unlikely that Gregg would take the job without assurances that his successor will be a Republican, though.

• Finally, President Obama has brought change to the White House already: he held a bipartisan cocktail party there earlier this week. Former President Bush was not a drinker (excluding the first four decades of his life), and we saw how that worked out for inter-party relations in D.C. Perhaps a little social lubricant might get the gears of government working again.

SETBACKS

• President Bush has managed to strike back from the political grave! Most people breathed a sigh of relief when Inauguration Day arrived and Bush did not issue a blanket pardon to members of his administration for any alleged violations of law. However, it seems that he extended letters to many members of his staff, including Karl Rove, which purport to grant "absolute immunity," forever in perpetuity, against congressional subpoenas. The legality/constitutionality of this move is anyone's guess, and John Conyers is far from finished with his hunting of Bush administration officials, so you can bet you will see a lawsuit sometime soon about whether the president's executive privilege can justify a move like this.

• Obama has butted heads with the judiciary for the first time in his tenure (okay, technically the judge is not a member of the judicial branch since the Guantanamo court is a creature of statute, but still). The chief judge of the war crimes court at Guantanamo rejected the president's call for prosecutions there to be halted. The degree of independence these military commissions have is still up in the air, so look for more news on who will get their way in this fight.

• Finally, one more bit of irritating news for the president: his half-brother, George Obama, was arrested in Kenya on marijuana possession charges. Sadly, it looks like Obama's ancestral home has the same silly drug laws as nation he now leads.

FIRST INTERVIEW... WITH AL-ARABIYA?!

Clearly President Obama understands the significance of the Middle East, so much so that he chose to give his first formal interview as president to Al Arabiya as George Mitchell left for the region. It has been airing for a couple hours now on various networks including CNN. Nothing too special...

Although Barack did sound far more conciliatory than his predecessor, there was nothing new in the interview. Its significance lies elsewhere - it was a political calculation... and a safe one at that.

Read more...

DAMN RELIGION...

True to form, Barack Obama delivered one hell of a speech on inauguration day. One of his best lines concerned unity and religious tolerance:

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass."

Unfortunately, for some people hatred is alive and well; most of them are convinced that American culture is "distinctively Christian."  A Virginia Bishop could not accept Barack's message of tolerance; in fact, he made his intolerance abundantly clear:

"The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are... Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don't think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation."

This type of bigotry is all too common in this country (even if it is usually hidden from view). Having a Black president with a name like Barack Hussein Obama is a good thing, but it clearly isn't enough for our old hatreds to fade away.

Muslims and Hindus have always been viewed with suspicion in this country. I would say the same of Jews, but discriminating against them is rather taboo. The new president did well to mention those three non-Christian faiths in his inaugural address - he forgot Buddhists - but what was most notable was his mention of "non-believers." That was without precedence for US presidents. 

Obama acknowledging the role non-believers have played in US heritage is nothing to be taken lightly. It has brought great joy to some, and it has bothered several others. Hopefully we will be able overcome our hatred in this country, but we have a very long way to go. As things currently stand we are in no position to criticize Islamist movements or the state of Israel (which does as it pleases anyway). This is not a Christian nation. God help America... save it from the confines of religion.

WEEK IN REVIEW: JAN 21-23

President Barack Hussein Obama's first three days on the job were filled with excitement (at least the first two). Regrettably, Hillary Clinton and Timothy Geithner went through their confirmations with little problems. But it was their boss who was making the big headlines. He ordered the closure of Guantanamo and made headway and a handful of domestic issues. There were also signals of the new adminstration's future dealings abroad, some good some bad.

Wednesday, January 21st was Obama's first full day as President of the United States. As expected, it was rather eventful...

• The first family's morning was consumed by a long National Prayer Service. God bless the USA!
  
• There was a promise of "an unprecedented level of openness in government." The newly elected president announced that all pay raises would be frozen for anyone making above $100,000 a year (nobody was even on the payroll before Tuesday).
• Obama's first action of any consequence was the signing of an ethics act that placed numerous limitations on lobbyists and government officials.
  
• He ordered the suspension of all legal proceedings in Guantanamo and his aides circulated a draft executive order calling for the detention center in Cuba to be shut down.
• He called Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas to express his "commitment to active engagement in pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace from the beginning of his term."
• The president hosted an open house for some special guests.
• He also held productive meetings with economic advisers and military officials.
• The day ended with him re-taking the presidential oath that the Supreme Court Justice had so unceremoniously screwed up the day before.

Thursday, January 22nd was a day for more promises to be fulfilled (to a certain extent). Once again, members of the press had their hands full. As his cabinet picks continued to make headway in their confirmations, President Obama made two important appointments:

1. George Mitchell was made Special Envoy to the Middle East. He is of Irish-Lebanese descent and his accomplishments include the well received Mitchell Report on the second intifada, and a lasting peace deal in Northern Ireland. It was a relatively good move (much better than a Dennis Ross).
2. Richard Holbrooke was named Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has earned the nickname the bulldozer, and he has a past checkered with red flags. His appointment is not a good sign for any meaningful peace in that region.

• What made the most headlines were the three executive orders the president signed, effectively ending all the previous administration's policies in the so-called war on terror:

1. Regarding Guantanamo Bay - the ultimate goal is the closure of the detention center within a year. The order establishes a review process with the goal of relocating the detainees before closing the facility. It also requires that conditions of confinement at Guantanamo comply with Geneva conventions and other international laws until the prison camp is shut down.
2. Regarding detention policies - a special task force, co-chaired by Eric Holder and Robert Gates will reconsider policy options for apprehension, detention, trial, transfer, and release of detainees. The task force must submit its report to the president within 180 days.
3. Regarding interrogation policies - all interrogations of detainees are required to follow the Army Field Manual guidelines (e.g. no more waterboarding). The CIA is ordered to close all overseas detention facilities and it is prohibited from operating them in the future. A special task force will conduct a review of interrogation policies. It will do the same for extraordinary rendition, although the process will continue for the time being.

• Obama also ordered the Justice Department to review the case of the only 'enemy combatant' currently being held in the US.
  

Friday, January 23rd was far less eventful. Not much came out of the White House -I guess they were winding down for the weekend...

• The executive and legislative branches came together to work on an (expensive) remedy to the current financial crisis.
• The president returned phonecalls from Canadian PM Stephen Harper, Saudi King Abdullah (who he asked to combat arms smuggling to Gaza), British PM Gordon Brown and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.
• To the dismay of pro-life nutbags protesting the day before, Obama lifted a ban on US funding for international groups that perform abortions or provide related services.
• The big news of the day came from Pakistan where two US drones killed at least 20 people, at least half of them civilians. Clearly Obama was unfazed by the flack he took for promising to strike freely in Pakistan during the campaign. At least he's showing he has some foreign policy convictions, even if they're dangerously flawed.
  

But overall, it was a good week - our new president delivered - at least on the surface. Yes, Guantanamo will soon be a thing of the past, but detainees there are still being force fed and mistreated (the press left on January 21). CIA prisons are supposed to be shut down, but what will be the fate of those already in detention? The Mitchell pick was not bad, but Obama continues to walk the same line with Israel. What are the chances he will let Mitchell do his 'dirty' work for him? Holbrooke will definitely do his dirty work. Friday's attack on Pakistan could be a sign of bad things to come.

What we've seen in these first few days has been good, but there is a long way to go. Actions speak louder than words, and the world will be watching to see what Barack actually does. So far so good (except for Pakistan, and the persistent misportrayal of the Arab-Israeli conflict). If he can keep up the pace, I will be pleasantly surprised... I'm not expecting that.

A FAUTY FOREIGN POLICY

A fellow blogger recently directed me to the new foreign policy page on the White House website - I'm ashamed to say I didn't think to check it earlier. Maybe, on a subconscious level, I didn't want to... I was admittedly taken by the more positive aspects of the day, despite the devastation in Gaza.

Overall, I'm not impressed with these initial foreign policy declarations (the new president said nothing explicit in his inaugural address), but I'm not surprised either. 

On the big issues, Obama remains true to the rules his predecessors have played by. Aside from a supposed commitment to diplomacy, the only subtle difference is that he plans to "revitalize Afghanistan's economic development" by increasing troop levels there. Over the past few years, extremist elements in the war-torn country have been stepping up their insurgency. Surely they will not take kindly to more American boots on the ground. Things could get ugly and Barack seems ready. For some unexplainable reason, he thinks the biggest threat to US security is "the resurgence of Al Qaeda and the Taleban in Afghanistan and Pakistan." Either he is badly misinformed, or he has some hidden agenda I haven't quite figured out yet.

There is a cleverly worded section on Iran and significant attention is given to the sovereign nation's nuclear ambitions. There is also a special subsection on nuclear weapons that emphasizes the Obama administration's desire to "move towards a nuclear free world" - too bad it doesn't mention the state of Israel and its nuclear arsenal which remains the biggest threat to regional security...

In the section on Israel, we are unfortunately reminded of reality. Like its predecessors, this new administration believes that its "first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel." It goes on to highlight Obama's support for the devastation our "strongest ally in the region" wreaked on Lebanon in 2006, all in the name of "self defense." I wonder if he feels differently about what happened in Gaza... how fortunate for him that the Israelis halted their assault before he took his oath.

The website also highlights the administration's indiscriminate support for billions of dollars in continued aid to an undeserving ally - money that would be better spent on a whole variety of important domestic issues. The US-Israeli alliance is completely one sided and it brings no benefits to American voters. What it does do is increase opposition to the US and raise the potential for violence and terrorism. It is a bad sign for peace in the Middle East that the White House feels the need to brag about Obama and Biden having blindly "advocated increased foreign aid budgets" for the state of Israel. We got the point already!

Today the world witnessed history in the making. The change is real, but much more is needed. Now the real work begins. Our new president says most of the right things when it comes to domestic issues, but what we hear on foreign policy is much less promising, even though change in that arena is needed just as badly. The last thing we need is more of the same. 

There is absolutely no hope for peace in the Middle East (and indeed the rest of the world) so long as the US-Israel alliance remains unchanged. The sooner we move in a different direction, the more likely it is we will see some sort of peaceful resolution to this conflict that has dragged on for far too long. Yes, Obama has important domestic priorities, but there is nothing in the realm of foreign policy that is more crucial to global security than a peaceful resolution to the question of Palestine.

THE OATH FLUB (NOT OBAMA'S FAULT!)

It's hard to think of something of less consequence on a day like today, but humor and wonkishness compel me to bring it up nonetheless: someone messed up the presidential oath today. And that person was not the president.



I know, I know. President Obama spoke over Chief Justice Roberts for a moment, and then seemed to pause in mid-sentence, unsure of himself, before the Chief Justice repeated the oath. The speaking-over was a minor faux pas, but the pause was Roberts' fault: he misstated the oath. Article II, section 1 of the Constitution makes the content of the oath clear:

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"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."

Sadly, Chief Justice Roberts managed to cut out the word "faithfully" and tack it back on after "President of the United States." This obviously threw Obama, who seemed to nod at Roberts to suggest that he repeat the oath properly. When Roberts failed to do so and bumbled again, he simply repeated the (wrong) formulation Roberts initially gave.

If you care enough to still be reading at this point, Slate has an even nerdier, word-by-word analysis here.

You've got to feel bad for Roberts. He's only been on the Supreme Court for a little over three years, and this the first swearing-in (God willing, the first of many) that he's been privileged to conduct. It's one of the few perks attendant with being the Chief Justice, and his nerves simply got the better of him. Word is that he apologized to Obama later in the day. Hopefully he isn't beating himself up too much about an unfortunate slip-up...though you can bet he'll get it word-for-word (or at least not try to memorize it again) when 2012 rolls around.

(P.S.: for all those conspiracy theorists out there who are looking for yet another reason to challenge Obama's legitimacy as president since the birth certificate challenges failed, don't get your hopes up. Under the Twelfth Amendment, Obama qualified for the presidency following his Electoral College victory on December 15th (and Congress's subsequent counting and certification of that result on January 6th). As a result, under the Twentieth Amendment, he officially became president of the United States at 12:00pm today once President Bush's term ended, which was moments before the oath was even administered. So any slip-ups in this formality do not impact his legal qualifications for the presidency.)

SEVEN MINUTES

At 4:03 PM, secret servicemen held their breath as Barack and Michelle Obama stepped out of their armored car to talk a walk along Pennsylvania Avenue. They waved to the crowd with big smiles on their faces, soaking it all in. The walked for about seven miutes before getting back in the limousine. 

It was quite a sight... and at about 4:27 PM, it happened again - another seven minute stroll.

The area was secure, but surely, the secret service and other security forces must have been on edge, regardless of how much they've been preparing. All foreseeable contingencies appear to have been taken into account. Buildings overlooking the parade route must have been secured and all the spectators behind the barricades went through a thorough screening process - they weren't even allowed to bring umbrellas.

He was safe (he looked genuinely happy and unworried). He could have even shook hands with some people in the crowd if he wanted, but it's not surprising that he elected not to. 

A little later, Joe Biden took a walk with his wife (he even jogged a bit), but that was no big deal. Nobody really wants to shoot him... Still people were chanting his name and he was getting his props. Nevertheless, it was Obama's day.

It was nice seeing him on the street, although I doubt the press would have given him much of a hard time if he stayed in his car. In 1981 Jimmy Carter and his family walked all the way from the Capitol to the White House, but the last two inaugural processions weren't as peaceful - with mass protests and people pelting W's car with eggs.

I guess it makes sense that the Barack and Michelle limited their strolls to seven minutes. They stayed in the secure confinements of their armored limousine for the rest of the way.

At 4:37 PM the Obamas finally arrived to their new home. Let's hope this is the start of something good. Surely it can't be any worse than the last eight years.

"THE QUESTION WE ASK TODAY IS NOT WHETHER OUR GOVERNMENT IS TOO BIG OR TOO SMALL, BUT WHETHER IT WORKS...."

I expect that this statement will be remembered as the most consequential of any in President Obama's first inaugural address. It indicates that the inauguration of Barack Obama, symbolism aside, may also mark the beginning of a sea change in the relationship between individuals and government in America.

Beginning with the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and the subsequent creation of the administrative state, the federal government became an integral part of everyday American life. The National Recovery Act put countless Americans back to work on the federal dime. The Social Security Act created a new federal safety net to ensure a minimum level of support to retired citizens. The Securities and Exchange Act ushered in a new wave of government control of Wall Street that persists to this day. The list goes on - the "alphabet soup" of agencies created by FDR brought government into Americans' lives like never before.

This expansion of government continued for nearly half a century. After World War II, the GI Bill helped bring millions of people into the middle class. In the mid-60s, the creation of Medicare and Medicaid as part of LBJ's "Great Society" reforms represented the high water mark of "big government" - never before was the federal government more fundamentally committed to the use of its power and pursestrings to bring about social progress. Government, for many, was the solution.

Then the retreat began. The disillusionment with government that came with bloated social programs, Watergate, the withdrawal from Vietnam and the various crises of the late 70's turned many people against their government. Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 and told Americans that government was no longer the solution to its problems - it was the problem. And for years, deregulation and privatization were in vogue.

After twelve years of Republican rule many thought this would change with the inauguration of Bill Clinton, but in many ways it did not. Universal health care, for years the holy grail for many liberals, was not achieved; welfare-to-work drastically changed the underlying assumptions of how the so-called social safety net worked; new social programs such as SCHIP were, at most, incremental steps toward greater government involvement in supporting individuals; and deficit reduction was the main goal (and most important accomplishment) of the Democratic administration. This was, in many ways, a continuation of the "government is the problem" era in American politics.

Ironically, the now-complete presidency of George W. Bush brought a far greater expansion of government than Clinton's. The Department of Homeland Security was created, and is in many ways a model of administrative inefficiency. The Medicare reforms threw massive amounts of federal money at pharmaceutical companies. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as enormous tax breaks for the rich (most notably the repeal of the estate tax) drained the federal budget into the red and expanded the national debt to a new high. And in one notable area where government's reach did not expand under Bush (banking regulation), greed and excess launched a severe economic crisis that continues to deepen with each passing day. The expansion of government under Bush did little to fundamentally change the way government relates to individuals, other than to antagonize many Americans once again.

And now comes Barack Obama. As he made very clear in his inaugural address above, President Obama is a hard-nosed pragmatist when it comes to policy. This is not to say he is not also ideological to some extent. While he is interested in cabining government when it has become too big for its own good, the president is unquestionably committed to the idea that government has certain social responsibilities. Unlike President Clinton, he seems unapologetic about his liberal leanings - he is proposing a massive economic stimulus that will temporarily increase the deficit in exchange for providing a boost to the sagging jobs market.

But the way he has gone about promoting this idea reflects a new type of political discourse. For years, our political attitudes have been defined by which orientation toward government we adopt: whether we see it as the solution, or as the problem. Barack Obama, while clearly favoring one side of this dispute, seems interested in avoiding it altogether. Despite his strong mandate for change, President Obama is not proposing a vast, ideologically motivated expansion the welfare state, which would antagonize people who resent the idea of government as an ATM for the lazy. He is not leading as a typical liberal politician would. He is acting pragmatically, without appealing to the dogmas of either political party. Not saying that government is the solution, or that it is the problem; not that it is too intrusive, or that it is too hands-off. His interest is in whether, regardless of these liberal or conservative orientations, it is advancing our well-being.

At a minimum, this is a fascinating change in the way the American president speaks about American problems. More optimistically, it could represent a revolution in how Americans view government. Should the Obama Administration's new pragmatic approach to governing be successful, we may look at government quite differently once the forty-fifth president is sworn in. Though the question will always be with us as to whether government is too big or too small, too paternalistic or too out-of-touch, we might not be so hung up on it in the future. It might not define our politics. Perhaps we will simply trust government - trust it to be honest, competent, accountable and committed to improving efficiency. And with these old divisions behind us, perhaps we will be able to focus more clearly on the real, concrete policy problems facing us, with a clear head and a practical worldview.

Let's stay hopeful - the work has already begun.

WATCHING FROM HOME...

It's a cold day in Washington... A big part of me wants to be outside with all the people, but I'm watching this historic event from the comfort and solitude of my home. In fact, I haven't been too eager to set foot in DC over the past couple days. Traffic is always a nightmare in the nation's capitol, but the millions of visitors here for inauguration have made moving around a major pain... Still their presence is a testament to how significant today truly is.This post is my small contribution. 

As I flip through the networks on my TV, Al Jazeera English will be streaming on my computer. I will try to update as often as possible, but I want to soak it all in more than actually spit it out here. Already, the images from the mall are simply amazing. The actual swearing in won't take place for another three-and-a-half hours, but thousands of people are already out there braving the cold... and they are of all colors and creeds. It's almost painfully beautiful. He will surely deliver an amazing speech, but what happens after that? How much will he satisfy? How much will he disappoint?I'll try not to think about that today, and focus instead on the tremendous significance the day's events hold for this country and the world.

8:47 AM - Over 10 minutes late, Barack and Michelle Obama appeared for the first time as they left the Blair House (in that ugly limo) for the morning prayer service at St. John's Church. The streets in the immediate vicinity is completely empty, except for parked vehicles and secret servicemen.

8:50 AM - A few cheers as the first-family-to-be enters the little yellow church.

9:11 AM - 8 years ago this country witnessed the worst terrorist attack in its history. The president elect is now hearing prayers and it it beginning to settle in... he is about to be the (the first black) president of the United States of America. Fittingly, Michael Eric Dyson is on NBC right now talking about how Obama is far from post racial... and that he should be seen as the opposite of post-racial.

As people struggle to reach the Mall and witness history, they are leaving their cars on the side of the road. Even though most are on grass (away from shoulders and asphalt) the DMV police is already handing out tickets and towing. It's nice to see that the authorities have their priorities in order!

9:30 AM - The Mall area is full - it seems to have been closed down. Many people are reportedly getting out of the metro after very long commutes, only to learn that they won't be able to make it to the main celebration area. ABC's reporter says they don't seem to mind, although I bet they're a little blown... At least they will be when they see the images of the sea of images in front of the Capitol steps - amazing!

9:45 AM - Not everyone is celebrating today. Not everyone has the day off work. In addition to the thousands of journalists and security officials for whom this event is a tremendous professional opportunity, there are many others working behind the scenes. ABC was just showing video of people hard at work inside the White House. Even before the old regime walks out, they began preparing the White House for the Black family that will be living there for the next four (or eight) years. It is truly impressive - by the time the 44th President and his family arrive to 1600 Pennsylvania, their new home will be ready - even the fridge will be fully stocked with food, drink and snacks for the girls. Rahm Emmanuel and company will also be hard at work in their offices in the next few hours.

9:48 AM - Barack and Michele (along with Jill and Joe Biden) have left St. John's Church for the White House where they will have a sit down with the outgoing first family. The Obamas waved to the cheering crowds as they got into their limos. A few blocks away, people in the mall are still going crazy.

9:53 AM - The second family to be just pulled up in the driveway of the White House. They got out to greet the Obamas who arrived exactly two minutes later. George and Laura greeted them and posed for a picture. Michelle brought a gift. I'm gonna watch for a while...

10:05 AM - These crowds are off the hook. Despite what the more racist elements of American society may be hoping, they are very diverse. I would be lying if I said most of the people I've seen are Black or non-White. It is nice to see people coming together for this and putting their differences aside. Let's hope they are not disappointed in the long run...

10:18 AM - Most of the networks are showing the shots of the crowds... with good reason. They are fantastic. People are everywhere, on top of statues and up in the trees. Indeed, if it were 20 degrees warmer and people weren't dressed so nicely, one might mistake them for a bunch of Arabs. The networks are focusing on meaningless punditry, bur Al Jazeera is focusing on the crowds in the right way. They just ran a report from a correspondent who was out on the streets at 4AM talking to the crowds as they made their way to the Mall. No wonder the place is so full... people have been flocking there since the early hours of the morning. I highly recommend Al Jazeera's coverage - it's only been 20 minutes, but it's excellent so far, and comprehensive in its approach... (they already did a live update from Gaza).

10:30 AM - Someone needs to tell CBS that their shot overlooking the White House is horribly out of focus... and it's not my TV. I guess it's not hat big of a deal. I don't care much for CBS anyways... I've even checked FOX more frequently! It's obviously freezing outside. All reporters on the ground are visibly struggling.

10:36 AM - AJE is running a spectacular montage of statements (and promises) Obama made over the course of the transitionary period. Hopefully people aren't expecting too much follow through. Meanwhile, the networks are showing the inaugural platform fill up with VIPs. I just saw Arnold. (I also just saw Katie Couric and her ugly new haircut - time to change the channel!)

10:47 AM - They are showing images of outgoing Dick Cheney in a wheelchair. He apparently pulled a muscle moving things, but for the sake of amusement, let's imagine he was given a severe beat-down instead.

10:48 AM - George Bush and Barack Obama are now leaving the White House and they are heading to the Capitol. Things are underway... Exciting stuff!

10:57 AM - The convoy is proceeding (slowly) to the Capitol. The streets are lined with security and onlookers seemingly oblivious to the cold. I don't have to be there to feel the vibe in the city now. I was there on election night, but this is clearly much more festive (and crowded). AJE's John Terrett put it in perspective earlier when he described the joy in the cold faces of the people he saw on the streets of DC in the early hours of the morning - usually, "they don't even look at you," he said. For now, all eyes are on that convoy...

11:02 AM - Michelle Obama has already made it to the Capitol, along with several others like John McCain, who must be wondering how he'd be feeling if he had succeeded in presenting Obama as an unacceptable American leader.

11:04 AM - Chief Justice John Roberts is on site as well. As AJE's Rob Reynolds noted, Obama will be sworn in by a man he voted not to confirm.

11:16 AM - The time is near... former presidents are coming in. George Bush Senior just hobbled through the halls of Congress with Barbara a little while ago, he was followed by Jimmy and Rosalind Carter, and now Bill and Hillary (she's looking salty... or just nasty).

11:22 AM - Once again, the crowds are simply indescribable. In the unlikely event that you are reading this, I am truly grateful, but turn on a TV, or get Al Jazeera English up on your screen.

11:27 AM - Barack Obama's daughters and his mother-in-law have just came out to the podium... 

11:28 AM - And here's Laura Bush...

11:31 AM - And here come the first and second ladies to be...

11:36 AM - And here comes W (music, but no audible cheers or boos)... I'm really gonna miss this guy! The look on his face clearly shows that he is unhappy to go. But people in the streets feel differently. News anchors on AJE are reporting having seen people defacing effigies of the outgoing president in the streets of Washington. Entertaining as he was, people are happy to see him and his people go. 

11:37 AM - Now I'm hearing some Obama cheers...

11:39 AM - Here is the soon to be Vice President of the United States (a self-proclaimed Zionist and supporter of Israel). But all eyes are on Obama who is walking through the halls of the Capitol.  I need to watch now...

11:43 AM - And the crowd goes wild! This has to be the largest crowd in the history of the nation's capitol.

11:45  AM - Obama takes a seat. The moment is it hand...

11:48 AM - Here comes Rick Warren.  I'm not a fan of that guy... Israel shmisrael...

11:50 AM - I have to admit though - it's a pretty decent invocation.

11:55 AM - As Aretha Franklin sings, it seems they are running well behind schedule... So what? But this is all very moving on a symbolic level. Whether substantive change actually comes about remains to be seen, but we are about to have a Black president in the White House.  I never thought I would live to see this day.

11:57 AM - Biden is being sworn in now. Maybe they're not so far off schedule after all.

11:59 AM - Music??? I forgot about that. So they are clearly behind schedule. Is this a sign?! seriously though, I wonder how often they're late. Of course, the first one mentioned is an Israeli.

12:02 PM - Frankly this music is pretty wack. Let's get things moving... Obama doesn't look like he's feeling it either!

12:04 PM - Weak applause. They should have had Beyonce or something...

12:05 PM - ABC is reporting that in the past moments, the White House website has changed to reflect the new president. He's being sworn in now... and they're stumbling. And the crowd really goes wild. It's official! The moment of truth will come soon.

12:07 PM - Speech...

12:26 PM - Try as I might, I don't think I could find a flaw in that speech. I haven't poured over it to check, but I listened intently and felt in tune with everything he said. The only other countries he really mentioned were Iraq and Afghanistan (where there are official wars being fought by US troops). I'm pleasantly surprised that he didn't mention Israel or Iran. I've never been so proud to call myself an American... Could this really be a new day? It was a great speech. Will he walk the walk? I doubt it...

12:31 PM - This poem is pretty boring... Luckily it's over. What an anticlimax!

12:36 PM - It seems a little hypocritical to focus so much negative attention on Islamists... especially with all the emphasis on religion in these types of ceremonies. Still, the way this guy ended his sermon was tight!

 12:40 PM - Bush is holding things up with all the hand shaking. Too bad Obama wouldn't give him any real attention....

12:49 PM - Robert Fisk on Al Jazeera wasn't too impressed. He pointed out references to Iran, Islamists, and the line on "slaughtering innocents" (which he did). Fisk said it was "more like a preacher's speech than a president's speech... I can't remember a complete sentence Mr Obama said." He's got a point, but it was still a good speech, if one doesn't make obvious inferences on foreign policy. I say again, there was nothing wrong with it, but there is still plenty of room for criticism, especially for the things he didn't mention. He played it safe by not explicitly mentioning the Middle East. That is regrettable, but understandable.

12:53 PM - Nice images: the Obamas seeing the Bushs off. The transition is complete!

12:56 PM - The helicopter is lifting off. Bye bye Bush! Hopefully we won't see your brother in 2012...

1:03 PM - Flanked by his VP and leading members of Congress, the 44th President of the United States just signed his first executive order ensuring the continuity of government. 

1:20 PM - Lincoln, Lincoln, Lincoln... I wonder how good the food is in that luncheon. I know I got some good barbecue I need to heat up.

1:23 PM - The Nation's John Nichols brought up a good point when he said that Obama failing to mention the Middle East suggests that he does not understand how important the problems there truly are (if he does, he didn't feel it was important say so).

1:29 PM - Here come the Obamas... I wonder if they're as hungry as me!

1:51 PM - Bush is getting on Air Force One for one last time - it will take him to Texas. At the very least, he is gone and there is a new face of the nation - one that bears zero resemblance to the 43 who preceded him.

TOO MUCH TO HANDLE?

It's no secret that Barack will have a lot on his plate. A president cannot simply deal with one problem at a time, he has to get his hands dirty and address everything simultaneously.

The economy, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Russia, China, education, healthcare, and so much more... No matter what, he's bound to disappoint. But let's hope he has more successes than failures.

This cartoon appeared in the January 17th edition of the Economist 

A DREAM FULFILLED

It's the eve of the Inauguration of America's first black president. As fate would have it, today was also a national holiday dedicated to the memory of America's most influential advocate for civil rights.

Though he did not live to see tomorrow's historic achievement, it should come as no surprise to us that Martin Luther King foresaw this day. More revealingly, he was far more optimistic than most. You can watch the 1964 interview where he says so here. King's optimism should be instructive for all of us who, in spite of all the reasons to be cynical and skeptical about our politics, still feel hope for, and faith in, a better future.

The work begins tomorrow.

PRAYING FOR BARACK HUSSEIN

The day after Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th President of the United States, he'll attend a National Prayer Service at the Nation Cathedral. In keeping with his chants of tolerance and change, he has asked people of different faiths to participate. Sounds good, and it is... but nothing's perfect.

There are a total of 19 people participating; 14 of them are Christian; three of them are Rabbis; one is Muslim, and one is Hindu. Not very representative of the country... There are at least as many American Muslims as there are Jews, if not more. Still, I'm surprised he has only asked three Rabbis to participate. What about Buddhists?

On the gender side of things, the lineup is a little better. Religious leaders tend to be men, but there are five women participating in the National Prayer Service. One of them is causing another controversy altogether.

It's little surprise that the Muslim participant in Obama's collection of religionists is the subject of debate. Ingrid Mattson is the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). She's no stranger to the US political establishment seeking to curry favor with the Muslim community - it must be helpful that she doesn't look like a foreigner. While there are many Muslims who are probably upset that a Canadian woman is represnting them, that is not the problem.

The problem is that ISNA was named as a co-conspirator in a case charging the Holy Land Foundation of sending over $12 million to Hamas. Mattson herself is not directly implicated, but in this sensationalist media culture of ours, rest assured you'll probably be hearing more about this in the days to come (if you haven't already).

We have a long way to come in this country when it comes to racial and religious tolerance. While having a Black president will go a long way in increasing cross-cultural acceptance, he has done next to nothing to improve religious tolerance, particularly vis-a-vis Islam.

THE UGLY NEW FACE OF THE NATION

It was the same cold and conniving Hillary Clinton who testified for five hours at a Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday. She may very well be one of the most unlikable people in the history of US politics. As I've said before, the prominent role she will play as Secretary of State in Barack Obama's administration is unfortunate to say the least.

For some inexplicable reason, there are some hopeful observers. During the hearing, I spoke to a fellow journalist who works on Capitol Hill. She was impressed by Clinton's remarks on Gaza, interpreting them as a sign of encouragement. Apparently, other news organizations also got it wrong... But despite all the unwarranted praise, there was nothing new in what Mrs Clinton had to say:

"The president-elect and I understand - and are deeply sympathetic to - Israel's desire to defend itself under current conditions and to be free of shelling by Hamas rockets. However, we have also been reminded of the tragic humanitarian costs of conflict in the Middle East, and pained by the suffering of Palestinian and Israeli civilians."

When Western politicians equate the struggle of the people in Gaza to that of Israeli citizens, they are showing just how unsympathetic they truly are. Afterall, there is no comparison between sporadic rocket fire and a hailstorm of bombs and other brutal weapons - there is no comparing three dead Israeli civilians to the 1000+ who have lost their lives in Gaza. As long as Washington continues to view the Middle East from a Zionist perspective, there is no hope for any meaningful change in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

As long as US foreign policy is rooted in an air of arrogant infallibility, change is equally unlikely in other sensitive arenas. On Iran, Clinton paid lipservice to Obama's stated desire to engage, but in addition to reiterating that "no options are off the table" she promised much more of the same:

"We will do everything we can pursue through diplomacy, through the use of sanctions, through creating better coalitions with countries that we believe also have a big stake in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power."

This obsession with Iran's nuclear capabilities is hauntingly reminiscent of what happened five years ago with the country on its western border. Iraq has been laid to waste under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction. Even before the US invasion, Iraqis were dying in the hundreds of thousands from the types of sanctions Clinton hopes to use with Iran. Nuclear weapons cannot and should not be a pretext to enact policies that will kill innocent people; whether that happens through military campaigns or starvation is only a question of form.

I saw absolutely no signs of hope in Clinton's confirmation hearing, except for the expectation that she will have to submit her will to that of Barack Obama. Whether she actually does that remains to be seen, but since she is still likely to have her sights on the presidency, she will probably do as she is told. I don't expect her marching orders to bode well for the international community, particularly in the Middle East. I sincerely hope that I am wrong.

CHANGE WE CAN NOD OFF TO

As much as he can prior to actually taking office, the president-elect has lived up to his promises of candor and transparency. He's held many press conferences and one-on-one interviews, in which he answers questions with a greater degree of (seeming) forthrightness than we have seen in our last president. This is great...but it sure does make for more boring presidential appearances. Jon Stewart had a funny take on this, embedded below.

As we count down to the end of the Bush years over the next seven days, let's have a brief moment of silence for the hilarity we will be giving up. A little tragic, maybe, but a fair trade in exchange for a government of laws and not of men.

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

President Goofus and President Gallant - Peer Pressers

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

THE STROKE OF A PEN (AND A RESPONSE)

It's been reported before, but it's worth mentioning once more here: there are indications that swift repudiations of several key Bush policies are likely to be handed down by the Obama administration within the first weeks, or even days, following the Inauguration. The vehicle: Executive Orders, which will be signed by President Obama and immediately effective under law. In addition to the reversal of Bush rulings on stem cell research, oil and gas drilling and abortion, several new prime areas for change have appeared. From Politico:

Guantanamo (though closure of the prison will, of course, require more effort and time than is needed for an executive order);

Torture policy;

The release of key Office of Legal Counsel opinions which took an expansive view of executive power.

Along with Obama's senior-level appointments for CIA, OLC, DOJ and a host of other key positions, these reports are another encouraging signal. Bush's return to Texas in eight days will not just be a symbolic transition: Obama has given clear signs that his inauguration will mark the true beginning of the end of the Bush era.

Also, to veer off topic momentarily, a quick response to Kalash's last post regarding Obama and Middle East policy. While the president-elect has, unfortunately, not yet been willing to exhibit any criticism for Israel, any judgments about his foreign policy must be reserved at least until he takes office. While Kalash and others have given short shrift to the "one president at a time" mantra, it is not just a political excuse - it is an important principle in American governance. Any substantive statement President-elect Obama might make about Gaza or the peace process, beyond general expressions of dismay over violence and calls for restraint, would be highly imprudent because the rest of the world could not help but take them as official American policy. As a result, the foreign policy of the sitting, legitimate president would be supplanted.

This might seem pointless to some of us, as we look at our calendars and count the minutes until noon on the 20th. After all, we've probably already made dinner plans beyond Inauguration Day; surely the president-elect can manage a few words about the foreign policy he'll implement starting then. But let's not forget the pace with which international incidents can occur. In South Ossetia this past August, Georgia launched an attack on August 7th. The next day, Russia blockaded and attacked Georgia. Within five days, a full-scale invasion and an agreement to a preliminary cease-fire had both occurred. International crises can happen at lightning speed - one could easily start and end before Obama puts his hand on the Bible next Tuesday. It is imperative that America's leaders not risk an ineffectual response, which could trigger even greater instability, by sharing the duties of the presidency.

As much as this might frustrate those of us who want to get on with the next four years, we are constrained by the constitution: we have one leader authorized to act on our behalf in foreign affairs until January 20th. In my view, those of us who are upset that Obama isn't speaking should petition Congress to pass a constitutional amendment shortening the lame-duck period; they shouldn't launch into a knee-jerk reaction accusing Obama of "more of the same." In any event, President-elect Obama's unwillingness to publicly inject himself into the crisis (remember, he is constantly in contact with President Bush and receives daily intelligence reports as well as briefings from the Secretary of State) is a smart, logical and statesmanlike decision.

SAME OLD, SAME OLD...

While he did have some good things to say about domestic policy in his administration (actions speak louder than words), Barack Obama once again promised more of the same when it comes to the Middle East on This Week With George Stehanopoulos. For the umpteenth time, nobody should get their hopes up that this guy will bring any meaningful change when it comes foreign policy, especially in the Middle East!

After consistent prodding by a handful of journalists, Obama recently updated his status on Gaza from "monitoring" to "concerned" but he still seems intent on following in the general (pro-Israel) path of his predecessors...

"I think that if you look not just at the Bush administration, but also what happened under the Clinton administration, you are seeing the general outlines of an approach... And I think that players in the region understand the compromises that are going to need to be made. But the politics of it are hard. And the reason it's so important for the United States to be engaged and involved immediately, not waiting until the end of their term, is because working through the politics of this requires a third party that everybody has confidence, wants to see a fair and just outcome."

I've already been over Obama's unwillingness/inability to take the right stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict but it goes much deeper than the influence of the lobby. For some reason he has felt compelled to portray the same sense of American infallibility that has gotten us into so much trouble in the past. Not only is such a self-centered approach harmful, but it takes away from any significance in promises of renewed diplomatic efforts.

His comments on Iran were very telling. It matters very little that he mentions a new approach when the starting point remains the same...

"I think that Iran is going to be one of our biggest challenges. And as I said during the campaign, you know, we have a situation in which not only is Iran exporting terrorism through Hamas, through Hezbollah, but they are pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East... and we are going to have to take a new approach. And I've outlined my belief that engagement is the place to start. That the international community is going to be taking cues from us in how we want to approach Iran... And I think that sending a signal that we respect the aspirations of the Iranian people, but that we also have certain expectations in terms of how a international actor behaves."

Yes, he is promising to talk and engage in diplomacy, but he also seems keen to do so from the same position that has proven so ineffective over the years: the US knows best and we call the shots. If he is truly intelligent, he realizes that is the biggest problem when it comes to our foreign policy... so he must feel conflicted about putting on the front of arrogant condescension. The last place the international community needs to be taking it cues on international matters is the United States of America...

A GLIMMER OF HOPE?

I'll believe it when I see it, but this is good news. 

Clearly if Barack Obama wants to have any kind of positive impact on the Middle East, he needs to recognize the facts on the ground and act accordingly. He cannot "stay the course" that has been laid out for him. That is the very least that needs to happen...

High hopes - low expectations.

THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT PLAN

Part 1

Part 2

A HUGE LOAD

I wouldn't want to be in Obama's shoes right about now...

He's got a whole lot to deal with. Is he up for the challenge? Surely he will make strides in some areas but he will also disappoint in others. Unfortunately, W has left him with a big mess to deal with. When it's Obama's turn to pass the torch, will the world be in a better state? I sincerely hope so... My expectations remain low.

This cartoon appeared in the January 3rd edition of the Economist 

YES, HOPE FOR CHANGE

Those of us looking for a clean break from the Bush administration's policies can breathe a cautious but justified sigh of relief. President-elect Obama’s appointment of former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta to serve as the Director of Central Intelligence is the strongest suggestion yet that such a clean break is in the making, at least in one crucial area of policy: torture.

For the last couple of days, the media has struggled to wrap its mind around this pick. Panetta was nowhere on anyone’s radar for DCI, and in all fairness to the oracles of the conventional wisdom, that was for good reason. The previous two candidates floated for the post represented anything but a fresh face. Initially, many thought that John Brennan, a man with a quarter-century of service in the American intelligence community, would be the pick – he resigned from the chairmanship of a prominent intelligence think tank after the election to work with the transition full-time. But when allegations arose that Brennan was involved in (or at least lukewarm about) decisions to use abusive interrogation tactics against detainees, the outrage among bloggers, psychologists and even law professors was too much to bear, and he withdrew from consideration.

After that, there was some speculation that Obama might retain current DCI Michael Hayden. But to some sources, it was clear that Obama himself was looking to use the appointment to make a bigger statement about his disagreement with Bush policies, and Hayden wouldn’t do it – his prior work as Commander and Director of the Air Intelligence and National Security Agencies, respectively, made him an entrenched member of the intelligence community. Not so with Leon Panetta, who will be a newcomer to the intelligence world. So how is Panetta qualified for this job?

There are several reasons. First, despite his lack of experience in intelligence, Panetta has a long history in Washington. He was a congressman for 16 years prior to serving as Clinton’s OMB director and eventual Chief of Staff. In those roles, he was a principal force behind the balanced budgets of the late 90s. He was also a member of the Iraq Study Group in 2006, along with current and future Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The past working relationship between Panetta and Gates might be a significant motivating factor behind the decision, along with the fact that Panetta seemed to grasp a central problem in Iraq: that no one was in charge. By extension, Obama may hope that Panetta’s organizational expertise might make him forceful advocate for the administration’s policy at CIA.

An equally important point, especially for those who equate experience in Washington with capture by the "Establishment" and resistance to change, is Panetta’s stated revulsion to torture as an interrogation technique. Less than a year ago in an article in Washington Monthly, he had this to say:

Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground.

We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that.

If confirmed by the Senate, Panetta’s appointment would undoubtedly send a loud and clear message throughout the intelligence community (and, for that matter, the global community) that torture is no longer the American way of dealing with its enemies. The appointment of Hayden or Brennan or any other longtime member of the CIA phalanx would not do this, even if such an appointee was personally opposed to torture. And given reports from some intelligence professionals that the primary attraction of foreign fighters to Iraq has been the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, it is extremely important that the successors to our current intelligence directors be clearly opposed to such techniques.

Finally, Panetta’s status as a civilian unconnected to the intelligence community could make things much easier for him in instituting these policy changes. Unlike Hayden, his ability to progress in his career has not been dependent on developing a favorable constituency within the intelligence establishment – he simply has less to lose by implementing Obama’s policies. Further, as Scott Norton noted in Harper’s, some intelligence professionals think experience in the community is not the most important ingredient for success as a DCI:

“Intel experience is overrated. Good judgment, common sense, and an understanding of Washington is a far better mix to take to Langley than the presumption of experience in intelligence matters. Having a civilian in the intelligence community mix is, likewise, a useful balance.”

Panetta will have plenty of experienced intelligence experts serving below him, who will keep him up to speed and help him implement his policies. Indeed, his own experience as a Chief of Staff likely gives him an instinctive sense of what is necessary organizationally. Most of all, though, the appointment of Panetta ensures that the next DCI will be someone of the same mind as Obama: someone who absolutely believes torture should not be official US policy. With this guiding light, there is good reason to hope that the failed congressional oversight of the intelligence community these past few years will be replaced by a competent, righteous and self-policing intelligence leadership.