LOOKING FOR CHANGE

LOOKING ELSEWHERE... FOR NOW

2009-05-10T01:21:00.005-04:00

OK... I know we've been faking!

I can't speak for my associate, but I've been somewhat disillusioned with our president lately. To a certain degree, I've been overwhelmed by all the developments. There has been a lot to process... but in the end, I'm still unsatisfied. I promise to explain further in the coming days.

Meanwhile, I saw another glimmer of hope that I posted on somewhere else.

WE'RE BACK

2009-03-30T07:11:00.004-04:00

For the blessed souls who check this site regularly, apologies are in order - we've been on holiday for most of the month. I can't speak for Junius, but I know that I've intentionally kept myself out of the loop for the past several weeks. It's time to get back in the mix... Let us know if there is anything you'd like to see (or not)?

For a number of reasons, we have decided to stop our WEEK IN REVIEW series. Our purpose is not to keep tabs of every minute detail of the Obama presidency, but rather to shed light on specific subjects of interest.

WEEK IN REVIEW: MAR 2-6

2009-03-10T23:57:00.006-04:00

Much has transpired over the past two days but I won't get into it yet. Unfortunately, we've been too busy to post the most recent week in review well and on time, but here goes nothing...

The big story in the first days of March was healthcare, an area that needs a whole lot of work. There is no good reason for the all the problems plaguing the medical system in the US. Pharmaceutical and insurance companies continue to rake in billions at the expense of all the rest of us (including many doctors). Unless Obama's healthcare agenda reverses this trend, it will only make matters worse, especially since there is no money to spend. Whatever his plan may be, it will not be easy to fix the problem.

Here's a brief rundown of some things that happened in week nine...

MONDAY:
- Obama announced Kathleen Sebelius - a former insurance executive - as his latest pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are still many posts left to fill...

TUESDAY:
- The President of the United States met with the British Prime Minster... no big deal.
- Meanwhile, members of Congress debated Obama's massive budget on Captiol Hill
- In other news the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese president Omar Al Bashir. In ambiguously supporting the ICC decision, The president seems to be suggesting that he values justice over peace. If only that were something that applied in other hot zones.

WEDNESDAY:
- Obama announced plans to overhaul the way that contracts are managed and awarded. While this may seem like bad news for big firms with well-to-do shareholders, it is probably little more than a publicity stunt.
- In the evening he hosted members of Congress at the White House in hopes of convincing them to back his budget plans.

THURSDAY:
- A mass of people attended the White House Forum on Health Reform that lasted all afternoon despite the fact that there is still nobody in charge of that department. Nevertheless, President Obama called for a comprehensive overhaul of the healthcare system (his reforms could cost US taxpayers $2.5 trillion while still leaving over 45 million uninsured)
- VP Biden spoke to the AFL-CIO Executive Council in Miami – he reitetreated the WH position that “a strong middle class needs a strong labor movement.” Considering most middle-class workers in the US are not members of any unions, he is probably wrong.
- While participating in some positive charity work, FLOTUS Michelle Obama had a rather bizarre phot-op at a homeless shelter.
- US District Judge James Robertson threw out a lawsuit questioning Obama’s citizenship. He ordered the prosecution to to show why it hadn't violated court rules barring frivolous cases and why the plaintiff' should not have to pay Obama's attorney for wasting his time. Amen to that! Still no news on the other case I keep yapping about.

FRIDAY:
- Obama spoke at a graduation ceremony for police recruits in Ohio where he sought to justify his gigantic spending bill.
- Barack toughened his stance on whaling, a move that is sure to upset some people in Japan. I'm not fan of animal cruelty, but I've heard that whale meat is absolutely delicious.
- The president announced plans for some more foreign policy appointments... More on this later.
- Right before the weekend, the White House signaled that limits on stem-cell research would be lifted (more on that some other time).

BEAST IN THE MIDDLE EAST

2009-03-02T18:26:00.024-05:00

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: Barack Obama could not have picked anyone worse than Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State. In her first official trip to the Middle East, Bill's wife showed her true colors when speaking about Gaza and Hamas. Like her boss, she continued to spew Bush-era talking points without shame. She spoke to reporters Monday after a Gaza "reconstruction" conference in Sharm El Sheikh. Her demeanor was unpleasant as usual. Here is some of what she had to say:

"Hamas is not a country. It is an entity that has to understand what the principles for any engagement are, not just from the United States. The Quartet – which consists of the United Nations, Russia, the European Union, and the United States – as well as the Arab League are in agreement that there are certain principles that Hamas would have to adopt in order for any of us to engage with Hamas: recognize Israel, renounce violence, and agree to abide by the prior PLO agreements. Now that is not the United States talking. That is the Quartet and the Arab League. Everyone knows what Hamas must do, and it is up to Hamas."

By putting the onus for political participation squarely on Hamas, Secretary Clinton is making it clear that the US will continue to support Israel blindly, no matter what the consequences. Hamas is ready to negotiate - they have been for years. The problem is that Israeli leaders have no desire to place themselves in any position where a viable peace would be in reach, thus the pre-conditions we keep hearing about.

Hillary Clinton has long been a 'friend' of Israel so nobody should be expecting any surprises from her. If Obama plans to make things better (he doesn't) he'll fire her (he won't). Sadly, there is little hope for improvement with Hill-dog in charge of diplomacy. She will make every effort to stifle any meaningful negotiations by ensuring Israeli interests are never compromised.

While Obama at least pretends to be reaching out to Iran, his Secretary of State is already signaling that such efforts will be in vain. Surprisingly, she managed to shake hands with Syrian FM Walid Muallem... it's too bad he didn't twist her arm.

WEEK IN REVIEW: FEB 23-27

2009-03-01T21:57:00.015-05:00

President Obama started his eighth week in office with a promise to cut the national deficit in half by the end of his first term. Considering the massive spending package he recently signed into law, that may seem a little too optimistic. With time it is becoming ever more clear that despite the dire economic situation we are currently in, our new president intends to spend money we don't have in hopes of making things better. By the end of the week, Barack made his intention to raise the deficit abundantly clear.

The media highlight of the week was a toss up between an appearance at a Washington Wizards game, and his first 'State of the Union' type speech. It was typical Obama... flourishing rhetoric reminiscent of his campaign days. Unfortunately, the address was quite weak on substance as the Associated Press dutifully pointed out. In many ways, the Republican response was stronger (from a political perspective). While the president sounded more optimistic in discussing what lies ahead, he delivered a laundry list of promises he is unlikely to deliver on them all.

It's too early to pass judgment on the Obama administration's handling of the economic situation, but if his budget proposal is any sign of things to come, there may be real cause for concern. Unsurprisingly, they want to spend a lot of money. Hopes that the stimulus and bailout packages will increase economic growth are probably misplaced. Republicans are gearing up for a fight, and in his weekly video address Obama affirmed his commitment to fight back. There are no real causes for optimism at the time being when it comes to the economy.

In other news this week, VP Joe Biden presided over the first meeting of the Middle Class Task Force in Philadelphia - the focus was on green jobs. We'll see what actually happens (and how much it costs), but at least the administration appears to be moving in the right direction when it comes to the environment.

Obama laid out his plans for Iraq at Camp Lejeune; among other things, he decided to give the military a little more time to get the job done, electing for a 19 month timeline as opposed to the 16 months he promised while campaign. No big deal really... unless 19 becomes 24 or more. Whatever the case, the military will have its hands full in Afghanistan. It's a rocky road...

NEW KID ON THE BLOCK

2009-02-24T23:08:00.012-05:00

Unsurprisingly, President Obama's first address to a joint session of Congress was a good one... even if I still couldn't shake the reminders of the campaign days. Although, he was conciliatory and refreshingly positive in his outlook, there was nothing new that would warrant me writing much more...

What I found to be relatively impressive - and noteworthy - was the Republican response delivered by the 37-year old Governor of Louisiana. Aside from most of his rhetoric on 'national security' the speech was solid. He started out by highlighting the significance of Obama's presidency and he immediately drew a personal comparison as the son of Indian immigrants. Bobby Jindal then went on to make a number of points that are difficult to argue against. He pointed out the resiliency of the American people (as opposed to the US government) and he lamented the passage of a stimulus bill that many argue comes at far too high a price. He also spoke the truth about healthcare reform - specifically that bureaucrats should not be in a position to tell medical professionals what and what not to do. Sounds pretty reasonable to me...

2012? Probably not.

There is nothing good I can say about our two-party system. But there are some good things to be said about the Republican party. One of the reasons so many progressive people have such a negative view of the Grand Old Party is the racist stigma attached to it. Even if Jindal had what it took to be the next presidential candidate (I don't know enough about the guy yet), there is no way the majority of Republican voters would rally behind him.

For the record - I am not a Republican (not that it would be any worse than being a Democrat). But the fact is that there is good in both parties, which is precisely why we need more than two to choose from.

WEEK IN REVIEW: FEB 17-20

2009-02-22T23:14:00.006-05:00

Another relatively uneventful week... which culminated with Mr. O's 30th day on the job. As numerous observers have remarked, it almost seems as though he is back on the campaign trail trying to muster support. It's worth mentioning that after a month, he still does not have a Secretary of Commerce or a Secretary of Health and Human Services - that is inexcusable. For those who needed it, we were reminded how far we still have to go before overcoming racism. Things haven't been going to well for him lately... no wonder Junius has been so silent!

As in any week, there were a few notable occurrences. Here are some of them:

With great fanfare, President Obama And Vice President Biden travelled to Denver and signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the 'stimulus' plan). Many people are calling it all a big waste of money which incidentally we don't have. With so much money already going to the people who need it least, Obama sought to reiterate his commitment to those really suffering from the mortgage crisis. For the fourth consecutive week, his video address was dedicated to the economic situation (and the politics behind it). Let's see what happens next...
Obama took his first trip abroad... traveling all the way to Canada. Even in his 'foreign policy' Barack is going to great lengths to prove his commitment to the domestic agenda - Canada and the US are the word's largest trading partners.
Hillary Clinton took her first official trip as Secretary of State. The main purpose of her trip was essentially to beg for help. Too bad we couldn't send someone more likable...
Unsurprisingly, Obama approved a request by the Secretary of Defense for an additional 17,000 troops in Afghanistan. There will be more of them... and more suicide bombings. Of course, US jets continue to make life miserable for Afghanis.
The White House reminded us all that things haven't really changed that much when it comes to (the lack of) transparency of questionable policies on national security.

BAD TASTE

2009-02-20T23:23:00.015-05:00

I hesitated to post it, but people need to see the truth (if they haven't already). I can only see two possible explanations for this cartoon: either those behind it are straight up racists, or it was some sort of a pathetic attempt to comment on the idiotic notion of 'post-racialism.' Maybe the fools at the New York Post who allowed this cartoon to be published were conducting some sort of experiment. But probably not.

Protesters took to the street after a worthless apology. Some people are either unwilling or incapable of admitting their flaws. Here is what the editor in chief had to say about it:

The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington’s efforts to revive the economy.

Sounds like a load of crap to me... Whatever their true motives, they must have known it would be offensive to most people. Clearly they did not care. Many of the newspaper's employees are understandably upset.

While the cartoon immediately touched a nerve for me, that would not have been true if W was still president. He was always depicted as some sort of apish buffoon... and that was cool.

I don't see the value in this "politically correct" culture of ours. It only leads to increased naivety and a false sense of reality. Most political cartoonists are feeling the need to be overly cautious. There is a good reason for that - this country is still not over its issues with race. Excessive caution is unfortunate but also understandable. Even I am willing to tolerate it sometimes.

The monkey cartoon is distasteful and it is racist (by US standards), but in an ideal world it would not be a problem. We don't yet live in an ideal world... even if there is a Black man in the White House.

I'd be curious to hear what he has to say about this whole thing.

NO LOVE FOR DAVID RODEARMEL?

2009-02-16T00:56:00.009-05:00

A few weeks ago I posted about a State Department employee who filed a lawsuit alleging Hillary Clinton is constitutionally illegible to serve as Secretary of State. Mr Rodearmel seems like an uptight nerd but the guy intrigues me... I wish him well in his current endeavor but I'm not fooling myself.

While the reasoning behind David's case may be technically sound (it seems to me that it is), as a recent Wall Street Journal article explains, he lacks "standing" so the case is unlikely to make it to court. Here is a brief excerpt:

The idea of standing flows from the Constitution, which grants federal courts jurisdiction over "cases" or "controversies." The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that courts can't give advisory opinions or make policy pronouncements, and only should decide disputes where the plaintiff alleges "concrete" and "particularized" harm, rather than what Justice Antonin Scalia has called "purely psychological displeasure."

I'm no lawyer, but think I can understand the argument. Still, what mechanisms are in place to rectify constitutional violations, something Hillary Clinton's current position very well may be?

WEEK IN REVIEW: FEB 9-13

2009-02-15T21:11:00.011-05:00

In his third full week as president, it seemed as though all Barack Obama's attention was focused on the worsening economic crisis. 37 million viewers tuned into his first primetime press conference where he hoped to drive his message home. It was more exciting than most of his previous appearances as president, but the bar was set pretty low.

There were several other television appearances throughout the week. He smiled for cameras from Indiana to Florida as he sought to reiterate his resolve to the American people. (He also traveled to Illinois to address the workers who help maintain the brutal occupation of Palestinians in the West Bank.)

Fortunately for Obama, his people run Congress - it mattered not that every Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the bill. Things in the Senate were a little more interesting... the vote was held open for over five hours as a handful of staffers waited for Senator Brown to return from his mother's wake to seal the deal.

Understandably, a big deal was made of Lincoln's bicentennial. Obama took to the cameras again and delivered another one of his speeches.

The biggest hit he took came from Republican Senator Judd Gregg who withdrew from consideration for Secretary of Commerce, citing "irresolvable conflicts" with Obama and his polices. Although Bill Richardson stepped away because of a scandal, Gregg left for political reasons further damaging the president's efforts at bi-partisanship. Even if he is planning to exit on a high note, the significance of Gregg's withdrawal should not be underestimated - it served as a rallying point for Republicans and fiscal conservatives of all stripes.

Not much happened on the foreign policy front... The White House must have watched the outcome of the Israeli elections with apprehension... Richard Holbrooke traveled around Afghanistan where he was greeted by a series of suicide bombings... Pakistan also remained in the adminstration's crosshairs... Later in the week, rumors emerged of potential Russian cooperation on the much disputed missile defense shield...

On the national security front, the adminstration began a sweeping cybersecurity review. True to form, the Democrats are getting their hands dirty in all facets of government... I'm not hopeful about this stimulus, especially considering the money needed to pay for it is not available. Either Obama and the nation will emerge victorious when it's all said and done, or his party will screw things up so badly that voters will turn to their other alternative which is equally bad.

We need real change we can believe in...

QUITE A MOUTHFUL

2009-02-10T00:34:00.000-05:00

President Obama gave a major press conference on Monday night (prime-time on the east coast). He was discussing the dire straights of the national economy and the steps he feels need to be taken in order to make things better. As the Senate prepares to vote on its version of the stimulus package, Barack took to the airwaves to defend his, and he did so with more passion that usual. Although it was slightly overdue, it was another solid oratory performance. Here are some of the more notable excerpts:

It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs. And breaking that cycle is exactly what the plan that’s moving through Congress is designed to do...

Tax cuts alone cannot solve all our economic problems – especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans. We have tried that strategy time and time again, and it has only helped lead us to the crisis we face right now...

More than 90% of the jobs created by this plan will be in the private sector...

The plan that ultimately emerges from Congress must be big enough and bold enough to meet the size of the economic challenge we face right now. It is a plan that is already supported by businesses representing almost every industry in America; by both the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO... It also contains an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability, so that every American will be able to go online and see where and how we’re spending every dime...

My administration inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion, but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression, doing too little or nothing at all will result in an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes; and confidence. That is a deficit that could turn a crisis into a catastrophe. And I refuse to let that happen.

A good speech, but not without its flaws. First of all, I don't understand how the government can be the only one that can "break the vicious cycle" we're in. There are many who believe the government was directly to blame for the predicament we find ourselves in today. And although Obama later implied that Republicans and the previous administration were responsible for the mess he inherited, most experts agree that many of the problems began the last time we had a Democrat in office.

Obama justified the size of the bill by saying that it had been approved by businesses of all sectors, and union bodies. Like most 'liberals' the president is major supporter of unions who simply do not represent the American working class as we are intended to believe. Unfortunately, reporters often fail to point that out when given a chance.

As in any press conference, the fun part came when the questions began. Our new president is not as entertaining as his predecessor, but watching him interact with the press is starting to become more amusing.

The first question came from the Associated Press, and it was related to the economy. Obama talked about politicians who are philosophically opposed to any form of government intervention in financial matters. He went on to defend the massive tag on the stimulus package, adding that "it wasn't some random number I just plucked out of a hat." He said that TARP funding should be conditioned on financial restraint, but he provided no clear guidelines as to how that could be achieved.

A couple other comments on the economy stuck out, such as his claim that "consumer spending did not get us into this mess" but banks taking on major risks. I would't argue with that, but I wouldn't dismiss consumer spending as irrelevant either - there are millions of people who simply bought more than they could afford. Nevertheless, it is ultimately the system that poses the biggest problem, and we aren't hearing of any major efforts to change the fundamental weaknesses in that system. Maybe Tim Geithner will impress, but that seems doubtful. This administration has so much on its plate that it is bound to screw up in some way.

Luckily some of the correspondents took advantage of the opportunity to ask foreign policy questions, most of which were total softballs. Even though it was coated in sugar, we heard the same stuff about Iran that W used to say. We also heard the president reiterate the importance he sees in Afghanistan, calling it a "big challenge" and admitting that he does not know how long he will have troops in there tearing it up. But the highlight of it all came when he called on veteran reporter Helen Thomas. Once again she gave him his toughest challenge and he failed miserably...

Oh well, the focus was on the economy.

Still, I'm not feeling this president at all right about now.

DISAPPOINTING...?

2009-02-09T22:11:00.026-05:00

[UPDATE BELOW]
Today, a DOJ lawyer appearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of President Obama did something which is already upsetting many, many people. For years, liberals fumed over the Bush administration's invocation of the "state secrets privilege" to prevent courts from hearing cases related to its "extraordinary rendition" program, by which the US has turned over detainees for harsh interrogation in other countries. Many tied this program directly to former President Bush, given his shameful policy on the harsh treatment of detainees in American custody, and expected extraordinary new transparency regarding this program once President Obama took office. However, today the DOJ lawyer mentioned above made clear that the government was still invoking the state secrets privilege in seeking the dismissal of a claim related to extraordinary rendition.

This is a real punch to the gut for left-leaners and libertarians who championed Obama. To their minds, his election meant a 180 degree turn from the Bush administration's detention policy, including extraordinary rendition. And justifiably so - Obama was unequivocal in his denunciation of torture and his promise that it would not occur under his administration. This is why his first executive orders closing Guantanamo, ensuring compliance with the Geneva Convention and starting a review of detention policy were so promising. Many will ask why Obama would stop short with extraordinary rendition, a seemingly inhuman practice that should be cast into the waste bin of history along with other Bush-era practices.

Granted. Having not heard the other side of the argument (since the government refuses to give it on national security grounds), this is a deeply troubling decision - one would think that a victim of rendition should get his day in court. A few things should be remembered, though. First: extraordinary rendition was not a policy begun by George W. Bush - it has been used since the early 1990s. As such, rendition is much more of a staple of American foreign policy than liberals may want to admit. Second, a lower federal district court has already reviewed the classified information forming the basis for the DOJ's privilege claim, and found that the claim was well-founded. The lawyer today reminded the Ninth Circuit of this fact:

What the A.C.L.U. is asking, he said, is that the case be allowed to go forward, giving the courts a chance to decide, based on classified information revealed solely to the judge, what should be allowed to be discussed.

But Mr. Letter said that the lower court judge, James Ware, did receive classified information and came to the correct conclusion in dismissing the case last year. He urged the judges to pore over the same material, and predicted “you will understand precisely, as Judge Ware did, why this case can’t be litigated.”

I doubt this is the last we'll hear of this decision. The Ninth Circuit still has to rule on the ACLU's appeal of dismissal, and should they affirm (as I expect they will), there is little doubt that the ACLU will file an appeal with the Supreme Court.

For my part, ambivalence is the word of the day. I'm hesitant to really call Obama out on this. Yes, it certainly does not fit with his campaign rhetoric, and that's unfortunate. But on the other hand, campaigning and governing are two different things, and I'm inclined to trust the Obama administration when they say that the state secrets privilege is genuinely necessary in this case. Plus, this decision doesn't mean that rendition is actually ongoing (though whether it is is anyone's guess) - it simply means that a case involving rendition will not be heard by the courts. I hope the administration has an extremely good reason for this, and further, I hope that it decides to terminate an egregious and hypocritical practice which, along with even worse abuses by the Bush administration, has tarnished America's reputation in the world.

UPDATE: Marc Ambinder over at the Atlantic had an excellent article today about why the Obama administration made this call. The explanation is exactly what one would expect out of an administration that, so far, has shown itself to be prudent, patient and practical. A quick summary:

Officials decided that it would be imprudent to reverse course so abruptly because they realized they didn't yet have a full picture of the intelligence methods and secrets that underlay the privilege's assertions, because the privilege might correctly protect a state secret, and because the domino effect of retracting it could harm legitimate cases, both civil and criminal, that are already in progress.

"If you decide today precipitously to waive this privilege, you can't get it back," an administration official said. "If you decide to assert it, you can always retract it in the future."

WEEK IN REVIEW: FEB 2-6

2009-02-07T23:58:00.032-05:00

Without a doubt, the honeymoon is over...
President Obama's third week in office seemed to have been his worst yet. He had been hoping to push his monstrous stimulus package through Congress. There was some 'progress' early on, but after a very long Friday, the Senate adjourned after having accomplished nothing of any real significance. It seems there is no shortage of problems with the proposed legislation; it is a weak attempt at a quick fix with potentially devastating long-term consequences. Barack stepped up the rhetoric in an effort to get the bill approved. Something is likely to pass next week... then we can start looking into the issues affecting its implementation.

But concerns over the ECONOMY were not limited to the stimulus bill:

Obama is going to need all the help he can get, and on Friday he named an economic advisory panel to do just that. Another speech...
In a move that received mixed reviews, the president announced that executives whose companies are receiving federal aid will have their salaries capped at $500,000. Personally, I think that figure is a little bit high... and undeserved (to say the least).
Perhaps the most disappointing act pertaining to the economy was the executive order backing the use of union labor for all large-scale federal construction projects. It's worth noting that over 80% of construction workers are not unionized... but I guess that doesn't matter to a Democratic politician who received over a billion dollars in campaign contributions from labor unions. It's also worth pointing out that this was a resurrection of an order from the Clinton administration that W had scrapped.

There were several other important developments that are not directly related to the economy and the current financial crisis:

Bad HUMAN RESOURCES continued to plague Obama's growing administration. The latest casualties were the nominees for Secretary of Health and Human Services as well as Chief Performance Officer. It wasn't Tom Daschle's bad taste in glasses that cost him the job but his failure to properly pay his taxes; the same was true for Nancy Killefer. The president did the very least he could do by admitting he made a mistake. It seems as though we have yet to see the end of this drama - Obama's pick for Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis is now under scrutiny as well. On the more promising side of things, the new nominee for Secretary of Commerce is a Republican; he replaces another one of Obama's picks who was forced to keep it moving...
There was marginal progress on the HEALTHCARE front despite the Daschle setback. After the House approved the legislation, President Obama signed a new bill that extends health insurance coverage to millions of children from low-income families. This was an initiative W shot down at least twice during his eight years in office. In some other good news, the president tried to hold the miserable FDA accountable for failing to do its job.
One of the issues that needs serious attention is EDUCATION. Obama must have had that in mind when he and his wife visited a DC charter school where they read to a second grade class. The president had a lot of good things to say about charter schools during the campaign so his choice of venue was not surprising, nor were his remarks when it was all said and done. Maybe next time the Obamas can go to a rundown DC public school where learning (and teaching) is a real challenge. Unfortunately, it seems that education is not a real priority for the US government.
RELIGION continued to play a central role in the life and times of our new president. Thursday February 5th started with a National Prayer Service where the despicable Tony Blair delivered the keynote address. President Obama also spoke and explained what he hoped to achieve in establishing the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (a remixed version of W's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives). Later on in the day he announced that the department would be headed by Joshua DuBois, a 26 year old pastor who found his calling after the murder of Amadou Diallo. As a 17-year old freshman in college, he stood in front of the MLK monument in Boston for 41 hours - one hour for each bullet. He seems like a good guy...
Attention shifted to the SUPREME COURT early in the week when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disclosed her treatment for pancreatic cancer. Her openness was exemplary, but she plans to return to the bench in a couple weeks. Even if she does end up stepping down, the court's makeup would not change much - she is one of the most liberal of the justices and it is highly unlikely that Obama would appoint another Clarence Thomas.
FOREIGN POLICY & NATIONAL SECURITY remained high on the new administration's list of priorities. After the Department of Defense finally dropped charges against the alleged mastermind of the USS Cole bombing - bringing the department in compliance with Obama's executive order calling on all proceedings at GITMO to be suspended - he met with family members of the attack and 9/11 to assure them that his administration had only pushed pause on prosecuting the bad guys. In an effort to maximize maneuverability, officials also announced that two different withdrawal plans were being considered for Iraq. Of course, the new quagmire is likely to be in Afghanistan (and Pakistan).
Finally, in a bit of good news for the ENVIRONMENT (and US consumers), the president ordered the Department of Energy to set new effiency standards for most household appliances.

WHO IS DAVID RODEARMEL?

2009-02-01T23:55:00.010-05:00

On Thursday, a self styled "non-partisan educational foundation" filed a lawsuit on behalf of a right-wing State Department employee claiming that Hillary Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State. David Rodearmel says serving under her would go against the oath he took as a foreign service officer to uphold the Constitution of the United States. In a statement he said:

"This is not a partisan, political or personal issue... I have faithfully served under six prior Secretaries of State of both parties… As a commissioned State Department Foreign Service Officer, a retired Army Reserve Judge Advocate Officer, and as a lawyer, I consider it my Constitutional duty to bring this case to the court."

While I have to give this guy his props for trying to take down Hill-dog (his efforts will probably be futile) something about him rubs me the wrong way. Still, I'll be watching for him in the unlikely event he does anything more than dig himself into a hole of irrelevance. I wonder what he hopes to accomplish other than gain favor with the Republican community.

The group who is helping Rodearmel out (it's probably the other way around) is none other than Judicial Watch - the same organization that came to fame when it filed over a dozen unsuccessful lawsuits against the Clintons during the last Democrat administration. More recently, they attempted to stifle the confirmation of Eric Holder, and they tried ludicrously to challenge Obama's rights to be president. This is the same group who sued a Virginia city to stop a day laborer program on the grounds that it provides employment for illegal immigrants. The group has also filed lawsuits against people like Dick Cheney. Its list of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" is an interesting list of asses and elephants.

The case against Clinton will be fun if it ever gets to court (read more about it here, and scroll down to read some of the nutty comments). Judge Reggie Walton will preside. In an ideal world he will prevent Hillary from doing any more damage to the face of the nation than her predecessor and her boss. Too bad we don't live in an ideal world...

Hopefully, we'll get to see Mr Rodearmel in action at the very least. I have a feeling we'll be disappointed.

WEEK IN REVIEW: JAN 26-30

2009-01-31T22:01:00.032-05:00

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?!

2009-01-26T22:51:00.001-05:00

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...

2009-01-26T04:21:00.012-05:00

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

2009-01-24T02:20:00.022-05:00

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:

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).
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:

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.
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.
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

2009-01-21T01:23:00.007-05:00

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!)

2009-01-20T23:57:00.003-05:00

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

2009-01-20T16:44:00.006-05:00

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...."

2009-01-20T13:28:00.036-05:00

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...

2009-01-20T08:29:00.065-05:00

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?

2009-01-20T00:34:00.004-05:00

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

2009-01-19T23:22:00.009-05:00

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

2009-01-19T02:34:00.005-05:00

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

2009-01-14T12:08:00.011-05:00

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

2009-01-13T15:07:00.005-05:00

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)

2009-01-12T21:42:00.028-05:00

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...

2009-01-12T18:37:00.005-05:00

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?

2009-01-09T23:39:00.003-05:00

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

2009-01-08T13:25:00.001-05:00

Part 1

Part 2

A HUGE LOAD

2009-01-08T01:12:00.016-05:00

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

2009-01-06T16:44:00.015-05:00

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.

NO HOPE FOR CHANGE

2008-12-29T00:34:00.008-05:00

Barack Obama's silence on Gaza is no surprise, but it is a major disappointment for anyone still hoping that he could be an objective arbiter in the Mideast peace process. Over the past 48 hours, 300 Palestinians have lost their lives under Israeli (and US made) bombs. The world has made its reaction clear, but all we know from Obama is that he's "monitoring" the situation.

The US media is overly forgiving and dismissive of his refusal to say anything substantive. This is partially due to the holiday season and Obama being on vacation. However, it should be noted that he released an official statement on Christmas day mourning the passing of Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf. The situation in Gaza is far more serious. So let's be real - the whole 'holiday' excuse is meaningless.

Appearing on the Sunday morning talk shows, Obama's senior advisor, David Axelrod reiterated his boss's previous comment (or lack thereof) and his undying commitment to the state of Israel. He also dutifully reminded us that there is only one president at a time - the convenient refrain we hear whenever the Obama team refuses to answer pertinent questions.

Barack Obama has consistently released statements on major world events. Lesser occurrences have also gotten him to speak out, especially when they have anything to do with Israeli interests; for example, he immediately denounced Mahmoud Ahmadenijad's speech at the UN General Assembly a few months ago. His silence now is totally inexcusable... unless one accepts that Obama does not care about the Palestinians. At least we know he cares about Israelis, Americans, Indians and Pakistanis.

What the Israelis are doing now to Gaza is completely inexcusable (the same is true for the devastating blockade that has lasted far too long). I couldn't help but laugh during a local FOX news report that described the fear in Israel - they showed a guy running somewhere while talking on his cell phone with a big smile on his face. Meanwhile, images coming out of Gaza are truly horrific. Surely Obama watches the news (maybe even on Al Jazeera).

He will eventually speak and say something like this:

The recent events in Gaza are tragic and the loss of civilian life is regrettable. However, the Israelis have a right to live in security. This could have been avoided. The fine folks I met in Sderot should not have to worry about rockets raining down on them. Enough is enough! Hamas needs to cede control of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority (under Israeli supervision). They need to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist. Until they do that, the Israelis have every right to stay on the defensive. The US needs to stand behind our stalwart ally.

My expectations of Obama have always been low, especially when it came to the Middle East, however, I've always maintained high hopes. With every day that passes though, reality settles in and I find myself hopeless. The people in Gaza have been virtually hopeless for decades - the truth hurts. Over the next few days their lives will continue to be be shattered along with most of their surroundings. The prospects of Arab-Israeli peace look bleak as ever and our incoming president doesn't seem like he will help at all. We'll have to wait and see what happens after January 20th, but there doesn't seem to be any hope for change as far as US policy on Israel is concerned.

To his credit, I believe that Obama is crushed by what is happening in Gaza; I think he understands the plight of the Palestinians. Unfortunately, he refuses to admit that to the people who elected him... maybe even to himself. The result is a cognitive dissonance I've written about before. He is unsure of himself because he feels compelled to act contrary to his convictions. There are two possible outcomes - his 'true' beliefs will shine through, or he will be corrupted by the beast of politics. Regrettably, it seems the latter is true. Who knows? Perhaps he was corrupted long ago.

STILL COMMITTED

2008-12-21T23:02:00.020-05:00

For weeks now, the meme on the blogosphere has been that President-elect Obama has been slowly alienating the coalition that elected him. From his appointment of centrists to his cabinet to the recent flap over his invitation of evangelical Christian minister Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration, there’s been plenty of red meat for those commentators who are chomping at the bit to declare that the Change We Need is dead before arrival.

For that reason, I found it extremely telling to read the President-elect’s interview with TIME in the forthcoming Person-of-the-Year issue. Throughout his (admittedly brief) time in national politics, Barack Obama’s most defining habit has been candor - in spite of ideology and, to some extent, even in spite of politics. He hasn’t been afraid to speak frankly when simply falling in line and not making much noise would be more politically expedient. It’s what brought him to the brink of voting for John Roberts’ confirmation to the Supreme Court, before offering a thoughtful and well-reasoned explanation of his ultimate opposition. It is also explains why during the Rev. Wright scandal, his first instinct was to give an honest, unprecedented and statesmanlike speech on race at the height of the most damaging controversy of his presidential campaign, when the easier route would have been to simply give a categorical denunciation, as he did once Wright forced his hand.

More to the point, it is what drove him to set concrete expectations for what his administration must achieve in its first years during the TIME interview. This candor is the mark of a supremely confident person, who knows what he wants to accomplish and how to do it, and does not fear the consequences of showing his cards, albeit briefly. But while Obama’s willingness to set expectations was unsurprising, what was still remarkable to me was the height of the bar he has set:

On [domestic] policy, have we helped this economy recover from what is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression? Have we instituted financial regulations and rules of the road that assure this kind of crisis doesn't occur again? Have we created jobs that pay well and allow families to support themselves? Have we made significant progress on reducing the cost of health care and expanding coverage? Have we begun what will probably be a decade-long project to shift America to a new energy economy? Have we begun what may be an even longer project of revitalizing our public-school systems so we can compete in the 21st century? That's on the domestic front.

On foreign policy, have we closed down Guantánamo in a responsible way, put a clear end to torture and restored a balance between the demands of our security and our Constitution? Have we rebuilt alliances around the world effectively? Have I drawn down U.S. troops out of Iraq, and have we strengthened our approach in Afghanistan — not just militarily but also diplomatically and in terms of development? And have we been able to reinvigorate international institutions to deal with transnational threats, like climate change, that we can't solve on our own?

And outside of specific policy measures, two years from now, I want the American people to be able to say, "Government's not perfect; there are some things Obama does that get on my nerves. But you know what? I feel like the government's working for me. I feel like it's accountable. I feel like it's transparent. I feel that I am well informed about what government actions are being taken. I feel that this is a President and an Administration that admits when it makes mistakes and adapts itself to new information, that believes in making decisions based on facts and on science as opposed to what is politically expedient." Those are some of the intangibles that I hope people two years from now can claim.

Reading this laundry list, one must be reminded that the president-elect is not describing what he thinks he'll achieve by January 2017, when he hopes to retire to Hyde Park. He is setting benchmarks for what his administration must deliver within two years, in order to deserve a reprieve from the obligatory flogging most presidents take in midterm elections.

Though this won’t happen, this interview should put to rest the firestorm in the blogosphere about Obama’s supposed abandonment of progressive policy goals. The main ingredients of Obama’s campaign promises are all there: close Guantanamo. Restore transparency and accountability in government. End substantial American involvement in Iraq. Move early on health care reform. Provide the catalyst for a green energy revolution. At the core of each of these changes is the elimination of an eight-year thorn in liberals’ sides: torture, executive overreaching, economic inequality, etc. Once the conventional wisdom about Obama’s supposed “triangulation” is swept aside, one simple fact remains: the president-elect is just as committed to his campaign agenda now as he was the day before he was elected. He isn't backpedaling on the big questions.

Nor is he unrealistic about the challenges ahead. Though he offers a robust agenda, he also seems to recognize that he will only be able to begin the work on many of the key tasks. The important point now, though, is not whether or not all of these goals are accomplished by November 2, 2010. It is that starting late next month, we will have a president who was not afraid to set a high bar for himself, even in the immediate aftermath of an election - who was willing, at the farthest possible point from electoral consequence, to recommit himself to an ambitious agenda.

This might be dismissed by some as post-election euphoria and blustering. But at a time when the country teeters on the edge of a new depression, I think it cannot be shrugged off so lightly. To me, it can only mean one thing: the new president is ideologically committed to the goals he laid out in his campaign. He is, at heart, a liberal – a pragmatic one, to be sure, who might disdain the label for fear of alienating potential partners, but a liberal nonetheless. Those liberals who fear a turncoat president should be pleased at their good fortune. The next president won’t just enact liberal policies: like FDR, it seems he will use pragmatism and transparency to give them a legitimate, durable new label: centrist.

(P.S.: sorry for the lack of posts lately. Obligations in the real world got a little crazy recently. Posting will be more frequent in the future.)

I'M GONNA MISS THIS GUY...!

2008-12-14T15:21:00.007-05:00

If you haven't already seen it, watch the video.

By no means am I a fan of George W. Bush, but I know I'm not alone when I say I'll be missing him. Obviously it has nothing to do with his policies or what he stands for. Over the past eight years, he has been a steady source of entrainment. Afterall, how often do we have the pleasure of seeing our president (impressively) dodge flying shoes during a press conference in a foreign country? So what if most people either don't respect him or despise him? At least he makes us (and them) laugh!

Barack Obama on the other hand is far from entertaining. Eloquent bouts of rhetoric notwithstanding, his press conferences are boring at best. He tries to crack a joke every now and then, but he only comes off as corny. I guess being smooth and funny don't always go hand in hand. There is at least one benefit to that: we won't have people all over the world laughing at our president anymore!

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

2008-12-10T21:43:00.020-05:00

In his first newspaper interview since being elected president, Barack HUSSEIN Obama implied that he will use his full name when taking the presidential oath of office. The reasoning he provided for this was one of tradition, saying "I'll do whatever everybody else does." However, it should be noted that not all presidents have used their full names at previous inaugurations (recent examples include Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan). So we'll have to wait and see what actually happens on January 20th.

Of course, Barack has often said he will do something only to turn around and do the opposite; to be fair, he didn't actually say he'd use his full name, but it is an inferred promise he's likely to keep. Afterall, media agencies are already reporting that he plans to "reach out" to the Muslim world. I don't know where that came from... he only mentioned Islam once in the interview; in response to a question regarding his intention to deliver some major speech at a Muslim capitol, he said the following:

"This is something that I talked about doing in the campaign and it's something that I intend to follow through on. What the time frame is, how we structure that, you know, is something that I will determine with my national security team in the coming weeks and months.

But I think we've got a unique opportunity to reboot America's image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular.

So, we need to take advantage of that and the message I want to send is that we will be unyielding in stamping out the kind of terrorist extremism that we saw in Mumbai.

We will be at the same time unrelenting in our desire to create a relationship of mutual respect and partnership with countries and peoples of goodwill who want their citizens and ours to prosper together. And I think that the world is ready for that message."

Barack is supposed to be a smart well-rounded guy (he appears to understand things), but he seems intent on heading down the same erroneous path. First of all, the image of the Muslim community needs to be rebooted just as badly in the American psyche as does America's image in the Muslim world; this is a fundamental point that US officials either do not understand or refuse to accept. If that sounds inaccurate, ask yourself why Obama was mentioning national security when he should have been invoking democracy. I realize the future Secretary of State is part of the national security team, but exact words are important, especially when they come out the mouth of a trained lawyer. Despite the problem of extremism in the Muslim world, Obama should not continue to view it through the cloudy lens of suspicion and fear. Maybe his advisors continue to serve him badly, or maybe he's been effectively brainwashed. Maybe he genuinely believes the things he says. Nevertheless, objective diplomacy is needed if the barriers between the US and the Muslim world are to be overcome, not more of the same.

On inauguration day, Americans need to be reminded that their new president has 'Muslim blood' in his veins. Obama said he's "not trying to make a statement one way or another" but that is precisely what he needs to do - make a statement. He has repeatedly failed to adequately address problems vis-a-vis the Muslim community; that needs to change. Using his full name when taking the presidential oath will be a small step in the right direction, but one I hope he takes.

He needs to "reboot" the way the US deals with the Muslim world and appreciate mistakes that have been made in the past. Yes, there are fringe groups of extremists who purport to follow Islam, and unfortunately they are not dealt with appropriately. Clearly this has a negative impact on US-Muslim relations. However, there is also considerable blame on the American side. Most importantly, continued blind US support for the state of Israel stands in the way of any rapprochement, especially while the third holiest city in Islam remains under brutal occupation. Let's not forget Afghanistan, Iraq, and (hopefully not) Iran. Of course there are other issues that need to be addressed as well, specifically on the domestic front.

I don't expect much from whatever speech Obama eventually delivers - he will probably talk down to those living in the Muslim world and tell them what they need to do. It's fine for him to give advice, as long as he's willing to take some in return - Americans need to be effectively taught that Islam in and of itself is nothing to be feared (obviously the same applies for Muslims of all ethnic backgrounds). This can be and should be done through policy changes domestically as well as abroad, and ultimately the media needs to drive the message home. Thoughtful rhetoric and verbal flourishes notwithstanding, another anti-extremism spiel will only make matters worse. Of course he should address terrorism, but the primary focus of any message should be promoting tolerance, on both sides.

This is not just about Islam but the general diversity of the American community. To create "a relationship of mutual respect and partnership" we need to foster understanding and mutual self-accountability; arrogance is not the answer. Barack Obama isn't campaigning anymore. Clearly, those expecting his 'true colors' to shine once he takes office are likely in for an unpleasant reality check.

DEFINITELY NOT "POST-RACIAL" (WHATEVER THAT MEANS)

2008-12-07T19:47:00.025-05:00

What does it mean to be post-racial?! I don't remember ever hearing the term before it was used to describe Barack Obama and his candidacy. Whatever it signifies, it's a concept that seems somewhat disturbing. Like Junius, the portrayal of Obama as someone who transcends race is something I have found intriguing and mildly upsetting. I felt the same way about how his campaign was depicted. Afterall, they used the race card to their advantage - it was cleverly disguised as change.

There was absolutely nothing post-racial about Obama's campaign, and try as they might to convince impressionable Americans otherwise, there is nothing post-racial about the man himself. He never framed himself as a Black candidate (unlike Clinton who repeatedly stressed her gender), but he didn't need to - that's already how he was seen by everyone. I'm not implying that people could not see past his race, simply that there is no denying the man is Black (even if he is half white).

While I enjoyed reading Marie Arana's piece, I was not convinced by her argument - this country cannot and should not move past race, at least not while some variation of the one-drop rule still applies; doing so would be like pretending all related problems don't exist. I could relate more to the piece Krissah Williams Thompson wrote on the subject, one most Americans are also sure to relate with on some level.

"Post-racialism is relatively easy to understand in a standing-room-only sports arena or at a campaign rally, and it will probably be evident at Obama's inauguration celebrations, where people of all different backgrounds will stand together and cheer. But post-racialism outside that political pageantry gets more complicated. It means the loss of so much that I cherish about who I am and where I come from. Is a colorblind America really what we are striving for? Isn't the point to live lives that are open to differences but still celebrate our unique cultural heritages, family traditions and religions?"

We come in all shades and we observe different traditions that should be embraced all around. Unfortunately, for the time being, hate still abounds. A color blind America would simply be a blind America. We need to confront racism in all its guises, not ignore it or step over it. A Black (non-White) president will help achieve that, but we still have a long way to go. I won't recite the laundry list of racial problems plaguing the US, past or present, but it's hard to deny the beast is still in our midst.

Like many of those Ms Williams interviewed, I too worried that racism would keep Obama outside of the White House. His victory does not make such concerns any less valid - while the number of blatant racists in this country may be relatively low, there are still a large number who have no desire to hide their hatred; some might even act on it.

Towards the end of the campaign, much attention was given to an Al Jazeera English report at a Sarah Palin rally in Ohio where ignorant people made one racist comment after another. Such minds may not represent the majority of Americans, but there are more than enough of them scattered around the country to keep the rest of us on our toes.

Race (at least the way it's perceived by most Americans) was a deciding factor in Obama being elected president. Many people felt compelled to vote for him because he was Black. It wouldn't surprise me if by voting for him, some White people thought they were absolving themselves of any racist tendencies they posses. In a country like the United States where Black people were still disenfranchised 40 years ago, when Barack said he was about change, it resonated loudly by virtue of his ethnicity and name. Change was an easy sell... and a little money didn't hurt either.

There is something about Obama's story that appeals to people of all races - he lived the American dream. He is the son of an immigrant father who wasn't around for long; he worked hard and ended up as the people's choice for president. Maybe he wouldn't have won if he had been a descendant of slaves with a typical American name, but there's not much benefit in such thinking. His victory is indeed one for all Americans, Black, White and everything in between. I'm happiest for the racists who will have no choice but to become used to the idea that their president is not White.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where things are oversimplified - race and racism are no exception. People are black, white, conservative, liberal, Christian or something else. It's easy to use labels, even when their meaning is vague or disputed. Maybe one day we can overcome racial barriers (by accepting one another), but for now, we have elected a Black president. Let's hope he doesn't disappoint too much.

BAD MOVE!

2008-12-02T00:34:00.013-05:00

I've never been a fan of Hillary Clinton's. So it's little wonder that I was almost equally upset by her nomination for Secretary of State as I was pleased by Barack Obama's election as President. I was thrilled when he defeated her in the primaries and I was hoping she'd relegate herself permanently to the Senate and focus her efforts there (i.e. no more worrying about her trying to be president). So much for all that! Not only will she be working closely with a man she seems to look down upon, but despite what she says, she can now angle for her next presidential bid from the comfort of the State Department. Surely being the top diplomat under a historic presidency can't hurt her too much. Sadly, however, I think it hurts the rest of us.

She is not a likable person - not at all. For someone who will be representing the US abroad, that's not a good thing, at least not if we hope to regain respect in the eyes of the world. She is arrogant and exudes an air of baseless self-entitlement. That's not the type of representative this country needs at this point in time. In fact, she embodies one of the worst American stereotypes: an air of selfish infallibility - case in point, her comments on Iran back in May. Even Condi would be better than her.

But my dislike for Hillary aside, I seriously cannot think of one good reason to have her serving in that capcity. Her supporters and Obamaniacs rush to her defense to say that she is a 'strong' and intelligent woman who knows her way around Washington and has (limited) experience abroad. All that is fine and well, but I know at least a dozen others personally who share those same attributes and are equally undeserving of being US Secretary of State. Of course, her biggest advantage remains her last name (the one she got from Bill). If Obama wanted someone shrewd with an assertive personality there must have been others he could have chosen. However, by selecting Clinton he seems intent on solidifying his support within the Democratic party, particularly with the die-hard Hillary supporters who still haven't gotten over her defeat in the primaries; he didn't need to do that, but it was a good move from the Democrats' perspective. More importantly, he has made clear that he is willing to work with his biggest rivals and trust them to do their jobs. I have a bad feeling that his trust in Hillary Clinton is misplaced. At some point, she will probably feel compelled to do things her way.

Much has been said of the team of rivals that Barack Obama is putting together. They are considered such because of their history in Washington (change?), their egos and their strong personalities. The logic is that by having dynamic individuals around him who aren't afraid to make their positions known, Obama will be privy to better advice. There is considerable validity in that argument, but as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, my gut tells me that she is so hell-bent on being president that she will be more a thorn in his side than anything else. She did not seem at ease up on that stage - there was a look in her eye that suggested she wasn't exactly in her element. Afterall, she wants to be the boss, not his helper. (At the very least, she wants to shine.)

As uncomfortable as I am having an Israeli as the White House Chief of Staff (swearing allegiance to any other country would be unacceptable), in my eyes, Clinton has been the worst pick so far. Of course, there is something disconcerting about Obama's choices of economic leaders, considering they played a part in bringing about the current financial crisis. His selection for Attorney General, while aesthetically noteworthy, is also a remnant of the Clinton years. Keeping Robert Gates around makes sense, but there's not much change in that either. The only change I see so far is a willingness to make unusual picks by virtue off their stature. With the exception of Clinton, everyone else seems relatively qualified to do their job. The problem is that they are mostly more of the same. Who's to say that picking someone unheard of couldn't turn out better than making a deal with an 'experienced' Washington insider?

Our president-elect isn't so far off - four years ago most people had no clue who he was. Since setting off on the road to the White House he has promised to do things differently. However, there are no indications that we will be seeing any new faces in his cabinet. I understand the desire to bring aboard experienced (known) people, and in a two-party system it's not surprising that such choices are limited. Will there be any independents in Obama's administration as he promised? Obviously not in the big chairs.

One's memory should span more eight years; whether we realize it or not, the decision makers - with the exceptions of the President and Secretary of State - are the same we have come to love (or hate). While I may be reasonably cool with Obama, I'm obviously not happy about Clinton... for several reasons. We'll see what happens, but as much as it pains me and as much as I'd like to believe otherwise, it seems I'll be watching her just as closely as him from now on.

POST-RACIAL?

2008-12-02T00:05:00.001-05:00

One claim that is often repeated about Barack Obama’s candidacy is that it marked the birth of a “post-racial” America, unhampered by the painful legacy of slavery and segregation. This is repeated by commentators who believe it is true, as well as those who use it as a straw man in taking pot shots at America’s shortcomings in race relations.

I’ve always had a problem with this. There is nothing “post racial” about the 2008 election. While it ultimately culminated in the election of a nonwhite president, racial issues presented hurdles throughout the primary and general election campaigns that would likely have been insurmountable to other candidates. What is remarkable to me about Obama’s election is that he was judged by the content of his character, in spite of having a skin color that was a barrier to such judgment for too many Americans, even now. This is not to say that America is a racist country, or that the election of Barack Obama is not transformative – it is. But it does not somehow mean that we are “past race,” as some people might be comfortable claiming.

Marie Arana discussed the race issue in yesterday’s Washington Post, and she made no such claim. Her column was of the second variety discussed above – she lamented our failure to achieve “post-racial” status and criticized the conception of Obama as a “black” man:

Unless the one-drop rule still applies, our president-elect is not black.

We call him that -- he calls himself that -- because we use dated language and logic. After more than 300 years and much difficult history, we hew to the old racist rule: Part-black is all black. Fifty percent equals a hundred. There's no in-between.

That was my reaction when I read these words on the front page of this newspaper the day after the election: "Obama Makes History: U.S. Decisively Elects First Black President."

The phrase was repeated in much the same form by one media organization after another. It's as if we have one foot in the future and another still mired in the Old South. We are racially sophisticated enough to elect a non-white president, and we are so racially backward that we insist on calling him black. Progress has outpaced vocabulary.

To me, as to increasing numbers of mixed-race people, Barack Obama is not our first black president. He is our first biracial, bicultural president. He is more than the personification of African American achievement. He is a bridge between races, a living symbol of tolerance, a signal that strict racial categories must go.

I understand where Arana is coming from. As a biracial person, she has a great deal invested personally in Obama’s victory, and she can be proud of it. But that doesn’t mean that African Americans can’t claim Obama’s victory as something particularly special. After all, Obama identifies as black. Just because Arana doesn’t identify more with one race in which they have roots doesn’t mean other similarly situated people can’t. Her failure to recognize this strikes me as an ironic form of ethnocentrism: the fact that identifying with a particular race has not been important to her seems to exclude the possibility that it could carry meaning for anyone else.

Worse, her harping on the failure of America to become “post-racial” reeks of the sociological tendency to reject racial distinctions instinctively. It leads people to long for a culture where race is not only eliminated as a barrier, but also eliminated as a defining characteristic. This is a tragic way to look at the world, because it longs for a result that never can (or should) be achieved. Race is, and always has been, a defining characteristic of humanity. It may divide us, but it also provides an opportunity to enrich us: racial difference can be used to encourage people, even from childhood, to look past the surface and be more tolerant and thoughtful in judging each other.

Barack Obama may be biracial, but he has chosen to be a member of black culture. And whether we like it or not, separate cultures (black, white, Asian Latino, Arab-American, etc.) still exist in our country. We should not look at a black man and feel the need to ignore his cultural identity just for the sake of “getting past race.” Race is not something to get past – it is a fact of life to be accepted and cherished. We should not hang our hopes on the day when all the races blend together - barring a horrific genocide or a shameful reversion to nativism, this simply won’t happen. What we should hope and pray for is a country where, despite our cultural differences, we judge each other by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. The election of Barack Obama is, of course, an encouraging step in that direction, and not just because of his own background. In his comments on race (particularly in his "A More Perfect Union" speech from March 2008), I see someone who is unafraid to confront the reality of race in America and build a country that is united in building a better world because of its differences, not because it has shunned those differences.

LOOKING AHEAD

2008-11-21T02:20:00.033-05:00

It's started to settle in for most people - our next president will be Black. But two months is a long time... especially in the realm of politics. Before the Obamas actually move into the White House, Barack and his growing team of officials will be getting ready to do their jobs. This transition period has already been one of the most attentively covered in recent memory. Maybe it's normal for people in the press to know what time the president-elect starts his work out and for how long he stays in the gym, but the material making it through newsroom filters is sometimes just as inconsequential.

Of course, the transition itself is worthy of the media attention it's receiving - every personnel decision will continue to be rightfully scrutinized. But looking ahead, what is it that people will be watching for? What do they expect? What do they want to see? And what will they do to help or hinder progress?

First and foremost, those who voted for him want Obama to put the country on the right track. He and his team will need to 'fix' the economy, by enacting policies that allow for reduced unemployment, better job security, and increased consumerism. Poor legislation not withstanding, confidence needs to be restored to US markets. But people should temper expectations - several other issues also need to be fixed... and everything will cost money: adequately addressing healthcare and social security could drain government coffers (at least in the short term); the American educational system is in need of serious attention and a lot of money - the same is true for prisons; in most big cities, public services need to be improved and infrastructural repairs are required nationwide; any efforts towards affecting climate change will also prove expensive; alternative energy won't come cheap either (we will continue to 'rely' on foreign oil for quite some time). These are only some of the issues that need time and money. It shouldn't be difficult to understand why fixing the economy won't be so easy.

In addition to the many domestic issues on Obama's plate, there are a considerable number of people who want to see the next president improve the United States of America's standing in the international community. Indeed, his election alone goes to considerable ends in achieving that end, but his actions as president (or lack thereof) could reverse the tide. How will he cope with booming Asian economies like those of China and India? Will he do anything positive for the Middle East once he takes office? How will he deal with the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Russia, Cuba, Congo, Somalia, Pakistan, Iran, Israel... the list goes on and on.

Nevertheless, if Barack Obama is to fix this country's woes, he cannot do so on his own. It's not as simple as waving a a magic wand of "change" around. He needs help, and not just from his staff. In his victory speech he reminded Americans of their duty:

"This victory alone is not the change we seek – it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you."

That means a lot of different things. But most importantly, it means that Americans need to hold him and other elected officials accountable when they fail to do the things they should. In other words, if all we get from Barack Obama is cosmetic change and more of the same, we should not re-elect him in 2012. The same is true for any other elected official. Unfortunately, in a two-party system, substantive change is hard to come by. Maybe Obama will surprise us. Who knows?

For now, we need to give him a chance. Afterall, he's not even the president yet. Still, what happens between now and January 20th is crucial to what happens over the next four years. No wonder it's getting so much play in the media.

THE RESIGNATION

2008-11-13T17:03:00.035-05:00

Today, President-elect Obama's campaign announced that he will be resigning from the U.S. Senate effective this Sunday, November 16th. By contrast, his Vice President-elect Joe Biden will be resigning "sometime before" Inauguration Day. Though it's been a while (48 years) since a sitting member of Congress was elected to the presidency, it still seems strange that Obama would resign this early, especially before the Electoral College votes and makes his election legally binding (Clinton resigned in mid-December 1992 after the electoral votes were counted). So what's the deal?

He's avoiding the lame-duck session of Congress beginning on Monday. In most years there wouldn't even be such a session, but this is no ordinary year: our economy continues to suffer as the FDIC fights to stem foreclosures, the Fannie and Freddie takeovers balloon in cost, and most alarmingly, the U.S. auto industry goes up in flames. The problems at GM and Ford are the most relevant issue facing Congress next week, as a new bailout has been proposed to protect the companies from filing for bankruptcy and thus threatening millions of jobs, as well as health care and pension plans. The incoming Obama administration's economic team has lent its support to such a rescue plan, with a string attached: an "auto czar" would be included to ensure that the funds are spent wisely.

My sense is that some sort of support for the auto industry is necessary, at a minimum to ensure that bankruptcy is even a viable option. At this point, it appears likely that the auto industry would not be able to continue functioning while in bankruptcy, unlike other industries. A complete shutdown of the Big Three would cause hardship at any time, but at a time when the economy is teetering on the brink of depression, a new wave of unemployment and restricted consumer spending would be disastrous. As such, I think the government should be willing to provide some sort of support to the industry, while simultaneously requiring re-organization and management changes that would otherwise occur under bankruptcy. Even so, quite a few people think this is a bad idea, and given the stigma attached to the last "bailout," it's not likely that the pill will be easily swallowed. Still, others seem to have concluded that it's a good idea. That appears to include the Obama team. But there's no doubt that if an auto rescue plan passes, all would not suddenly be well: the industry would take months to restabilize and years to retool and reorganize to be competitive in the modern market for energy-efficient vehicles. So anyone who supports this legislation is going to take a hard, short-term hit.

The President-elect of the United States simply cannot be counted in that "Yes" column. The worst thing for Barack Obama to do would be to take office on January 20th while simultaneously licking wounds from a final fight in the Senate. He needs the political cover that can be provided by a wall of his economists writing op-eds; the short-term political fallout for the bailout can be borne by the lame-duck Congress and the outgoing President Bush.

FDR steered clear of Hoover's last policymaking efforts in the waning days of his tenure. In the end, much of his success didn't lie in the righteousness of his policies; it was due to the fact that people thought he knew what he was doing. Obama should do the same, by cutting himself out of the upcoming political debate, letting his economic team fight out the auto bailout indirectly, and assuming the presidency without a cloud over his head and with the confidence of the American people that he will be able to take the country in a new direction. He's taking a step in the right direction by bowing out of the Senate on Sunday.

WATCHING HISTORY

2008-11-12T16:22:00.003-05:00

November 4th, 2008 was one of the most memorable days of my life. On that day, I stood in Grant Park, Chicago and listened to America's first African-American president-elect deliver his victory address. I was one member of a teeming crowd of hundreds of thousands, stretching in every direction as far as the eye could see. Though deep down, I was sure of the result before that day, it was not enough to prevent me from being overtaken by a sense of wonder when the final projection flashed across the big screens. At that moment, complete strangers embraced each other in joy, amazed that such an improbable accomplishment had been achieved - after all, many of those present at the rally remembered a time when blacks could not sit at the same lunch counter as whites. As a 24 year old whose mother was born in a segregated America, it was impossible not to feel proud of my country and privileged to be present as history was made.

But despite this, the success on Election Night was not unimaginable. Like many others, I have spent the last two years intently watching the rise of Barack Obama. When he arrived in the Senate, I followed his legislative agenda and began listening to his weekly podcasts - a remarkable innovation that no other senator had yet attempted. I was impressed by thoughtful approach to questions of policy and his reluctance to provide simple sound bites. When he launched his presidential campaign, I immediately signed on and made my first political contribution - a $25 donation to Obama for America. I marveled as Obama was routinely underestimated and dismissed as unable to act as an effective executive, even as he built and managed the most effective political organization in American history. For the first time, I volunteered my time in a campaign effort, making calls to sign up attorneys for voter protection efforts on Election Day. So when Obama won the presidency with the support of over 68 million Americans, the second-largest victory relative to population size in history, it was hard for me to be surprised.

Since I followed Obama for so long, I came to have faith not just in his promises, but also in his way of thinking. Because of that, I don't think my strong support for his ascendancy matched the irrational hero-worship of some supporters (though some of my friends would probably say otherwise). Though I'm optimistic about the next four (or eight) years, I realize there are many things Obama cannot (or will not) do. Though I'm sure some sort of health care reform will be passed, he may not be able to ensure that it provides as significant an improvement as is possible. While I anticipate that he will trigger a massive change in energy investment and production that will put the country on a path away from fossil fuel dependence, I know it will be accompanied by fits and starts. And though I have no doubt that Obama the man wants nothing more than to be a fair broker in the Middle East peace process, I fear that Obama the president will have difficulty marshaling support for a fair resolution of that crisis.

What I do know, though, is that for the first time in decades, our president's heart and mind are going to be in exactly the right place. Barack Obama will be one of the most intelligent and thoughtful men ever to occupy the White House, and by all indications he is free of the character flaws and undisciplined instincts that hampered many of our otherwise well-intentioned leaders.

For these reasons alone, I have very high hopes for the Obama presidency. I expect to be disappointed and frustrated sometimes, as any citizen in a democracy should. But I also eagerly anticipate watching (and helping) this new administration put our country back on the right track again. I'm also proud that, for the first time in my life, I will be able to count myself as a supporter of the current administration, and the man at its helm.

YES, IT HAPPENED

2008-11-11T00:51:00.003-05:00

Like countless others, there is no way I will ever be able to forget what happened on November 4, 2008, nor how it made me feel. In and of itself, the election of Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States - 40 years after the civil rights era - was clearly a momentous occurrence and cause for celebration. I shouldn't have to elaborate on what this means to Black Americans and for now, I won't. Like Obama, I'm a first generation American who's roots may not be as firmly planted in US soil as those who's families have been here for several generations. Still his rise to the Oval Office is an inspiring story on both sides of the fence, so much so that volumes can be (have been and will be) written to explain why.

Although I appreciated the significance of Obama's victory immensely, it was the street celebrations that touched me most of all, especially the ones in the nation's capital. They captured the very essence of that significance. It was a historic moment that most of us were not expecting to experience in our lifetime. I've been in the DC area now for a little over 15 years and I have never seen anything remotely close to those spontaneous street celebrations that went into the the morning.

I work around the corner from the White House. As soon as victory was ensured, horns started honking nonstop - it sounded almost like Beirut. The same downtown Washington streets that are typically deserted at night were buzzing with jubilant people. I headed towards Pennsylvania Avenue in the early hours of November 5th, high-fiving smiling strangers. The chants and drums grew louder with every step as I walked up 16th Street. I stopped when I could see the mass of bodies through the fence. I just stood there for a while and took it all in - a moving experience. It didn't take very long for me to call Junius who was at Grant Park... and here we are now.

I wanted my first post to to express the significance I find in Obama's election to the White House, but to do so thouroughly at this point would be overwhelming for me and you; it would also make some of my future postings a little redundant. We will be writing about all sorts of subjects. We will be discussing the significance of Obama's story in various contexts. We will be looking for change and exploring its meaning. A Black man (fathered by a foreigner) becoming president of the United States of America is a victory for every American that is understandably celebrated all around the world, but we need to keep an eye on what follows.

Barack Obama embodied change without saying a word. There is no question that having him and his family in the White House will be an immensely symbolic change in and of itself. However, what this country needs is substantive change. I'm not very optimistic that we'll be seeing much of that... particularly as it pertains to foreign policy. Although Obama will be the US President, in this day and age he can have tremendous impact across the globe.

So what happens next? What needs to change? What will Obama do? What won't he do? What can he do? Now that reality is sinking in, we need a sober assessment of the situation. We'll be following the transition process and posting on a variety of topics up until Inauguration Day when we will begin our work in earnest. Stay tuned.