Gaming Chair Steering Wheel

Christmas

Suggestions

  RSS feed from 1UP
1UP RSS feed
1UP's latest news feed - the #1 source for gaming news.


Does One Award Warrant a Game of the Year Edition for Dead Island?
by Chris Pereira
22 May 2012 at 5:19pm

Dead Island is set to be re-released in a Game of the Year Edition package next month, a fact that is the source of some complaints. It's not so much that the game is being bundled with its DLC that is the problem; it's the labeling of the game as Game of the Year, a title which many feel it is not deserving of.

It is completely understandable why a publisher would want a game re-release to be positioned as a "Game of the Year Edition." That title carries with it a certain connotation of quality, that it was among the very best, if not the best, games released during the year it originally came out. Game of the Year Editions are commonly associated with the likes of Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Red Dead Redemption, and other critically acclaimed games. There is a certain expectation that a GotY Edition consists of a terrific game and bonus content (be it downloadable content or expansion packs) that early adopters had to pay extra for, with all of this often coming at a sub-$60 price.



What If the Cost of Games Continued to Rise Since the '80s?
by Marty Sliva
22 May 2012 at 5:07pm

Feature

Share it: Tweet window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({appId: '112522758785466', status: true, cookie: true, xfbml: true}); }; (function() { var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = document.location.protocol + '//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js'; document.getElementById('fb-root').appendChild(e); }());

1UP COVER STORY

1UP COVER STORY | WEEK OF MAY 21 | WHAT IF?

What If the Cost of Games Continued to Rise Since the '80s? Cover Story: A sad look at a hobby that became too damn expensive.

December 12, 1985

You'll never guess what I got for my birthday! I woke up this morning, walked into the living room, and saw Dad playing Nintendo in front of the TV! He was having trouble with the first level of Mario, so I sat down and helped him jump over the pits until we got to the flagpole at the end. After that, we brought out the Zapper and played Duck Hunt until dinner time. Mom got kinda mad at Dad for buying something so expensive, but he told her that my birthday only comes once a year.



What If the 1993 Video Game Violence Hearings Resulted in Government Censorship?
by 1UP Staff
22 May 2012 at 3:30pm

Feature

Share it: Tweet window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({appId: '112522758785466', status: true, cookie: true, xfbml: true}); }; (function() { var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = document.location.protocol + '//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js'; document.getElementById('fb-root').appendChild(e); }());

1UP COVER STORY

1UP COVER STORY | WEEK OF MAY 21 | WHAT IF?

What If the 1993 Video Game Violence Hearings Resulted in Government Censorship? Cover Story: Peer into a dark and twisted present we'll (thankfully) never know.

I

n late 1993, state senators and certified oldsters Joseph Lieberman and Herb Khol got a whiff of this whole "video games" thing and decided to use their unholy powers to investigate the issue. While our friends in Germany and Australia often find amazing games banned outright or plagued with hilariously conspicuous censorship, we Americans escaped with a barely perceptible slap on the wrists thanks to the efforts of testifying industry vets who actually knew the subject at hand. But one can only wonder what the '90s gaming landscape (and beyond) would have looked like if the iron fist of government oppression punched the living daylights out of our beloved hobby...



Book Review: Exploring Video Gaming's Near-Death with "1983"
by Jeremy Parish
22 May 2012 at 2:18pm

Feature

Share it: Tweet window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({appId: '112522758785466', status: true, cookie: true, xfbml: true}); }; (function() { var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = document.location.protocol + '//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js'; document.getElementById('fb-root').appendChild(e); }());

1UP COVER STORY

1UP COVER STORY | WEEK OF MAY 21 | WHAT IF?

Book Review: Exploring Video Gaming's Near-Death with "1983" Cover Story: Thirty years ago, video games almost died. We examine the possibilities.

W

ith his latest book, 1983, game journalist and historian Chris Kohler has chosen to take a slightly different tack then he employed for his massive treatise Power Up: How America Gave Video Games an Extra Life a few years back. Rather than approaching the topic of video games from a wide-ranging, all-inclusive perspective, Kohler instead drills down here into a single crucial moment in time for the young medium: The near-crash of the industry in year 1983.

Despite the Orwellian overtones of the title Kohler has selected for his work, there's nothing ominous about the story contained herein -- perhaps, except, the idea that video gaming could have been snuffed out entirely a mere decade after Pong's debut. A combination of gold-rush greed, incompetence, and '80s corporate culture nearly suffocated the fledging entertainment medium just as it was hitting its stride. The Warner corporation's eagerness to cash in on their purchase of Atari, combined with the influx of low-quality, externally developed 2600 games after Activision broke away to become the first third-party developer, nearly buried the industry beneath a deluge of self-cannibalizing mediocrity.



Breaking the Illusion: Not Playing by the Rules
by Chris Pereira
21 May 2012 at 7:07pm

I like to play games in what I imagine is an unusual manner, or at least I thought this to be the case until 1UP members revealed they share some of my habits. One of these things, my propensity for systematically exploring an area before moving on, has reared its head in particularly noticeable fashion as I make my way through Max Payne 3. Playing in this way was clearly something the game's designers accounted for, as evidenced by the collectables scattered throughout, and yet it feels almost as if I'm being punished for deciding to be a completionist.

My process for approaching each area in Max Payne 3 follows the same pattern, only being altered if I'm low on health and out of painkillers (health packs in Max Payne's world). I kill everyone and then proceed to sweep over the entire room, seeking out any hidden spots or areas which do not appear to lead to the next area. As I make my way from one combat area to the next, I'm mindful of my surroundings and am sure to double back to check behind staircases and to see which doors can be opened. I do this all while searching for golden gun components, painkillers, and clues which can be examined. The latter can fill in the backstory but is hardly needed to get the gist of the narrative. I'm able to comfortably do this because there is no ticking clock, even if what Max is doing at any given time suggests there should be, and because enemies come in limited numbers and only in certain areas.



What If?: Gaming's Alternate Realities
by 1UP Staff
21 May 2012 at 6:27pm

Feature

Share it: Tweet window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({appId: '112522758785466', status: true, cookie: true, xfbml: true}); }; (function() { var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = document.location.protocol + '//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js'; document.getElementById('fb-root').appendChild(e); }());

1UP COVER STORY

1UP COVER STORY | WEEK OF MAY 21 | WHAT IF?

What If?: Gaming's Alternate Realities 1UP explores what might have happened had video game history gone differently.

People love to look back at the past and ask, "What if things had gone differently?" Navel-gazing at history spans cultures and races. Whether it's author Harry Turtledove making a fortune by contemplating how differently the American Civil War would have gone if someone had time-traveled to give the Confederate Army machine guns, or the manga Konpeki No Kantai in which the Japanese navy beats up America in World War II before teaming up to kill Hitler, second-guessing ourselves seems to be human nature.

Maybe it's the competitive nature of the medium, but video gamers seem especially fond of revisiting the past and wondering about alternate outcomes. As the Three Fates in the image above suggest, games have woven a rich and complex tapestry in their mere half-century of existence -- a tapestry whose design and nature could have changed radically had things turned out differently.



What If Video Games Never Came Home?
by 1UP Staff
21 May 2012 at 6:25pm

1UP COVER STORY

1UP COVER STORY | WEEK OF MAY 21 | WHAT IF?

What if Video Games Never Came Home? Cover Story: A chilling glimpse into a world where the arcade still rules supreme.

1

UP's cover story this week revolves around the question, "What if?" In keeping with that theme, we'd like to offer this glimpse into one of many alternate realities of video gaming: A world where video games never came home. A world where the arcade still dominates gaming. How would a site like 1UP be different in such a place? We talk to our mirror universe counterparts about the state of gaming and their thoughts on the medium.




What If Third-Party Development Didn't Exist?
by Nadia Oxford
21 May 2012 at 6:24pm

Feature

Share it: Tweet window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({appId: '112522758785466', status: true, cookie: true, xfbml: true}); }; (function() { var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = document.location.protocol + '//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js'; document.getElementById('fb-root').appendChild(e); }());

1UP COVER STORY

1UP COVER STORY | WEEK OF MAY 21 | WHAT IF?

What If Third-Party Development Didn't Exist? Cover Story: How Activision's 1982 win in court changed the industry.

L

et's be honest, when we think about Activision-Blizzard as a company, at least a few of us get a mental image of a dark overlord with hooked fingers looming over a burning landscape. This image is usually accompanied by a deep-voiced demand for sacrificial virgins. Given Activision-Blizzard's status as The Biggest Thing That Has Ever Existed in Gaming, it's easy to forget that prehistoric Activision fought for the right to develop third-party games on the Atari 2600 -- a battle that it eventually won in court.

Activision's victory essentially made it possible for third-party game designers to ply their trade on home game consoles.

Activision's drive for justice wasn't exclusively about being paid its deserved royalties, either. During the 2600 era, Atari had a nasty habit of not crediting its game developers (or even letting developers bring attention to themselves, which convinced Adventure developer Warren Robinett to bury his name in the game, possibly creating the first digital Easter Egg). When Activision won the right to make its own games for the 2600 in 1982, credit was no longer a problem.



What If Square Never Left Nintendo?
by 1UP Staff
21 May 2012 at 6:22pm

Feature

Share it: Tweet window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({appId: '112522758785466', status: true, cookie: true, xfbml: true}); }; (function() { var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = document.location.protocol + '//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js'; document.getElementById('fb-root').appendChild(e); }());

1UP COVER STORY

1UP COVER STORY | WEEK OF MAY 21 | WHAT IF?

What If Square Never Left Nintendo? Cover Story: We look at how the RPG powerhouse would've fared without the PlayStation.

F

or RPG fans of the early 1990s, Square practically had their own branch on the Nintendo family tree. This held especially true on the Super NES, where Square came into its own with Final Fantasy IV and VI, Secret of Mana, Chrono Trigger, and wealth of Japan-only releases that loomed just out of reach for Americans. By the end of 1995, the union seemed solid. Nintendo's long-awaited Nintendo 64 system was on its way, and would be home to Square's next Final Fantasy.

There seemed no reason to worry until the spring of 1996, when those same RPG fans opened game magazines and learned that Final Fantasy VII wouldn't release in the form of a Nintendo 64 cartridge. It was now headed for the Sony PlayStation, as with every other game Square planned to make for the latest generation of consoles. By the end of the year, Square sewed up a publishing agreement with Sony, and their first PlayStation release, the fighter Tobal No. 1, sat on store shelves. It came as quite a surprise to players who'd effectively grown up with RPGs on Nintendo systems.

Final Fantasy VII didn't just amount to a critical PlayStation success; it was also instrumental in establishing the Japanese RPG in North America's mainstream game industry.



What If Steam Hadn't Recovered From Its Shaky Launch?
by 1UP Staff
21 May 2012 at 6:21pm

Feature

Share it: Tweet window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({appId: '112522758785466', status: true, cookie: true, xfbml: true}); }; (function() { var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = document.location.protocol + '//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js'; document.getElementById('fb-root').appendChild(e); }());

1UP COVER STORY

1UP COVER STORY | WEEK OF MAY 21 | WHAT IF?

What If Steam Hadn't Recovered From Its Shaky Launch? Cover Story: Without Steam in a central role, the last decade of PC gaming would have been remarkably different.

W

hen Steam first appeared in 2002, its success was far from a sure thing. Bugs and network problems outnumbered the available games on Valve's digital distribution platform by a wide margin. Users who disliked having to launch an extra application before playing their games doubted the necessity of the program itself. It took years for Steam's library to grow, for Valve to smooth over the rough spots, and for the public to embrace the concept of digital distribution. Today, Steam is synonymous with PC gaming, putting Valve in a unique position from which they can influence the industry in a number of ways.

What if the initial stumble had resulted in a full-on faceplant? How far would the ripples of that failure have spread? I don't claim to know exactly how things would have played out differently, but a lifetime of regret and PC gaming -- which occasionally go hand in hand -- has sharpened my hindsight enough to make a few educated guesses.





Gaming Chair Steering Wheel

Barack Obama words

President Barack Obama Knolblog (Obama Time Capsule)

Barack Obama. An Open Collaboration Knolblog. Become an editor and share your thoughts. Building Obamas time capsule.


Share/Bookmark

Barack Obama with his daughters and wife after a Sunday worship Service going back to their home
Picture Credit Reuters.com

Barack Obama's India Visit: Few Interesting Video Clips:

These clips will give a relaxation in the midst of all these

serious talks. This will be Interesting and attractive on the

Eve of this years Children's Day, which is Celebrated

today(November 14) in India Today.



YouTube Video
Raw Video: Obama & Mrs. Obama Dances With Indian Children
Source: Associated Press/ YouTube




YouTube Video
Raw Video: Michelle Obama Dances in India
Source: Associated Press/YouTube


Posted by PVA

Obama Stops Tax Breaks for US Firms Outsourcing Jobs


WASHINGTON September 9, 2010 President Barack Obama today underlined his determination to end tax incentives for companies that create jobs overseas, saying he will provide a generous tax credit to companies that create more jobs in the US.

Amid indication that outsourcing could become a hot issue in the November elections, Obama said the tax breaks should go to companies that create jobs in the US and not overseas.

"One of the keys to job creation is to encourage companies to invest more in the United States. But for years, our tax code has actually given billions of dollars in tax breaks that encourage companies to create jobs and profits in other countries, " Obama said in his speech on economy at Cleveland, Ohio.

The President said he was determined to change that. "I want to change that. Instead of tax loopholes that incentivise investment in overseas jobs, I'm proposing a more generous, permanent extension of the tax credit that goes to companies for all the research and innovation they do right here in America, " Obama said with Ohio Governor Ted Strickland standing by his side.

"I think if we're going to give tax breaks to companies, they should go to companies that create jobs in America -- not those that create jobs overseas. That's one difference between the Republican vision and the Democratic vision. And that's what this election is all about, " Obama said.

Running behind in opinion polls, Strickland of Democratic party, who till now was going out of his way to woo Indian companies, last week passed an executive order that banned outsourcing, arguing that this undermines economic development and has unacceptable business consequences.

"Outsourcing jobs does not reflect Ohio values, " Strickland said in a statement after he signed the executive order.

Reacting to the order, the Indian IT sector, which gets 60 per cent of its export revenue from the US, termed the move as discriminatory and said it amounts to a trade barrier.

The move, which comes ahead of Obama's visit to India in November, follows a controversial legislation that increased H-1B and L1 visa fees, hitting India's over USD 50 billion IT industry.

The Indian industry will take up the issue with its US counterparts and seek government's support to flag it with the American authorities.

"Nasscom is leading a delegation to the US later this month and will be taking this up with relevant officials in the US, " the apex body of the IT and ITES industry said in New Delhi.

Obama said his proposal will help small businesses upgrade their plants and equipment, and will encourage large corporations to get off the sidelines and start putting their profits to work in places like Cleveland and Toledo and Dayton.


Tonight, U.S. President Barack Obama is slated to address America from the Oval Office via a live stream on YouTube.

YouTube to Live Stream Obama's Iraq Address.



August 31st 2010, Tonight, U.S. President Barack Obama is slated to address America from the Oval Office via a live stream on YouTube, a speech during which he is expected to announce the end of the U.S. combat role in Iraq.

Before you check out the live stream tonight at 8 p.m. EST, YouTube is offering you the opportunity to ask the White House follow-up questions via its Moderator function. The speech will also be stored on YouTube's CitizenTube, should you happen to miss it tonight. Check out the above video from the YouTube Blog for more info.
YouTube Video

YouTube to Live Stream President Obama's Iraq Address [VIDEO]

This isn't the first time a speech has been streamed live from the Oval Office. A few months ago, President Obama spoke to the American public with regard to the Gulf oil spill. YouTube also allowed viewers to submit questions to the president during the State of the Union Address, which he later answered on the video-sharing site.


As more and more of these events occur online, one can only imagine the historical archive that YouTube will amass.















Source: Mashable

pva


PREVENT JOBS OF FUTURE GOING TO INDIA: OBAMA

President Barack Obama speaks
at a convention in Atlanta on Monday.
Photo: AP
Atlanta. August 2 2010. Even as the November elections loom on the horizon and Democrats grow fearful of losing seats in both Congressional chambers, President Barack Obama is becoming increasingly strident in defending his top domestic priority - job creation.


Unfortunately for countries such as India this has come to mean that the controversy over outsourcing has reared its ugly head again with heightened frequency, in particular, fears that the President's words are more than rhetoric.

His most recent speech, made at a Democratic National Convention fundraiser, was a good example. While his audience was comprised mainly of party stalwarts and thus Mr. Obama's reversion to the conventional wisdom of economic protectionism was not surprising, it was the specific mention of India in the context of American jobs being lost that raised eyebrows.

The line that probably has Indian Ministry of External Affairs officials worried was this: "When I took office... we put forward a new economic plan - a plan that... is focused on making our middle class more secure and our country more competitive in the long run - so that the jobs and industries of the future aren't all going to China and India, but are being created right here in the U.S.."

In particular, the MEA must despair that the very same rhetoric that led to calls to stop American jobs getting "Bangalored" has resurfaced at the highest level of this administration: specifically the President's war cry that the choice in the November election was between policies that had encouraged job creation in the U.S. versus those that encouraged jobs to go elsewhere.

In a reference to policies that could keep jobs on U.S. soil, he added, "That is why I have said instead of giving tax breaks to corporations that want to ship jobs overseas, we want to give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in the U.S.."

And what could be worrying policymakers and the private sector in India even more is the fact that the White House appears to have been considering blocking the so-called "jobs of the future" from fleeing overseas.

In the context of the U.S.' "home-grown, clean energy industry" Mr. Obama said, "I do not want to see the solar panels and the wind turbines and the biodiesel created in other countries. I do not want China and Germany and Brazil to get the jump on us in the industries of the future. I want to see all that stuff right here in the U.S., with American workers."

Yet those feeling the pinch of such policies in India may ultimately seek solace in the fact that it may be - ironically - their American private-sector counterparts who help prevent the U.S. from going into a protectionist tailspin.

Even President Obama could not help but recognise that his cherished dream of large-scale job creation depended on corporate America, which has been the most important force pushing for the offshoring of jobs, on the grounds of efficiency and labour cost variations.

Coming as close as he could to recognising this paradox at the heart of the outsourcing controversy.

Mr. Obama was forced to concede to his fellow Democrats the importance of the U.S. private sector in rescuing the ailing economy: "Instead of losing millions of jobs... [the U.S. has] created jobs for six straight months in the private sector. Instead of an economy that is contracting, we have got an economy that is expanding." Read more related news HERE

Source: http:///thehindu.com

Narayan Lakshman (The Hindu)

Knol Posted by pva


OBAMA, PLEASE: NEVER ASK A FRIEND TO DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO.

Mahomoud Ahmadinejad knows very well that Latin American countries can be strong allies for his stragegy of getting extra time while Iran develops nuclear weapons. How are the official talks going between the Us and Iran? .... well...like this:

Meanwhile, Obama called Lula Da Silva, president of United States of Brazil, asking for help: Brazil would monitor all Iranian nuclear activities and all their uranium processing facilities should move to Brazil. Lula and Brazil are good friends of United States and Iran, so this would be a "win-win" strategy.

Lula invited Mahomoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President to Brazil to start negotiations, but...what happened?





Lula signed a series of "multi-year multi-billion" agreements for the provision of enriched uranium to Iran, plus a much bigger "multi-year multi billion" agreement for the provision of soybeans and derivatives and many other basic goods.

Then the Obama administration got upset, said thet they never gave Lula an official go ahead, despite the diret call from White House to Lula asking for their services.

Lula doesnt care about this incident, he is more than happy he got a new customer to work with: Iran. Brazil needs no help from the US or the IMF to become a Big player, they just needed new markets to develop, and they got what they wanted.

Meanwhile Mahomoud Ahmadinejad did the same thing as Obama. he looked for new friends in Latin America. And he found a very good friend: Hugo Chavez (President-Dictator of Venezuela), the main oil supplier to the United States.


Mahomoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, got a little help from his friend Chavez: unrestricted access to conventional weapons from Russia (Chavez has an agreement for unlimited supply of weapons from Russia) and he also asked to keep under control the only enemy that Iran has in Latin America: Argentina.

Many Iranian Ministers were responsible for the bombing of the Israely Embasy and the AMIA (Jewish Community Centre) in Argentina. These were two biggest international terrorist attacks of Iran against Israely facilities outside Israely territory.

Chavez immediately agreed, he loves to do whatever he can to upset the United States. At the end of the day, Cristina Kirchner from Argentina needs permanent supply of Oil and Gas from Venezuela (plus the monetary support to run the next presidential elections).

At the enf of the day Hugo Chavez and Cristina Kirchner share a common idea: look like a communist but act as an orthodox capitalist: Only money counts.





Even worst, now Obama and the White House are now wondering (after learning that Venezuela and Brazil have explored and discovered the largest Oil and Gas reservoirs in the World, that they will exploit together) whether Lula Da Silva and the porwerful United States of Brazil are a real friend of the United States, or are also a....

And even worst, Obama is also wondering if he looks to the American people as a...















Please: Never ask a friend to do what you have to do.






WHERE IS AMERICA HEADING TO? FEW CHILLING FACTS ON US AND THE PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA



Obama getting ready to pray in a Mosque

Here is an Email Message received from a grieving American Citizen: She Wrote:

In the year 1952 former President Truman Established One Day A Year As A "NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER"

In the year 1988 President Reagan Designated The First Thursday in May of each year as "THE NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER."

In June 2007 (then) The Presidential Candidate Barack Obama declared that "The USA Was no longer a Christian nation."

This year 2010 President Obama canceled "THE 21ST ANNUAL NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER CEREMONY" at the White House under the ruse Of "not wanting to offend anyone"

On September 25, 2009 from 4 am until 7 pm, "A National Day of Prayer for the Muslim religion" was Held on Capitol Hill, Beside the White House.

I guess it Doesn't matter if "Christians" Are offended by this event - We obviously

Don't count as "anyone" Anymore.

The direction our country is headed should strike fear in the heart of every Christian, especially knowing that the Muslim religion believes that if Christians cannot be converted, they should be annihilated.

This is not a Rumor - Go to the website To confirm this info: Please log on to:

http://islamoncapitolhill.com

Pay particular attention to the very bottom of the page:

"OUR TIME HAS COME"

I hope that this information will stir your spirit. The words of 2 Chronicles 7:14 "If my people, Who are called by my Name, Will humble themselves And pray, And seek my face, and Turn from their Wicked ways, Then will I hear from Heaven. And will forgive their Sin and will heal Their land."

We must pray for Our nation, our communities, Our families, and especially our children.

They are the ones who are going to suffer the most. If we don't PRAY May God have Mercy.

Let us remember the words of our founding fathers "IN GOD WE TRUST." Where are we trusting now?

The Mail Had the following Request:

"Please pass this on-

"Maybe someone, somehow can figure out a way to put America back on the map as it was when we were growing up, a safe place to live, and by The Ten Commandments and Pledge of Allegiance."

For Obama to continue as our president is an

INSULT TO OUR FOUNDING FATHERS AND DISGUSTING TO EVERY RED-BLOODED AMERICAN.

Thanks for your time.

A grieved Citizen of America

Posted by Ann P

ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA: 13 MILLION EMAIL ADDRESSES

Why did President Obama see fit to mention in an email to supporters last week that it was his daughter Malia's birthday? Perhaps because it fits in nicely with the (apparent) White House mobilizing strategy: make the 13-million or so recipients feel like they have a bit of personal intimacy, proximity to power and a voice in decision-making even if the reality says otherwise.

The email came from Organizing for America, the successor organization to the President's campaign group Obama for America. O.F.A. was set up to capitalize on the tremendous asset acquired during the campaign - 13 million email addresses. The hope was to keep these supporters energized in support of policy priorities once Mr. Obama took office.

Power brokers on the cutting edge are adept at creating novel alternative structures and new venues to press their agenda - and O.F.A. seems to be a case in point. They are also skilled at cultivating an image and message - an art that, when enabled with the latest technology, has become increasingly sophisticated and insidious in the era of the shadow elite.

Shadow Elite is the title of Janines book, and in it she examines the modus operandi of a new breed of influencer that's emerged over the past few decades. Branding the message is a key part of that modus operandi for the most successful and agile power broker. And for O.F.A., that image is all about grassroots participation.

Aside from seeking action on specific political battles, notably health care, O.F.A. has also encouraged supporters to host house parties, perform public service, and engage in other social events that don't directly relate to a policy fight. The rosy take on this is that O.F.A. is empowering the grassroots, by helping to create a sense of civic-minded community. A more clear-eyed view is that O.F.A. is trying to keep its army engaged and ready to assist in what really matters - the President's agenda - and also to fight the lethargy that sets in between elections, which was even more inevitable given the outsized expectations invested in Obama.

O.F.A. also holds online strategy sessions, offering supporters the chance to "join the discussion, " "interact, " and "ask questions." But amid the rhetoric of "yes we can", the "we" in control of O.F.A., according to reports, is a very small, select group. A mid-level source who left O.F.A. told Janine that decisions come squarely from the top down, while the organization tries to maintain the illusion of participation. Another report quotes an activist complaining about "often secretive debate ... among top campaign staff members" The Washington Post also noted that "Obama ....is working to ensure [O.F.A.] stays within the control of a small group who are charged with protecting the Obama brand."

Legendary organizer Marshall Ganz gave his view of O.F.A. to the New Republic: "It's much more an instrument of mobilizing the bottom to serve the top than organizing the bottom to participate in shaping the direction of the top." The magazine also had this from editor Micah Sifry, who said Obama supporters "were basically asked to wait, that someone else was going to decide what was going to happen, and, in the meantime, please buy this mug."

Some disillusioned supporters agree with this assessment, including several Huff Post commenters to last week's Shadow Elite column (who were outnumbered, we should note, by still-committed and passionate O.F.A. supporters.) The Nation's Ari Melber wrote a report on O.F.A.'s first year, and quotes one former volunteer:

Going through OFA showed me that they're using these same insider tactics that political machines have used forever...I was part of this machine to enact the White House political directives; I didn't have influence on those political directives; there was no reciprocal relationship...

New Republic reporter Lydia DePillis also mentions that "machine" theme: Obama's people ha[ve] created something both entirely new and entirely old: an Internet version of the top-down political machines...the difference (other than technology) was that this new machine would rely on ideological loyalty, not patronage. We would add that O.F.A. seems to us more new than old. While it's not the first political movement to capitalize on the internet (Howard Dean being the stand-out early adopter), it seems to be the first time a sitting leader has utilized a direct email communication line with the people he leads.

O.F.A. also tries to cement its support with a feeling of false intimacy - made possible through those internet, email and social networking technologies. Melber has this telling comment from one supporter: "Seriously, I feel that OFA's main objective is to facilitate and maintain pseudopersonal relationships with supporters in order to exploit them....I think it's called relationship marketing."

If that's the case, the marketing department should take note: Linda (and surely many others) received personal Thanksgiving wishes last year from "Barack Obama, " addressed to ...."First Name, Last Name."

OBAMA DELIVERS REMARKS ON THE NATIONAL HIV/AIDS STRATEGY



OBAMA: Hello, everybody! Hello! (Applause.) Hello. Hello, hello, hello. Hello. Well, good evening, everybody. This is a pretty feisty group here. (Laughter.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you, President! OBAMA: Love you back. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you. Well, it is a privilege to speak with all of you. Welcome to the White House. Let me begin by welcoming the Cabinet Secretaries who are here. I know I saw at least one of them, Kathleen Sebelius, our outstanding Secretary of Health and Human Services. (Applause.) I want to thank all the members of Congress who are present and all the distinguished guests that are here -- that includes all of you.

In particular, I want to recognize Ambassador Eric Goosby, our Global AIDS Coordinator. (Applause.) Eric's leadership of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is doing so much to save so many lives around the world. He will be leading our delegation to the International AIDS Conference in Vienna next week. And so I'm grateful for his outstanding service. (Applause.) And I want to also thank the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. (Applause.) Thank you --and the Federal HIV Interagency Working Group for all the work that they are doing. So thank you very much. (Applause.) Now, it's been nearly 30 years since a CDC publication called Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report first documented five cases of an illness that would come to be known as HIV/AIDS. In the beginning, of course, it was known as the "gay disease" -- a disease surrounded by fear and misunderstanding; a disease we were too slow to confront and too slow to turn back. In the decades since -- as epidemics have emerged in countries throughout Africa and around the globe -- we've grown better equipped, as individuals and as nations, to fight this disease. From activists, researchers, community leaders who've waged a battle against AIDS for so long, including many of you here in this room, we have learned what we can do to stop the spread of the disease. We've learned what we can do to extend the lives of people living with it. And we've been reminded of our obligations to one another -- obligations that, like the virus itself, transcend barriers of race or station or sexual orientation or faith or nationality. So the question is not whether we know what to do, but whether we will do it. (Applause.) Whether we will fulfill those obligations; whether we will marshal our resources and the political will to confront a tragedy that is preventable. All of us are here because we are committed to that cause. We're here because we believe that while HIV transmission rates in this country are not as high as they once were, every new case is one case too many. We're here because we believe in an America where those living with HIV/AIDS are not viewed with suspicion, but treated with respect; where they're provided the medications and health care they need; where they can live out their lives as fully as their health allows. And we're here because of the extraordinary men and women whose stories compel us to stop this scourge. I'm going to call out a few people here -- people like Benjamin Banks, who right now is completing a master's degree in public health, planning a family with his wife, and deciding whether to run another half-marathon. Ben has also been HIV-positive for 29 years -- a virus he contracted during cancer surgery as a child. So inspiring others to fight the disease has become his mission. We're here because of people like Craig Washington, who after seeing what was happening in his community -- friends passing away; life stories sanitized, as he put it, at funerals; homophobia, all the discrimination that surrounded the disease -- Craig got tested, disclosed his status, with the support of his partner and his family, and took up the movement for prevention and awareness in which he is a leader today. We're here because of people like Linda Scruggs. (Applause.) Linda learned she was HIV-positive about two decades ago when she went in for prenatal care. Then and there, she decided to turn her life around, and she left a life of substance abuse behind, she became an advocate for women, she empowered them to break free from what she calls the bondage of secrecy. She inspired her son, who was born healthy, to become an AIDS activist himself. We're here because of Linda and Craig and Ben, and because of over 1 million Americans living with HIV/AIDS and the nearly 600, 000 Americans who've lost their lives to the disease. It's on their behalf -- and on the behalf of all Americans -- that we began a national dialogue about combating AIDS at the beginning of this administration. In recent months, we've held 14 community discussions. We've spoken with over 4, 200 people. We've received over 1, 000 recommendations on the White House website, devising an approach not from the top down but from the bottom up. And today, we're releasing our National HIV/AIDS Strategy, which is the product -- (applause) -- which is the product of these conversations, and conversations with HIV-positive Americans and health care providers, with business leaders, with faith leaders, and the best policy and scientific minds in our country. Now, I know that this strategy comes at a difficult time for Americans living with HIV/AIDS, because we've got cash-strapped states who are being forced to cut back on essentials, including assistance for AIDS drugs. I know the need is great. And that's why we've increased federal assistance each year that I've been in office, providing an emergency supplement this year to help people get the drugs they need, even as we pursue a national strategy that focuses on three central goals. First goal: prevention. We can't afford to rely on any single prevention method alone, so our strategy promotes a comprehensive approach to reducing the number of new HIV infections -- from expanded testing so people can learn their status, to education so people can curb risky behaviors, to drugs that can prevent a mother from transmitting a virus to her child. To support our new direction, we're investing $30 million in new money, and I've committed to working with Congress to make sure these investments continue in the future. The second -- AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. President -- OBAMA: Let's -- hold on -- you can talk to me after -- we'll be able to talk after I speak. That's why I invited you here, right? So you don't have to yell, right? (Applause.) Thank you. Second is treatment. To extend lives and stem transmission, we need to make sure every HIV-positive American gets the medical care that they need. (Applause.) And by stopping health insurers from denying coverage because of a preexisting condition and by creating a marketplace where people with HIV/AIDS can buy affordable care, the health insurance reforms I signed into law this year are an important step forward. And we'll build on those reforms, while also understanding that when people have trouble putting food on the table or finding a place to live, it's virtually impossible to keep them on lifesaving therapies. (Applause.) Now, the third goal is reducing health disparities by combating the disease in communities where the need is greatest. (Applause.) We all know the statistics. Gay and bisexual men make up a small percentage of the population, but over 50 percent of new infections. For African Americans, it's 13 percent of the population -- nearly 50 percent of the people living with HIV/AIDS. HIV infection rates among black women are almost 20 times what they are for white women. So, such health disparities call on us to make a greater effort as a nation to offer testing and treatment to the people who need it the most. (Applause.) So reducing new HIV infections; improving care for people living with HIV/AIDS; narrowing health disparities -- these are the central goals of our national strategy. They must be pursued hand in hand with our global public health strategy to roll back the pandemic beyond our borders. And they must be pursued by a government that is acting as one. So we need to make sure all our efforts are coordinated within the federal government and across federal, state and local governments -- because that's how we'll achieve results that let Americans live longer and healthier lives. (Applause.) So, yes, government has to do its part. But our ability to combat HIV/AIDS doesn't rest on government alone. It requires companies to contribute funding and expertise to the fight. It requires us to use every source of information -- from TV to film to the Internet -- to promote AIDS awareness. It requires community leaders to embrace all -- and not just some -- who are affected by the disease. It requires each of us to act responsibly in our own lives, and it requires all of us to look inward -- to ask not only how we can end this scourge, but also how we can root out the inequities and the attitudes on which this scourge thrives. When a person living with HIV/AIDS is treated as if she's done something wrong, when she's viewed as being somehow morally compromised, how can we expect her to get tested and disclose her diagnosis to others? (Applause.) When we fail to offer a child a proper education, when we fail to provide him with accurate medical information and instill within him a sense of responsibility, then how can we expect him to take the precautions necessary to protect himself and others? (Applause.) When we continue, as a community of nations, to tolerate poverty and inequality and injustice in our midst, we don't stand up for how women are treated in certain countries, how can we expect to end the disease -- a pandemic -- that feeds on such conditions? So fighting HIV/AIDS in America and around the world will require more than just fighting the virus. It will require a broader effort to make life more just and equitable for the people who inhabit this Earth. And that's a cause to which I'll be firmly committed so long as I have the privilege of serving as President. So to all of you who have been out there in the field, working on this issues day in, day out, I know sometimes it's thankless work. But the truth is, you are representing what's best in all of us -- our regard for one another, our willingness to care for one another. I thank you for that. I'm grateful for you. You're going to have a partner in me. God bless you and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Apologize to BP?

When BP CEO Tony Hayward testified before Congress this morning, many expected to hear him apologize for the disaster his company has caused. Instead, GOP Congressman Joe Barton was the one saying he was sorry -- to BP.

In his opening statement, Barton, the top Republican on the committee overseeing the oil spill and its aftermath, delivered a personal apology to the oil giant. He said the $20 billion fund that President Obama directed BP to establish to provide relief to the victims of the oil disaster was a "tragedy in the first proportion."

Other Republicans are echoing his call. Sen. John Cornyn said he "shares" Barton's concern. Rep. Michele Bachmann said that BP shouldn't agree to be "fleeced." Rush Limbaugh called it a "bailout." The Republican Study Committee, with its 114 members in the House, called it a "shakedown."

Let's be clear. This fund is a major victory for the people of the Gulf. It's a key step toward making them whole again. BP has a responsibility to those whose lives and livelihoods have been devastated by the disaster. And BP oil executives don't deserve an apology -- the people of the Gulf do.

Rep. Barton and Republicans like him don't understand that the real tragedy is what's happening to the people in the Gulf Coast. They're the ones who deserve his apology -- not BP.

But big oil knows exactly who its allies are. And if Republicans win control of the House, Rep. Barton could be chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee -- overseeing regulation of the oil and gas industry.

Notably, companies like Halliburton -- the folks responsible for cementing the Deepwater Horizon rig -- are directing their political committees to deliver thousands of dollars to GOP candidates this cycle. Barton himself has received more than $100, 000 from the oil and gas industry this election cycle.

Barton should apologize to the people of the Gulf and he should step down as the highest-ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

WILL YOU STAND WITH THE PRESIDENT ?

Tonight, in his very first speech from the Oval Office, President Obama addressed the nation on the BP oil spill and the crisis in the Gulf Coast.

Millions of Americans heard him lay out the path forward: Tens of thousands will continue to work around the clock to stop the oil spill and prevent further damage. The Obama administration will ensure that BP is held accountable, covering the costs of the clean-up and paying its debts to the people whose lives have been upended by the disaster.

The Gulf Coast will be repaired and restored for the people who call it home and whose livelihoods depend on it.

But, as the President said tonight, this is just the beginning -- we need to ensure that a disaster like this never happens again.

The President presented a vision of a future where we as a nation are not held hostage by our dependence on fossil fuels -- and a plan for an economy that invests in energy generated right here and creates jobs for millions of Americans in the process. Under his leadership, some of this is beginning to take shape -- clean energy is starting to put people back to work across the country, building more efficient cars and trucks, repurposing old factories to manufacture wind turbines, and investing in research that will discover new energy technologies.

Critics will say that a real transition to clean energy is a challenge that can't be met. But the President made it clear tonight that he will not back down -- even if the path forward is not easy. And, as this movement has shown time and again, neither will we.

Washington has put this off for far too long -- now we must act. If you haven't already, please stand with the President for a clean-energy future.

http://my.barackobama.com/CleanEnergyFuture

Thank you,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America

OBAMA'S GULF SPILL SPEECH (FULL TEXT)

Good evening. As we speak, our nation faces a multitude of challenges. At home, our top priority is to recover and rebuild from a recession that has touched the lives of nearly every American. Abroad, our brave men and women in uniform are taking the fight to al Qaeda wherever it exists. And tonight, I've returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we're waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens.
On April 20th, an explosion ripped through BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, about forty miles off the coast of Louisiana. Eleven workers lost their lives. Seventeen others were injured. And soon, nearly a mile beneath the surface of the ocean, oil began spewing into the water.

Because there has never been a leak of this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge - a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.

As a result of these efforts, we have directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. In the coming days and weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90% of the oil leaking out of the well. This is until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that is expected to stop the leak completely.

Already, this oil spill is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced. And unlike an earthquake or a hurricane, it is not a single event that does its damage in a matter of minutes or days. The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years.

But make no mistake: we will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy.

Tonight I'd like to lay out for you what our battle plan is going forward: what we're doing to clean up the oil, what we're doing to help our neighbors in the Gulf, and what we're doing to make sure that a catastrophe like this never happens again.

First, the cleanup. From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation's history - an effort led by Admiral Thad Allen, who has almost forty years of experience responding to disasters. We now have nearly 30, 000 personnel who are working across four states to contain and cleanup the oil. Thousands of ships and other vessels are responding in the Gulf. And I have authorized the deployment of over 17, 000 National Guard members along the coast. These servicemen and women are ready to help stop the oil from coming ashore, clean beaches, train response workers, or even help with processing claims - and I urge the governors in the affected states to activate these troops as soon as possible.

Because of our efforts, millions of gallons of oil have already been removed from the water through burning, skimming, and other collection methods. Over five and a half million feet of boom has been laid across the water to block and absorb the approaching oil. We have approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try and stop the oil before it reaches the shore, and we are working with Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida to implement creative approaches to their unique coastlines.

As the clean up continues, we will offer whatever additional resources and assistance our coastal states may need. Now, a mobilization of this speed and magnitude will never be perfect, and new challenges will always arise. I saw and heard evidence of that during this trip. So if something isn't working, we want to hear about it. If there are problems in the operation, we will fix them.

But we have to recognize that despite our best efforts, oil has already caused damage to our coastline and its wildlife. And sadly, no matter how effective our response becomes, there will be more oil and more damage before this siege is done. That's why the second thing we're focused on is the recovery and restoration of the Gulf Coast.

You know, for generations, men and women who call this region home have made their living from the water. That living is now in jeopardy. I've talked to shrimpers and fishermen who don't know how they're going to support their families this year. I've seen empty docks and restaurants with fewer customers - even in areas where the beaches are not yet affected. I've talked to owners of shops and hotels who wonder when the tourists will start to come back. The sadness and anger they feel is not just about the money they've lost. It's about a wrenching anxiety that their way of life may be lost.

I refuse to let that happen. Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party.

Beyond compensating the people of the Gulf in the short-term, it's also clear we need a long-term plan to restore the unique beauty and bounty of this region. The oil spill represents just the latest blow to a place that has already suffered multiple economic disasters and decades of environmental degradation that has led to disappearing wetlands and habitats. And the region still hasn't recovered from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That's why we must make a commitment to the Gulf Coast that goes beyond responding to the crisis of the moment.

I make that commitment tonight. Earlier, I asked Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy, a former governor of Mississippi, and a son of the Gulf, to develop a long-term Gulf Coast Restoration Plan as soon as possible. The plan will be designed by states, local communities, tribes, fishermen, businesses, conservationists, and other Gulf residents. And BP will pay for the impact this spill has had on the region.

The third part of our response plan is the steps we're taking to ensure that a disaster like this does not happen again. A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe - that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken.

That was obviously not the case on the Deepwater Horizon rig, and I want to know why. The American people deserve to know why. The families I met with last week who lost their loved ones in the explosion - these families deserve to know why. And so I have established a National Commission to understand the causes of this disaster and offer recommendations on what additional safety and environmental standards we need to put in place. Already, I have issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling. I know this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety, and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before we allow deepwater drilling to continue. And while I urge the Commission to complete its work as quickly as possible, I expect them to do that work thoroughly and impartially.

One place we have already begun to take action is at the agency in charge of regulating drilling and issuing permits, known as the Minerals Management Service. Over the last decade, this agency has become emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility - a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves. At this agency, industry insiders were put in charge of industry oversight. Oil companies showered regulators with gifts and favors, and were essentially allowed to conduct their own safety inspections and write their own regulations.

When Ken Salazar became my Secretary of the Interior, one of his very first acts was to clean up the worst of the corruption at this agency. But it's now clear that the problems there ran much deeper, and the pace of reform was just too slow. And so Secretary Salazar and I are bringing in new leadership at the agency - Michael Bromwich, who was a tough federal prosecutor and Inspector General. His charge over the next few months is to build an organization that acts as the oil industry's watchdog - not its partner.

One of the lessons we've learned from this spill is that we need better regulations better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling. But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20% of the world's oil, but have less than 2% of the world's oil reserves. And that's part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean - because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.

For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked - not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.

The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.

We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash American innovation and seize control of our own destiny.

This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels will take some time, but over the last year and a half, we have already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that will someday lead to entire new industries.

Each of us has a part to play in a new future that will benefit all of us. As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of good, middle-class jobs - but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment. And only if we rally together and act as one nation - workers and entrepreneurs; scientists and citizens; the public and private sectors.

When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill - a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America's businesses.

Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And some believe we can't afford those costs right now. I say we can't afford not to change how we produce and use energy - because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.

So I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party - as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development - and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.

All of these approaches have merit, and deserve a fair hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is too big and too difficult to meet. You see, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon. And yet, time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom. Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is our capacity to shape our destiny - our determination to fight for the America we want for our children. Even if we're unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don't yet know precisely how to get there. We know we'll get there.

It is a faith in the future that sustains us as a people. It is that same faith that sustains our neighbors in the Gulf right now.

Each year, at the beginning of shrimping season, the region's fishermen take part in a tradition that was brought to America long ago by fishing immigrants from Europe. It's called "The Blessing of the Fleet, " and today it's a celebration where clergy from different religions gather to say a prayer for the safety and success of the men and women who will soon head out to sea - some for weeks at a time.

The ceremony goes on in good times and in bad. It took place after Katrina, and it took place a few weeks ago - at the beginning of the most difficult season these fishermen have ever faced.

And still, they came and they prayed. For as a priest and former fisherman once said of the tradition, "The blessing is not that God has promised to remove all obstacles and dangers. The blessing is that He is with us always, " a blessing that's granted "...even in the midst of the storm."

The oil spill is not the last crisis America will face. This nation has known hard times before and we will surely know them again. What sees us through - what has always seen us through - is our strength, our resilience, and our unyielding faith that something better awaits us if we summon the courage to reach for it. Tonight, we pray for that courage. We pray for the people of the Gulf. And we pray that a hand may guide us through the storm towards a brighter day. Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.

OBAMA: WILL YOU STAND WITH ME ?

The BP oil spill in the Gulf Coast is the worst environmental disaster of its kind in our nation's history. I am returning to the region today to review our efforts and meet with families and business owners affected by the catastrophe.

We are working to hold BP accountable for the damage to the lands and the livelihoods of the Gulf Coast, and we are taking strong precautions to make certain a spill like this never happens again.

But our work will not end with this crisis. That's one of the reasons why last week I invited lawmakers from both parties to join me at the White House to discuss what it will take to move forward on legislation to promote a new economy powered by green jobs, combat climate change, and end our dependence on foreign oil.

Today, we consume more than 20 percent of the world's oil, but have less than two percent of the world's oil reserves. Beyond the risks inherent in drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth, our dependence on oil means that we will continue to send billions of dollars of our hard-earned wealth to other countries every month -- including many in dangerous and unstable regions.

In other words, our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk. We cannot delay any longer, and that is why I am asking for your help.

Please stand with me today in backing clean energy. Adding your name will help Organizing for America create a powerful, public display of support for making this change happen.

The time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a new future. That means continuing our unprecedented effort to make everything -- from our homes and businesses to our cars and trucks -- more energy-efficient. It means rolling back billions of dollars of tax breaks to oil companies so we can prioritize investments in clean energy research and development.

Many businesses support this agenda because shifting to clean energy creates opportunities for entrepreneurship. This is how we will reinvent our economy -- and create new companies and new jobs all across the country.

There will be transition costs and a time of adjustment. But if we refuse to heed the warnings from the disaster in the Gulf -- we will have missed our best chance to seize the clean-energy future we know America needs to thrive in the years and decades to come.

The House of Representatives has already passed a comprehensive energy and climate bill, and there is currently a plan in the Senate -- a plan that was developed with ideas from Democrats and Republicans -- that would achieve the same goal. But this is an issue that Washington has long ignored in favor of protecting the status quo.

So I'm asking for your help today to show that the American people are ready for a clean-energy future.

Please add your name to mine:

http://my.barackobama.com/CleanEnergy

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

MICHELLE OBAMA WORDS TO MARINES AND FAMILIES AT CAMP PENDLETON

Yay! Hello, Pendleton! Wow, it's a Sunday, and you're here. First of all, let me thank General Dunford for his kind introduction and for more than 30 years of extraordinary service in uniform. Let's give the General -- (applause.) I also want to thank General Jackson, Colonel Marano, your senior enlisted leaders, especially your base Senior Enlisted Marine -- a remarkable woman who reminds us that our NCOs are the backbone of our military -- Sergeant Major Ramona Cook.

And thank you all for this incredible welcome, and for coming out, as I said, on a Sunday, especially when you could be home getting ready for the big game. We will be out of here in time. As you may have heard, my husband, the President, that guy ... he did pick the Lakers to win. It's close, so we'll see -- hey, hey, hey, look .... I'm a neutral party in this battle.

It is wonderful to be here at Marine Corps Base -- Camp Pendleton, home of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force -- "One Mef." ... One Mef. ... And one of the most decorated military units in American history -- the 1st Marine Division.

We have folks here from across Marine Corps Installations West -- our Navy-Marine Corps team. We have a lot of civilian Marines, and a lot of proud Marine spouses and families who....

...are here. So I also want to acknowledge Ellyn Dunford, Susan Jackson and Tami Marano for giving me such a warm welcome when I landed. And to all the truly amazing families that I just had a chance to talk to, they are doing just -- as I said, they are intelligent, they are passionate, they're committed to their issues. And it was truly an honor for me to spend time with them. And let's hear it also for the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing Band. Thank you all.

We're also joined by your neighbors and partners from three great counties here: San Diego, Orange and Riverside, and the many elected officials and leaders, local and state, including Senator Boxer and Congresswoman Davis. They are tireless champions of our men and women in uniform, and also their families and our veterans. So let's give them another round of applause.

Now, I've been doing this First Lady thing for a little bit, and I've had the chance to meet some pretty amazing people -- the Pope, the Queen of England, a couple weeks ago Paul McCartney. But I have to tell you sincerely that some of the most inspiring Americans I've ever met are our men and women in uniform. You all take my breath away every time I'm on a base. This includes those who are part of our daily lives at the White House -- the United States Marines. They are just amazing people. In fact, one of them ... that's our guys, and gals -- in fact, one of them was your 32nd Commandant, who my husband selected as his National Security Adviser, General Jim Jones, and his wonderful wife Diane.

And one of the most impressive evenings that the President and I have had since he's been in office was when we joined General Conway and his wife Annette for the Evening Parade at "the oldest post in the Corps" -- the Marine Barracks Washington. It was an amazing evening -- the tradition, the discipline, the pride -- the same virtues that you and your families exhibit every day, we got to see it on display that evening.

So I wanted to come here today for a simple reason, and it's become one of my defining missions as First Lady, and that's to help the rest of our country better understand and appreciate the incredible service of you and your families, and to make sure that your voices are heard back in Washington and that your needs are met, and to make sure that we realize our vision of an America that truly supports and engages our military families. That's why I'm here. And I couldn't think of a better place to bring this effort than to Camp Pendleton and Southern California. It's beautiful -- this is a beautiful part of the country. It's one of America's biggest and strongest military communities.

And many of you have served in Iraq. Many of you have served in Afghanistan. Some of you will be shipping out in the coming months. And I know it is never easy to say goodbye to your loved ones, your spouses, your kids. It is never easy. And I know nothing compares to the joy and the relief of those incredible homecomings. I've seen some of them. And let me join you in saying welcome home to our Marines who returned from Afghanistan just the other day -- the 1st Marine Division Military Police Company. Welcome home.

But today, our thoughts are also with all our men and women in harm's way around the world, including our Marines in Afghanistan, so many of whom are from Camp Pendleton. They're the "One Mef" Marines in Helmand Province, at Camp Leatherneck, your husbands, your wives, your fellow Marines, including some inspiring women Marines. Yes for our ladies! We send all of them our love and support, and we pray that they come home safe.

Yet as you all know too well, and so painfully, that that's not always the case. In the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, no Marine base -- and few bases anywhere -- has sacrificed more for America, more lives, more wounded warriors, than your families and your colleagues.

And today, we honor all of our fallen heroes, including the Camp Pendleton Marines who gave their lives just this past week: Sergeant Brandon Bury. Lance Corporal Derek Hernandez. Corporal Donald Marler. Sergeant John Rankel. Lance Corporal Michael Plank.

Our prayers and support are with these fallen Marines and their families, and with all the Gold Star families who are here with us today. As one Pendleton wife put it so eloquently, she said, "We're the voices and spirits of the boys -- and girls -- who didn't come home." And as a nation, we join with you in honoring their memory as you and your families find the strength to carry on and to live the lives that would make your loved ones so proud.

So I'm here today to remind America that, as a nation, we can never forget or fail to support you, our incredible military families. You're heroes just as much as our men and women in uniform -- the spouses who stay behind, with all the pride of being a military wife or husband, but with also the fears and the anxiety that come when the person you love the most in the world is in harm's way.

Here on the homefront, you do the job of two or three, juggling play dates and practices and ballet recitals, trying to keep the household together all on your own, making sure that your children get the care and support they need as you move from station to station, maybe trying to hold down a job or pursue your own career, get your own education, all while trying to hide your own worries when the kids look up and ask when daddy or mommy is coming home.

And if they come home needing care, you become the caregivers to our wounded warriors, including those with post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury. You put your own lives on hold, working every day around the clock, to make your loved ones whole again. I just visited your state-of-the-art Wounded Warrior Battalion. It was amazing, and it was so humbling to be there, to see the Marines there who are fighting so hard to recover. They are an inspiration, not just to me but the entire country.

And through it all, our incredible military kids -- all these beautiful kids serve in their own special way too. We cannot forget these children. They are children who have spent most of their young lives with a parent deployed. They are older siblings shouldering so much responsibility just like little adults. And it doesn't get easier with each deployment -- it only gets harder. And to the children of the fallen, I know you all are working so hard to be strong and to grow up and to realize your dreams. So I want every boy and girl here and teenager here to know that America thinks that you guys are doing an amazing job. We are proud of you all too.

And then somehow, through it all -- and this always amazes me -- is that no matter what base I visit, anywhere in the country, even as you all serve this nation, you still find time to serve your local communities and your civilian neighborhoods. That's amazing. You're Little League coaches and soccer moms and volunteers at schools and food banks and churches and hospitals. You volunteer to build homes for the less fortunate and helped respond during those horrible wildfires here. And, of course, wherever there are Marines, there's Toys for Tots, which got started right here in Southern California. And more than 60 years later, you're still going strong, all over the country.

So I've been telling your fellow Americans -- given all that you all and your families do to take care of America, America needs to take care of you. It is our moral obligation, and every American has a responsibility to do our part.

So that's why I've issued a national challenge -- a challenge to every sector of American society to mobilize and take action to support and engage our military families. And not just now, with our nation at war, but for the decades to come. We have to build the capacity to support you and your families at every stage of your lives. But to do this, we need a truly national commitment -- no one can sit on the sidelines. One percent of Americans may be fighting our wars, but 100 percent of Americans need to be supporting you in that fight.

So this is a challenge this is a challenge to the government. That's why my husband and his administration have made military families a priority -- increasing funds for military housing, childcare, counseling and career development support for spouses, extending the Family Medical Leave Act to more military families and caregivers, and recently, expanding veterans' health care and giving unprecedented support to caregivers.

And because we have to bring together the resources across the federal government for this mission, my husband has ordered a government-wide review that urges every department to make supporting your families a high priority, and it will lay the foundation for a coordinated government approach for years to come.

This is a challenge across the Department of Defense, including every branch of the military. And I want to commend General Conway and his wife Annette for making family readiness a top priority. After all ... it's true, and people have to understand this, that the readiness of our armed forces depends on the readiness of our military families -- you all know that. And here at Pendleton, you're a model of family support -- spouses supporting spouses, and family team building. It's a true model. That includes making sure that our families are healthy, which, as you know, has been one of my big focuses as First Lady. So I was thrilled to hear about your terrific program -- "Semper Fit."

That's a good thing. But as you know, there's still so much more we need to do to serve your families even better. And that's why the Defense Department has launched the Military Family Life Project. This is a landmark study of spouses and service members to assess your quality of life. So one thing I've been doing is urging every military spouse across America that if you've been selected or know someone who's been participated to participate, please do, because the more we know about your priorities, the more we can do to meet them.

But this can't be a mission for government alone. Every American has to play a role. And that's the other reason why I wanted to come here to Southern California, because the great civilian communities here really get it. You're showing the rest of America what it means to truly support and engage our troops and families.

Yes, it's easier when you have a big base like Pendleton nearby. But so many of the wonderful ideas and initiatives here can be a model for communities all across the country. And after all, just like at Pendleton, most military families live off base, as part of the broader community. Most military children attend public schools somewhere in this country. Our National Guardsmen and Reservists are in virtually every community across America. So I want the whole country to be inspired by what is happening here in Southern California.

I want local governments to see how San Diego, Orange and Riverside counties and communities have really, truly stepped up; how so many cities have adopted units -- sending care packages to our Marines when you're deployed, and giving spouses the support and friendship they need back home; how communities like Oceanside come together with "Operation Appreciation Day" -- this is a beautiful effort just to say thank you; and how schools like Mater Dei offer special programs, football and dance, for our military kids.

I want the private sector to see how your local businesses have been so creative, like the Fallbrook Chamber of Commerce, which provided all-expenses-paid weddings for lucky Marine couples. Now, that's great -- isn't it? ... It's a good thing.

You can be like businesses all over this area, which have opened up their doors and helped our talented spouses and veterans develop their skills and pursue their careers, because the truth is, the discipline and dedication needed to succeed in the military are the same traits that any business would want in their employees. And whether your company is big or small, every business leader can speak out against abusive practices like predatory lenders who target military families. That's the kind of stuff that needs to stop.

And I want organizations across the country to see the incredible difference that community-based groups make here in this area -- often by just doing what they already do but connecting it to the priorities of military families -- the groups all over the region that throw Mother's Day brunches for Marine moms; the folks in San Onofre who returned the goodwill of Toys for Tots with Christmas Trees for Troops. There are local museums, like the San Diego Museum of Art, which have joined with Blue Star Families, the National Endowment for the Arts, and hundreds of museums across the country to offer free admission to families -- military families this summer.

And a wonderful program that we were proud to help celebrate at the White House during National Mentoring Month -- that was the Big Brothers Big Sisters of San Diego and their "Operation Bigs, " which provides mentors to so many great military kids here at Pendleton.

So in short, this is a challenge to every American, because everyone can do something to support and engage our military and your families.

There are families like the Tuzons. Norman is a master sergeant with the 1st Marine Division and is currently deployed to Afghanistan. And I just met his wife Eliza, who is here at Pendleton, with their three beautiful children: Kiana, who's here -- she's nine; and Akina, who's five; and Akian, who's the little man with the mohawk, who's one.

And last year, Kiana -- who was then a 3rd grader at Mary Fay Pendleton School -- wrote an essay, which won the national recognition by the Armed Services YMCA. And her essay ... they're very proud of her -- her essay was displayed in the halls of Congress, where it could be seen by Americans from across the country.

And this is what she wrote. She said -- and this is a quote -- "We should all have military heroes[who] do so many things for us that sometimes [are] taken for granted." Yes, she's a 4th grader. She said, "My military herois my dad." And she said, "He fights for our country." But she added, "When he's deployed to other countriesmy military hero is my mom." She said, "She is a strong Marine mom. She has a very hard duty, just like a Marine. My mom works 24 hours a day and seven days a week. And she is always there when I need her."

And by the way, her mom says Kiana is quite a kid too. Kiana loves math and music, Disney and Mozart. Her handwriting is excellent, because she wrote me a letter. She writes better than a lot of my staff. She misses her dad a lot, but she helps her mom around the house and her little sister with her homework.

And in her essay, Kiana had a message for every American. She said -- this is another quote -- "If you do not have a military hero yet, find a Marine and thank him or her for serving our country." Now that's pretty good advice for a 4th grader. It's a simple message.

Kiana, her mom and brother and sister, as I said, are here today, and I got a chance to meet them. And I'd like to ask them, if they are here, to stand up. I see them over there. You guys? And they're gorgeous. Kiana, sweetie, thank you for helping to inspire us. Now the whole world knows just how amazing you are.

And that's really the challenge. That's what the challenge is all about. It's about every American remembering that you and your families, you are the heroes among us. It's about every American doing their part. It's simple, it's about making sure that we realize our vision of an America that stands by you at every stage of your lives.

An America where every sailor, soldier, airman, Marine, Coast Guardsman and woman can deploy knowing that their family will be taken care of, so instead of worrying about benefits and bureaucracy, they can focus on their mission -- that is, protecting our country.

We're working towards an America where every spouse has the support he or she needs, including a clear understanding of the programs that are available and how to access them. And this includes the courageous survivors of our fallen heroes, who we must support as they keep alive the legacy of their loved ones and continue to contribute to the life of our country.

We're working towards an America where every military child is recognized as someone who serves too, in their own way, and where they receive the support that they need to pursue their dreams.

We're working to be an America where our troops and our veterans and their spouses are recognized for what they are -- skilled and talented leaders who have so much to offer our country, not only during their military service, but throughout their lives.

We're working to be an American where more people not only understand the service and sacrifice that you and your families make, but where more Americans take action to help lighten your load.

That is the future that you all deserve. And working toward that future is going to remain one of my defining missions as First Lady. That is my promise to you.

So I want to thank you for what you do for our country. We are so very proud of you. You all be safe, be strong, hold together, and God bless. And Semper Fi! Thank you all.


OBAMA CREATES STIR WITH HIS WORDS


The latest casualty of the BP oil spill is presidential decorum.

In a Tuesday TV interview that had the Internet buzzing - and grandmothers everywhere reaching for bars of soap - U.S. President Barack Obama dropped the a-bomb. Specifically, he told the Today show's Matt Lauer that he's speaking with Gulf Coast fishermen and other experts about the oil spill "so I know whose ase to kick."

Though it was hardly the first time a president has used salty language - Richard Nixon and Harry S. Truman, anyone? - experts say the fact profanity was dropped so casually on a network morning show, by a major world leader, signals the increasingly informal times in which we live.

"Though it would've got me in trouble as a kid, 'kick arse' has become such a common phrase that I'd now put it in the same category as the word crap, " says Robert Thompson, director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University. "That isn't to say I think presidents should be talking like sailors. But given the current North American vernacular, I don't think that's what this is at all."

As for public hand-wringing over Obama's "example" to young people, Thompson can only laugh, asking: "How many kids do you know that watch the Today show?"

OBAMA DEFENDS HIS GULF SPILL RESPONSE

President Barack Obama said Monday he's been talking closely to Gulf Coast fishermen and various experts on BP's catastrophic oil spill not for lofty academic reasons but "so I know whose ass to kick."

The salty words, part of Obama's recent efforts to telegraph to Americans his engagement with the crisis, came in an interview in Michigan with NBC's "Today" show.

He strongly defended his role in dealing with the crisis that began with the April 20 explosion on a BP-leased oil rig in the Gulf, killing 11 workers and starting the nation's largest-ever oil spill.

"I was down there a month ago before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the Gulf, " Obama told NBC's Matt Lauer. "I was meeting with fishermen in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be."

Some have criticized the president for not engaging passionately enough on the spill, even though he's been to the Gulf coast three times since the disaster, his most recent visit on Friday.

Obama said he has talked to a variety of "experts" on the oil spill in addition to the fishermen.

"I talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers - so I know whose ass to kick, " the president said.

Obama was in Kalamazoo, Mich., to speak to graduating high school students. NBC aired a portion of the interview on Monday evening in advance of Tuesday's "Today" program.

Obama also launched a salvo at Tony Hayward, BP's CEO, over some of his past comments, including saying at one point that "I want my life back" and that the Gulf was "a big ocean" and that "the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to be very, very modest."

"He wouldn't be working for me after any of those statements, " Obama said, according to excerpts released by NBC.

Earlier, Obama sought to reassure the nation that the Gulf Coast would "bounce back" from the worst oil spill in the nation's history, but not without time, effort and reimbursement from BP.

Surrounded by Cabinet members, Obama said that not only is he confident that the crisis will pass but also that the affected area "comes back even stronger than ever."

The president and top federal officials were briefed on the government's battle against the spill by Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, who is overseeing the government's efforts in dealing with the tragedy.

Allen earlier Monday told reporters that a cap on the damaged oil well is now keeping up to 462, 000 gallons of oil a day from leaking into the Gulf. That's up from about 441, 000 gallons on Saturday and about 250, 000 on Friday.

BP in a statement put the amount being captured at 466, 200 gallons. Allen said the government was using its own flow-rate calculations and not relying on those from BP. He put the amount being captured at 11, 000 42-gallon barrels, or 462, 000 gallons.

"This will be contained, " Obama asserted. "It may take some time, and it's going to take a whole lot of effort. There is going to be damage done to the Gulf Coast, and there is going to be economic damages that we've got to make sure BP is responsible for and compensates people for."

Obama said that government scientists and other experts confirmed that the capping device "is beginning to capture some of the oil. We are still trying to make a better determination as to how much it is capturing."

But, Obama added, "even if we are successful in containing some or much of the oil" the problem wouldn't be solved until relief wells reach the area of the damaged well in several months.

"What is clear is that the economic impact of this disaster is going to be substantial and it is going to be ongoing, " Obama said.

"We also know that there's already a lot of oil that's been released, and that there's going to be more oil released no matter how successful this containment effort is, " he added.

The president has been speaking out on the disaster almost daily and has visited the Louisiana coast three times since the April 20 explosion that killed 11 workers and unleashed the oil gusher.

He reiterated an appeal he made on Friday in the region that BP not "nickel and dime" Gulf coast residents and businesses that have filed claims against the London-based oil giant.

"`We are going to insist that money flow quickly and in a timely basis, " Obama said.

Allen acknowledged at Monday's White House briefing that the company has struggled with handling claims.

He said we'd "like them to get better" at processing the claims and that a system for paying them should be "routinized" as soon as possible.

IF MUD STICKS, UNFAIRLY, SO CAN OIL

Until recently, if you were listing the strengths of Barack Obama and his administration, you would have emphasised the president's calm, controlled demeanour and the competence of the people around him - a welcome contrast, in both respects, to the previous administration. In the blink of an eye, this has turned upside-down. Friends and foes are accusing Mr Obama's White House of multi-dimensional bungling and are holding the president's temperament up to ridicule.

The still unfolding disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is the main cause, though not the only one. It is too soon to know how effective the latest attempt to stop the leak will be, but the likely environmental damage from oil that has already escaped is causing ever mounting alarm. The situation has been worsening for weeks, critics point out, yet the White House has seemed only semi-engaged. They complain that Mr Obama's leadership has been ineffective and indeed barely visible. He should have pushed BP aside; he should have put the military in charge; he should have conveyed a greater sense of urgency; he should have shown he "gets it".

Once a theme of this sort is established, entirely different setbacks can be slotted in. Before you know it you have a syndrome.

The White House is being harried for offering jobs in the administration to a couple of contestants in upcoming elections, with the aim of making things easier for its preferred candidates. Nobody denies that this is standard practice in Washington. Still, depending on how the offers were pitched, it is possible that there were technical breaches of the law. Also, it looks bad when a White House that promised to be open and straight with the electorate does what every other White House has done and uses patronage to influence an election.

No doubt this is why Mr Obama's team has been reluctant to come clean. Confirming the US political adage that it is not the act that counts but the cover-up, the administration has squirmed and prevaricated about its job offers. As a result, these petty scandals have dragged on and assumed exaggerated importance as part of a supposed wider pattern of indecision, obfuscation, popular disconnection and political incompetence.

And so it goes on. Quite what the administration should have said or done about Israel's attack on the protest flotilla attempting to break the blockade of Gaza was unclear, at least in the first instance. For one thing, the facts were in dispute and needed to be established. But for purposes of commentary there was no need to wait. By now the narrative was laid down. Where is the president? What is he going to do? Why is he vacillating?

The criticism of Mr Obama's handling of the oil spill has been especially and flamboyantly unreasonable. So far as capping the leak is concerned, the relevant expertise resides with BP and the other oil companies. The notion that they should be "pushed aside" is risible. In any case, of course, the administration is in charge - overseeing the operation, as opposed to directing it in detail, which is as it should be. A deepwater drilling moratorium is in place and a thoroughgoing review of the regulatory regime is under way. The White House has been active in mobilising resources to contain damage to the coastline.

Could more be done? Louisiana's governor Bobby Jindal deplores the delay in building sand barriers to act as an extra line of defence - but there are differences of opinion about the utility of that approach, which even advocates admit will take months to execute. Good-faith disputes over priorities and what is feasible cannot support accusations of negligence or indolence.

Actually, many critics admit that their complaints are unfounded even as they lodge them. They say, in so many words, "I've no idea what more the president can do. Why is he not doing more?" Over the past week or so, the opinion pages of US newspapers have raised this fatuous ventilation almost to the level of mass hysteria.

The view seems to be that staying calm in a crisis is all very well, except in a crisis. Then, the president must radiate rage and fear, pretend to direct operations, race about uselessly, weeping and hugging as he goes, doing stuff that will not help and might make things worse. In addition, as Maureen Dowd of the New York Times recommends, Mr Obama must pay attention to "the paternal aspect of the presidency". Does Ms Dowd want Mr Obama to be her daddy?

The interesting question is how far such sentiments reflect the views of US voters at large - and whether, looking farther ahead, this sudden deluge of media criticism might change the country's opinion of Mr Obama. According to polls, support for the president has fallen a lot over the past year, as his policies have divided the country and sent independents to the Republican camp. Nonetheless, his approval rating had recently levelled off at a little under 50 per cent and the most recent Gallup poll, for instance, shows no sudden new collapse.

This could change. Given the recent intensity of criticism from all quarters, one might expect it to. We shall see. Without meaning to set the bar too low, one hopes that US voters are more grown-up than some of their commentators.


THE GULF COAST

Yesterday, I visited Caminada Bay in Grand Isle, Louisiana -- one of the first places to feel the devastation wrought by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While I was here, at Camerdelle's Live Bait shop, I met with a group of local residents and small business owners.

Folks like Floyd Lasseigne, a fourth-generation oyster fisherman. This is the time of year when he ordinarily earns a lot of his income. But his oyster bed has likely been destroyed by the spill.

Terry Vegas had a similar story. He quit the 8th grade to become a shrimper with his grandfather. Ever since, he's earned his living during shrimping season -- working long, grueling days so that he could earn enough money to support himself year-round. But today, the waters where he has worked are closed. And every day, as the spill worsens, he loses hope that he will be able to return to the life he built.

Here, this spill has not just damaged livelihoods. It has upended whole communities. And the fury people feel is not just about the money they have lost. It is about the wrenching recognition that this time their lives may never be the same.

These people work hard. They meet their responsibilities. But now because of a manmade catastrophe -- one that is not their fault and beyond their control -- their lives have been thrown into turmoil. It is brutally unfair. And what I told these men and women is that I will stand with the people of the Gulf Coast until they are again made whole.

That is why, from the beginning, we have worked to deploy every tool at our disposal to respond to this crisis. Today, there are more than 20, 000 people working around the clock to contain and clean up this spill. I have authorized 17, 500 National Guard troops to participate in the response. More than 1, 900 vessels are aiding in the containment and cleanup effort. We have convened hundreds of top scientists and engineers from around the world. This is the largest response to an environmental disaster of this kind in the history of our country.

We have also ordered BP to pay economic injury claims, and this week, the federal government sent BP a preliminary bill for $69 million to pay back American taxpayers for some of the costs of the response so far. In addition, after an emergency safety review, we are putting in place aggressive new operating standards for offshore drilling. And I have appointed a bipartisan commission to look into the causes of this spill. If laws are inadequate, they will be changed. If oversight was lacking, it will be strengthened. And if laws were broken, those responsible will be brought to justice.

These are hard times in Louisiana and across the Gulf Coast, an area that has already seen more than its fair share of troubles. The people of this region have met this terrible catastrophe with seemingly boundless strength and character in defense of their way of life. What we owe them is a commitment by our nation to match the resilience they have shown. That is our mission. And it is one we will fulfill.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

OBAMA'S TOUGH-GUY ACT WON'T HELP

"I don't want to hear ... that they're nickel and diming fishermen or small businesses here, " declared a stern-looking President Obama this afternoon. By "they" he meant BP, which, he fumed, is spending $50 million on image-burnishing TV ads and might pay out $10.5 billion in dividends, even as it fails to stop the Gulf oil spill, and by "here" he meant Louisiana, where he traveled Friday to demonstrate how furious he is with all of the above. From the no-nonsense tone to the rolled-up sleeves, Obama looked and sounded the part of the engaged chief executive, so the pundits who all but ordered him to the gulf should be satisfied. But his implied threat of punitive action is beginning to have a familiar ring-too familiar. Earlier this week, Attorney General Eric Holder vowed that the government will "prosecute to the fullest extent of the law" any person or entity that did something criminal and allowed the oil spill to occur. Wall Street took the threat seriously: the day of Holder's announcement, BP lost 15 percent of its market value. It remains significantly below where it stood last week. Still: does anybody really think that the people responsible for the Gulf catastrophe will be punished sufficiently? My colleague Dan Gross has culled some delightful ideas from his readers, but despite the president's best intentions, is there any fleeting chance this will end in a way that's remotely fair?

I don't mean to belittle the administration's crimefighting abilities. It's just that anything remotely approaching justice in the gulf would be a remarkable break from the norm. Time and again lately, authorities vow to punish some act of wrongdoing. They bluster that miscreants will get what they deserve. Then the hedging or the fleeing or the deal-cutting begins, and the idea of justice itself ends up ringing hollow. Bad people have ducked responsibility for their bad deeds since cavemen were boosting each others' clubs. But it's hard to read the news every day without feeling this is the golden age of Getting Away With It.

Consider the honor roll of dodged responsibility. The priest abuse scandals. The CEOs profiting from bailout money. Osama bin Laden killed 3, 000 Americans and is still at large. So is Ayman al-Zawahiri. So is Mullah Omar. They have lived to taunt and kill another day. It outrages our moral sense to see wrongdoers evade punishment, but in some ways it's even worse when the justice that gets served is really no justice at all. Bernie Madoff will die a disgraced felon and monster, but this can't rebuild the thousands of lives he ruined. The same goes for the granny-fleecing financial geniuses at Enron. A nun in a Catholic hospital was recently excommunicated for approving an abortion that saved the mother's life, even as Bernard Law enjoys what I am appalled to think is a comfortable life in the Holy See. The list goes on.

In eras of great religious devotion, believers could shoulder these iniquities by looking forward to the reckoning promised by Ecclesiastes, that "God shall judge the righteous and the wicked." But today, our frustrated sense of justice finds its outlet closer to home, in making extravagant demands of the president. Asking Barack Obama to rewrite the laws of physics and halt the oil spill is the expression of a feeling of futility that predates the trouble in the gulf, and is almost certain to outlive it. Even if he uses all the tools at his disposal-firings, fresh regulations, a prosecution or two-he still can't bridge the justice gap, the difference between the bad things that people do and the remedies that can be applied when they don't.

Obama's sharp words for BP Friday might convince some people to cut him a little slack. The speech he needs to give, but can't, would range more broadly than telling an oil company how to spend its money. Real life (he might remind people, beginning with the pundits) isn't much like The West Wing, with its neat depictions of political heroics on a grand scale. Thanks to the gap between actions and consequences, life looks more like The Wire. Every fresh miscarriage of justice ratifies the bleak worldview of David Simon's show about corruption and drugs in Baltimore. We are all connected, the show says, and we are affected by the moral or immoral actions of people we never meet. Perversely enough, the only people who don't suffer are the ones most responsible for the suffering in the first place, the ones insulated by money, power, or their connections. Simon's most haunting character may be the man known only as The Greek, the ultimate source for most of the drugs destroying the city, the one who profits no matter who wins or loses. I'd tell you what happens to him in the end, but I don't want to spoil the story. And anyway, if you've been following the news about the oil spill, the priests, or the financiers, you can probably figure it out on your own.


PAUL McCARTNEY CROONS FOR MICHELLE OBAMA




June 4, 2010 (Pen Men at Work): Sir James Paul McCartney, the renowned English singer and songwriter, had been extremely desirous of enacting a song at the White House, the residence of any powerful American President.

McCartney received an opportunity to do that on Wednesday night and he captured it with both hands. He rendered a fabulous performance at an East Room gig by singing Michelle'. We do know that the White House is presently occupied by Barack Obama and his wife, who is named, Michelle Obama. The loving words of the song, Michelle', were directly aimed at Michelle Obama by McCartney. Subsequent to McCartney crooning to the First Lady the lines, I love you, I love you, I love you', he jocosely declared that he might be the initial chap ever to get kicked out by an American President. This hilarious remark of McCartney generated widespread laughter in the room.

However, President Obama, the gentleman that he is, did not exhibit any sign of displeasure as he swung to the beat in the company of his wife, who was uttering the lines along with McCartney.

The gig, which continued for nearly 90 minutes, revolved around the presidential conferral of the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song to McCartney. The President stated that McCartney had contributed to laying the soundtrack for a whole generation. McCartney declared that the conferment of this prize was a delightful moment for him and that the White House was a terrific place to perform.

The gig had a starry array of high-flying artistes, who executed their own versions of some of McCartney's most popular songs. McCartney declared that listening to what other personalities did to his music was a stimulating experience.

Among those delivering renditions were Stevie Wonder, the Jonas Brothers, Faith Hill, Elvis Costello, Emmylou Harris, Herbie Hancock, White Stripes singer and guitarist Jack White. The Gershwin prize is provided in the name of the songwriting fraternal duo, George and Ira Gershwin.

McCartney, a successful entrepreneur, is also a dedicated endorser of humane treatment for animals, of vegetarianism, and for musical teaching. McCartney, one of Britain's most opulent males, has energetically been involved in movements against landmines, seal killing, and Third World arrears.


THE GREAT GAP BETWEEN OBAMA'S WORDS & DEEDS


In his speech in Cairo the US president Barack Obama spoke of "Palestine" as if it was about to be a country with a secure place on the map. He urged the Palestinians to achieve their goal of dignity and statehood through non-violent means. Most crucially, he declared that Israeli settlements on occupied land must stop.

Looking back on that speech after the events of the past week underlines the gap between word and deed. For all his promises to rein in Israel and devote himself to achieving Palestinian statehood, the US has been almost the only country not to condemn the Israeli commando raid on the Free Gaza Movement flotilla. The US still says only that it "regrets the loss of life". These thin words are more inflammatory for the Islamic world than the raid itself.


It would be unfair to dismiss the Cairo speech as meaningless. Mr Obama has cleansed official US discourse of hate-speak such as "Islamo-fascism". He speaks with respect for Islam.

His call on the Palestinians to use non-violent means gave fresh impetus to previously existing initiatives. These include weekly protests against the route of the Israeli wall where it divides villages from land and livelihood; international campaigns to boycott products from Jewish settlements on Palestinian land; and most prominently the Free Gaza Movement flotilla. Whatever the Israelis say about this, it was a political initiative designed to highlight an immoral and unsuccessful Israeli policy, backed by the US, the European Union and Egypt, to weaken Hamas.


These initiatives have not changed the balance of power, but they have added to Israel's isolation and prompted a panic in Israel about being "delegitimised". The weekly protests are violently dispersed by the Israeli security forces; the right-wing government is cracking down on human rights organisations who are now labelled as the enemy within.

The Obama administration has repeatedly called for an easing of the blockade of Gaza, but achieved nothing. On the issue of freezing settlements, Mr Obama locked horns with the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu over a settlement freeze, and came off worse. In the end Israel has agreed to a limited and temporary freeze on construction. Nowhere has the US administration stated that settlements are wrong.

A clear promise to close down the notorious Guantanamo Bay detention centre by the middle of this year has not been achieved. This seems to have had perverse effect: with nowhere to detain Taliban and al Qaeda suspects, the US has dramatically increased its use of unmanned aircraft to kill them.

During the Bush administration the drones were used to target the leadership; now they are employed against almost anyone with a gun. Analysis of the drone operations shows that there are now 12 times more victims who are classed as "low-level fighters" than "medium-or high-level commanders". The number of civilian casualties is not known but Pakistan estimates that hundreds have died in order to kill 14 senior militants.


Since this drone campaign is taking place in Pakistan, outside of what is generally considered the war zone, and conducted in secret by the CIA, there are serious concerns about its legality. An expert for the UN human rights council in Geneva says Washington has given the CIA an "ill-defined licence to kill".

As an opponent of the war in Iraq, Mr Obama clearly has to prove his toughness in Afghanistan. This is one explanation for the escalating air campaign. But overall, it is clear that the noble goals of Cairo have been squashed by long-standing imperatives: the US military's desire to fight a counter-insurgency war without putting too many boots on the ground in Pakistan, and Washington's desperation to avoid giving Iran a diplomatic victory by lifting the blockade on Hamas in Gaza


It is too late for Mr Obama to redeem himself? On the day of his speech last year Helene Cooper of The New York Times offered a prophetic view from Washington. "As gifted an orator as the president is, changing the behemoth of United States foreign policy is no easy task, particularly since America's interests, in many ways, remain the same no matter who is in the White House."

Mr Obama set out fine goals, but has failed to find the means to achieve them. In his Cairo speech he lectured like a professor, setting out a clear analysis of the issues, but failing to include any real political beef. In the current crisis over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Mr Obama has also appeared professorial, rather than managerial. His words hang in the air, but never coalesce into something you can pick up and run with.


The most successful US presidents are often those who appear academically challenged. President Franklin Roosevelt, who led the US out of the Great Depression and through the Second World War, was described by the supreme court judge Oliver Wendell Holmes as having "a second-class mind but a first-class temperament". Perhaps in US politics the right temperament is more important than Obama-style intellectual firepower.


At this gloomy time for the Middle East, we should still remember that Mr Obama has said things which cannot be unsaid and offered a glimpse of a new way of dealing with the Muslim world. A new beginning it is not; he raised hopes too high. It is something much more modest, a recalibration. Maybe, just maybe, he or his successor can build on it.

OBAMA ON THE ECONOMY AT

CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, everybody. Please have a seat. Thank you very much.

Let me begin by thanking Dr. Jared Cohon, and the entire Carnegie Mellon community, for welcoming me once again, and for the terrific work that he and the administration, faculty and staff do here each and every day.

I also want to acknowledge your outstanding mayor -- who doesn't look any older than the last time I saw him -- Mayor Luke Ravenstahl. There he is, right there.

It is great to be back at Carnegie Mellon, and in the beautiful city of Pittsburgh. I love visiting a good sports town. Last year, I stole Dan Rooney to serve as my ambassador to Ireland. To make it up, I invited both the Steelers and the Penguins to the White House to celebrate their championships. Seeing how the Blackhawks are headed to Philly tonight with a 2-0 lead in the Stanley Cup Finals, I'm just glad that we're on this side of the state.

I noticed a couple of people said they were rooting for the Blackhawks, which tells me something about the rivalry between Pittsburgh and Philly.

Of course, we meet here at an incredibly difficult time for America. Among other things, it's a time when the worst environmental disaster of its kind in our nation's history is threatening the Gulf Coast and the people who live there. Right now, stopping this oil spill and containing its damage is necessarily the top priority not just of my administration but I think of the entire country. And we're waging this battle every minute of every day.

But at the same time, we're continuing our efforts to recover and rebuild from an economic disaster that has touched the lives of nearly every American. That's what I want to talk about today -- the state of our economy, the future we must seize, and the path we chose to get there.

It has now been a little over 16 months since I took office amid one of the worst economic storms in our history. And to navigate that storm, my administration was forced to take some dramatic and unpopular steps. These steps have succeeded in breaking the freefall. We're again moving in the right direction.

An economy that was shrinking at an alarming rate when I became President has now been growing for three consecutive quarters. After losing an average of 750, 000 jobs a month during the winter of last year, we've now added jobs for five of the last six months, and we expect to see strong job growth in Friday's report. The taxpayer money it cost to shore up the financial sector and the auto industry, that's being repaid. And both GM and Chrysler are adding shifts and operating at a profit. So, despite temporary setbacks, uncertain world events, and the resulting ups and downs of the market, this economy is getting stronger by the day.

Now, that doesn't mean this recession is by any means over for the millions of Americans who are still looking for a job or a way to pay the bills. Not by a long shot. The devastation created by the deepest downturn since the Great Depression has hit people and communities across our country very hard. And it's not going to be a real recovery until people can feel it in their own lives.

In the immediate future, this means doing whatever is necessary to keep the recovery going and to spur job growth. But in the long term, it means recognizing that for a lot of middle-class families -- for entire communities, in some case -- a sense of economic security has been missing since long before the recession began.

Over the last decade, these families saw their income decline. They saw the cost of things like health care and college tuition reach record highs. They lived through a so-called economic "expansion" that generated slower job growth than at any prior expansion since World War II. Some people have called the last 10 years "the lost decade."

So the anxiety that's out there today isn't new. The recession has certainly made it worse, but that feeling of not being in control of your own economic future -- that sense that the American Dream might slowly be slipping away -- that's been around for some time now. And for better or for worse, our generation of Americans has been buffeted by tremendous forces of economic change. Long gone are the days when a high school diploma could guarantee a job at a local factory -- not when so many of those factories had moved overseas. Pittsburgh, a city that once was defined by the steel industry, knows this better than just about anybody. And today, the ability of jobs and entire industries to relocate where there's skilled workers and an Internet connection has forced America to compete like never before.

From China to India to Europe, other nations have already realized this. They're putting a greater emphasis on math and science, and demanding more from their students. Some countries are building high-speed railroads and expanding broadband access. They're making serious investments in technology and clean energy because they want to win the competition for those jobs.

So we can't afford to stand pat while the world races by. The United States of America did not become the most prosperous nation on Earth by sheer luck or happenstance. We got here because each time a generation of Americans has faced a changing world, we have changed with it. We have not feared our future; we have shaped it. America does not stand still; we move forward.

And that's why I've said that as we emerge from this recession, we can't afford to return to the pre-crisis status quo. We can't go back to an economy that was too dependent on bubbles and debt and financial speculation. We can't accept economic growth that leaves the middle class owing more and making less. We have to build a new and stronger foundation for growth and prosperity -- and that's exactly what we've been doing for the last 16 months.

It's a foundation based on investments in our people and their future; investments in the skills and education we need to compete; investments in a 21st century infrastructure for America, from high-speed railroads to high-speed Internet; investments in research and technology, like clean energy, that can lead to new jobs and new exports and new industries.

This new foundation is also based on reforms that will make our economy stronger and our businesses more competitive -- reforms that will make health care cheaper, our financial system more secure, and our government less burdened with debt.

In a global economy, we can't pursue this agenda in a vacuum. At the height of the financial crisis, the coordinated action we took with the nations of the G20 prevented a global depression and helped restore worldwide growth. And as we've recently witnessed in Europe, economic difficulties in one part of the world can affect everybody else. And that's why we have to keep on working with the nations of the G20 to pursue more balanced growth. That's why we need to coordinate financial reform with other nations so that we avoid a global race to the bottom. It's why we need to open new markets and meet the goal of my National Export Initiative: to double our exports over the next five years. And it's why we need to ensure that our competitors play fair and our agreements are enforced. This, too, is part of building a new foundation.

Now, some of you may have noticed that we have been building this foundation without much help from our friends in the other party. From our efforts to rescue the economy, to health insurance reform, to financial reform, most have sat on the sidelines and shouted from the bleachers. They said no to tax cuts for small businesses; no to tax credits for college tuition; no to investments in clean energy. They said no to protecting patients from insurance companies and consumers from big banks.

And some of this, of course, is just politics. Before I was even inaugurated, the congressional leaders of the other party got together and made a calculation that if I failed, they'd win. So when I went to meet with them about the need for a Recovery Act, in the midst of crisis, they announced they were against it before I even arrived at the meeting. Before we even had a health care bill, a Republican senator actually said, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." So those weren't very hopeful signs.

But to be fair, a good deal of the other party's opposition to our agenda has also been rooted in their sincere and fundamental belief about the role of government. It's a belief that government has little or no role to play in helping this nation meet our collective challenges. It's an agenda that basically offers two answers to every problem we face: more tax breaks for the wealthy and fewer rules for corporations.

The last administration called this recycled idea "the Ownership Society." But what it essentially means is that everyone is on their own. No matter how hard you work, if your paycheck isn't enough to pay for college or health care or childcare, well, you're on your own. If misfortune causes you to lose your job or your home, you're on your own. And if you're a Wall Street bank or an insurance company or an oil company, you pretty much get to play by your own rules, regardless of the consequences for everybody else.

Now, I've never believed that government has all the answers. Government cannot and should not replace businesses as the true engine of growth and job creation. Government can't instill good values and a sense of responsibility in our children. That's a parent's job. Too much government can deprive us of choice and burden us with debt. Poorly designed regulations can choke off competition and the capital that businesses need to thrive.

I understand these arguments. And it's reflected in my policies. After all, one-third of the Recovery Act we designed was made up of tax cuts for families and small businesses. And when you think back to the health care debate, despite calls for a single-payer, government-run health care plan, we passed reform that maintains our system of private health insurance.

But I also understand that throughout our nation's history, we have balanced the threat of overreaching government against the dangers of an unfettered market. We've provided a basic safety net, because any one of us might experience hardship at some time in our lives and may need some help getting back on our feet. And we've recognized that there have been times when only government has been able to do what individuals couldn't do and corporations wouldn't do.

That's how we have railroads and highways, public schools and police forces. That's how we've made possible scientific research that has led to medical breakthroughs like the vaccine for Hepatitis B, and technological wonders like GPS. That's how we have Social Security and a minimum wage, and laws to protect the food we eat and the water we drink and the air that we breathe. That's how we have rules to ensure that mines are safe and, yes, that oil companies pay for the spills that they cause.

Now, there have always been those who've said no to such protections; no to such investments. There were accusations that Social Security would lead to socialism, and that Medicare was a government takeover. There were bankers who claimed the creation of federal deposit insurance would destroy the industry. And there were automakers who argued that installing seatbelts was unnecessary and unaffordable. There were skeptics who thought that cleaning our water and our air would bankrupt our entire economy. And all of these claims proved false. All of these reforms led to greater security and greater prosperity for our people and our economy.

So what was true then is true today. As November approaches, leaders in the other party will campaign furiously on the same economic arguments they've been making for decades. Fortunately, we don't have to look back too many years to see how their agenda turns out. For much of the last 10 years we've tried it their way. They gave us tax cuts that weren't paid for to millionaires who didn't need them. They gutted regulations and put industry insiders in charge of industry oversight. They shortchanged investments in clean energy and education, in research and technology. And despite all their current moralizing about the need to curb spending, this is the same crowd who took the record $237 billion surplus that President Clinton left them and turned it into a record $1.3 trillion deficit.

So we know where those ideas lead us. And now we have a choice as a nation. We can return to the failed economic policies of the past, or we can keep building a stronger future. We can go backward, or we can keep moving forward. And I don't know about you, but I want to move forward. I think America wants to move forward.

Now, the first step in building a new foundation that allows us to move forward has been to address the costs and risks that have made our economy less competitive -- outdated regulations, crushing health care costs, and a growing debt.

To start with, we can't compete as a nation if the irresponsibility of a few folks on Wall Street can bring our entire economy to its knees. That's why we're on the verge of passing the most sweeping financial reform since the Great Depression. It's a reform that will help prevent another AIG. It will end taxpayer-funded bank bailouts. It contains the strongest consumer protections in history -- protections that will empower Americans with the clear and concise information they need before signing up for a credit card or taking out a mortgage.

Financial reform will not guard against every instance of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street. But it will enshrine a new principle in our financial system: From now on, instead of competing to see who can come up with the cleverest scheme to make the quickest buck, financial institutions will compete to see who can make the better product and the better service. And that's a competition that benefits Wall Street and Main Street. That's why we need to get this legislation done. It's why we can't afford to go back; we have to move forward.

We also know we can't compete in a global economy if our citizens are forced to spend more and more of their income on medical bills; if our businesses are forced to choose between health care and hiring; if state and federal budgets are weighed down with skyrocketing health care costs. That's why we finally passed health insurance reform.

Now, let's be clear. The costs of health care are not going to come down overnight just because legislation passed, and in an ever-changing industry like health care, we're going to continuously need to apply more cost-cutting measures as the years go by. But once this reform is in full effect, middle-class families will pay less for their health care, and the worst practices of the insurance industry will end. People with preexisting medical conditions will no longer be excluded from coverage. People who become seriously ill will no longer be thrown off their coverage for reasons contrived by the insurance company. Taxpayers will no longer have to pay -- in the form of higher premiums -- for trips to the ER by uninsured Americans. Businesses will get help with their health care costs. In fact, small businesses are already learning they're eligible for tax credits to cover their workers this year. And with less waste and greater efficiency in the system, this reform will do more to bring down the deficit than any step we have taken in more than a decade.

The other party has staked their claim this November on repealing these health insurance reforms instead of making them work. They want to go back. We need to move forward.

Making health care more cost-efficient is critical, because it's also true that we cannot be competitive as a nation if we remain dragged down by our growing debt. So let me talk about debt just for a second.

By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two major tax cuts skewed to the wealthy, and a worthy but expensive prescription drug program that wasn't paid for. I always find it interesting that the same people who participated in these decisions are the ones who now charge our administration with fiscal irresponsibility.

And the truth is if I had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficits that they created. But we took office amid a crisis, and the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget before I even walked through the door. Additionally, the steps that we had to take to save the economy from depression temporarily added more to the deficit -- by about $1 trillion. Of course, if we had spiraled into a depression, our deficits and debt levels would be much worse.

Now, the economy is still fragile, so we can't put on the brakes too quickly. We have to do what it takes to ensure a strong recovery. A growing economy will unquestionably improve our fiscal health, as will the steps we take in the short-term to put Americans back to work.

And that's why I signed a bill that will provide tax cuts for small businesses that hire unemployed workers. That's why I've urged Congress to pass a small business lending fund so that small businesses can get the credit they need to create jobs and grow. That's why I believe it's critical we extend unemployment insurance for several more months, so that Americans who've been laid off through no fault of their own get the support they need to provide for their families and can maintain their health insurance until they're rehired. And we have to work with state and local governments to make sure they have the resources to prevent the likely layoffs of hundreds of thousands of public school teachers across the country over the next few months.

But as we look ahead, we can't lose sight of the urgent need to get our fiscal house in order. There are four key components to putting our budget on a sustainable path. Maintaining economic growth is number one. Health care reform is number two. The third component is the belt-tightening steps I've already outlined to reduce our deficit by $1 trillion.

Starting in 2011, we will enact a three-year freeze on all discretionary spending outside of national security -- something that was never enacted in the last administration. We will allow the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire. We've gone through the budget, line by line, and identified more than 120 programs for elimination. We've restored a simple budgeting rule that every family and business understands called pay-as-you-go. And we will charge the largest Wall Street firms a fee to repay the American people for rescuing them during the financial crisis -- a fee that will bring down the deficit by $90 billion -- (applause) -- a fee that will bring down the deficit by $90 billion over the next decade. By the way, that $90 billion represents about one-eighth of the amount these banks will pay out in bonuses over the same time period in time.

Now, finally, the fourth component in improving our fiscal health is the bipartisan Fiscal Commission that I've established that will provide a specific set of solutions by the fall to deal with our medium- and long-term deficit. And I have to warn you this will not be easy. I know that some like to make the argument that if we would just eliminate pork barrel projects and foreign aid, we could eliminate our deficit. Turns out such spending makes up just 3 percent of our deficit. You combine all foreign aid and all earmarks -- that's 3 percent of our budget. So meeting the deficit challenge will require some very difficult decisions about the largely popular programs that make up the other 97 percent. It means we'll have to sort through our priorities and figure out what programs that we can do without.

On this point, I strongly agree with my friends in the other party. What I don't agree with is the notion that we should also sacrifice critical investments in our people and our future. You know, if you're a family who's tightening your belt, you will definitely sacrifice going out to dinner, but you're not going to sacrifice saving for your child's college education. It's precisely our investments in education and innovation that will make America more competitive in the 21st century. And we can't go back; we've got to move forward. (Applause.)

That's why I've made education reform a top priority -- because countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow. And so we want every citizen to have the skills and training they need in a global economy -- from the day that you're born through whatever career you may choose.

Last year, we launched a national competition to improve our schools based on a simple idea: Instead of funding the status quo, we will only invest in reform -- reform that raises student achievement, that inspires students to excel in math and science, and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans.

And to achieve my goal of ensuring America once more has the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020, we passed a law that will make college more affordable by ending the unnecessary taxpayer subsidies that go to financial institutions for student loans. That means we're saving billions of dollars that will go directly to students, including students right here at Carnegie Mellon.

It's a bill that will also revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families.

In addition to training our workers for the jobs of the future, we're also investing in the innovation that will create those jobs here in America -- the research, the technology, the infrastructure that will secure our economic future.

Right now, as we speak, the Recovery Act is putting Americans to work building a 21st century America. There's no reason China should have the fastest trains or that rural Pennsylvania should be without high-speed Internet access. We've got to make those investments. From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, this nation has always been built to compete. So we're going to invest, and are investing right now, in new infrastructure -- expanding broadband, health information technology, advanced manufacturing facilities, America's first high-speed rail network. We're also investing in the ideas and technologies that will lead to new jobs and entire new industries.

Consider what we've done with clean energy. The tax credits and loan guarantees in the Recovery Act alone will lead to 720, 000 clean energy jobs in America by 2012 -- 720, 000. I'll give you one example. The United States used to make less than 2 percent of the world's advanced batteries for hybrid cars. By 2015, because of the investments that we made, we'll have enough capacity to make up to 40 percent of these batteries.

Now, this brings me to an issue that's on everybody's minds right now -- namely, what kind of energy future can ensure our long-term prosperity. The catastrophe unfolding in the Gulf right now may prove to be a result of human error, or of corporations taking dangerous shortcuts to compromise safety, or a combination of both. And I've launched a National Commission so that the American people will have answers on exactly what happened. But we have to acknowledge that there are inherent risks to drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth, and these are risks ...these are risks that are bound to increase the harder oil extraction becomes. We also have to acknowledge that an America run solely on fossil fuels should not be the vision we have for our children and our grandchildren.

We consume more than 20 percent of the world's oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves. So without a major change in our energy policy, our dependence on oil means that we will continue to send billions of dollars of our hard-earned wealth to other countries every month -- including countries in dangerous and unstable regions. In other words, our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk.

Now, I understand that we can't end our dependence on fossil fuels overnight. That's why I supported a careful plan of offshore oil production as one part of our overall energy strategy. But we can pursue such production only if it's safe, and only if it's used as a short-term solution while we transition to a clean energy economy.

And the time has come to aggressively accelerate that transition. The time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a clean energy future. Now, that means continuing our unprecedented effort to make everything from our homes and businesses to our cars and trucks more energy-efficient. It means tapping into our natural gas reserves, and moving ahead with our plan to expand our nation's fleet of nuclear power plants. It means rolling back billions of dollars of tax breaks to oil companies so we can prioritize investments in clean energy research and development.

But the only way the transition to clean energy will ultimately succeed is if the private sector is fully invested in this future -- if capital comes off the sidelines and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs is unleashed. And the only way to do that is by finally putting a price on carbon pollution.

No, many businesses have already embraced this idea because it provides a level of certainty about the future. And for those that face transition costs, we can help them adjust. But if we refuse to take into account the full costs of our fossil fuel addiction -- if we don't factor in the environmental costs and the national security costs and the true economic costs -- we will have missed our best chance to seize a clean energy future.

The House of Representatives has already passed a comprehensive energy and climate bill, and there is currently a plan in the Senate -- a plan that was developed with ideas from Democrats and Republicans -- that would achieve the same goal. And, Pittsburgh, I want you to know, the votes may not be there right now, but I intend to find them in the coming months. I will continue to make the case for a clean energy future wherever and whenever I can. I will work with anyone to get this done -- and we will get it done.

The next generation will not be held hostage to energy sources from the last century. We are not going to move backwards. We are going to move forward.

This overarching principle -- that we must invest in and embrace the innovation and technology of the future and not the past -- that applies beyond our energy policy. That's why we've decided to devote more than 3 percent of our GDP to research and development -- to spur the discovery of services and products and businesses that we have yet to imagine.

We've proposed making the research and experimentation tax credit permanent -- a tax credit that helps businesses afford the high costs of developing new technologies and new products. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history.

The possibilities of where this research might lead are endless. Imagine a new treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched; regenerative medicine that ends the agonizing wait for an organ transplant. Imagine a lightweight vest for soldiers and police officers that can stop armor-piercing bullets; educational software that's as effective and engaging as a personal tutor; intelligent prosthetics that can enable a wounded veteran to play the piano again. And now imagine all the workers and small business owners and consumers who would benefit from these discoveries.

We can't know for certain what the future will bring. We can't guess with 100 percent accuracy what industries and innovations will next shape our world. I'm sure there were times when this city couldn't imagine life without steel mills and heavy smog that filled these streets. And when that industry shrank and so many jobs were lost, who could have guessed that Pittsburgh would fare better than many other Rust Belt cities, and reemerge as a center for technology and green jobs, health care, and education? Who would have thought that the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's logo would one day adorn the U.S. Steel Tower, or that this institute -- Carnegie Mellon -- would be the region's largest employer?

All of this came to be because as a community, you prepared and adapted and invested in a better future -- even if you weren't always sure what that future would look like.

And that's what America does. That's what we've always done. The interests of the status quo will always have the most vocal and powerful defenders at every level of government. There will always be lobbyists for the banks or the insurance industry that doesn't want more regulation; or the corporation that would prefer to see more tax breaks instead of more investments in infrastructure or education. And let's face it -- a lot of us find the prospect of change scary, even when we know the status quo isn't working for us.

But there's no natural lobby for the clean energy company that may start a few years from now. There's no natural lobby for the research that may lead to a lifesaving medical breakthrough. There's no natural lobby for the student who may not be able to afford a college education, but if they got one could end up making discoveries that would transform America and the world.

It's our job as a nation to advocate on behalf of the America that we hope for -- to make decisions that will benefit the next generation -- even if it's not always popular; even if we can't always see those benefits in the short-term. We make decisions like this on behalf of our own children every single day. And while it's harder to do with an entire country as large and diverse as ours, it's no less important.

The role of government has never been to plan every detail or dictate every outcome. At its best, government has simply knocked away barriers to opportunity and laid the foundation for a better future. Our people -- with all their drive and ingenuity -- always end up building the rest. And if we can do that again -- if we can continue building that foundation and making those hard decisions on behalf of the next generation -- I have no doubt that we will leave our children the America that we all hope for.

Thank you, everybody. God bless you. God bless the United States of America.

OBAMA VOWS JUSTICE IF LAWS BROKEN IN OIL SPILL

Obama, speaking to reporters after meeting the co-chairs of a new oil spill commission, also said energy giant BP would be held accountable for financial losses from what he called the "greatest environmental disaster of its kind in our history."

"What is being threatened, what is being lost isn't just a source of income but a way of life, " Obama said, with former Senator Bob Graham and former Environmental Protection Agency chief William Reilly at his side in the White House Rose Garden.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder made his first visit to the Gulf coast to view the damage ahead of what experts have said will be a criminal probe into the explosion and oil spill that could produce record fines.

"We have an obligation to investigate what went wrong and to determine what reforms are needed so that we never have the experience of a crisis like this again, " Obama said.

"If the laws on our books are insufficient to prevent such a spill, the laws must change. If oversight was inadequate to enforce these laws, oversight has to be reformed, " he said.

"If our laws were broken, leading to this death and destruction, my solemn pledge is that we will bring those responsible to justice on behalf of the victims of this catastrophe and the people of the Gulf region."

Obama spoke just days after BP's latest attempt to plug its blown-out seabed well failed, sparking fears oil could leak into the Gulf until August. The company is now planning a risky attempt to place a cap over the leak to funnel oil to the surface.

Obama pledged to continue pursuing all efforts to plug the blown-out oil rig until relief wells are completed.

He said it was critical for the commission to take a comprehensive look at how the oil and gas industry operates and how the government oversees them.

OBAMA MEMORIAL DAY SPEECH:

THUNDER -LIGHTENING - STOP

Obama thrilled the crowd at Abraham Lincoln National Ceremony by appearing under an umbrella as the rain poured down. But he did not deliver his prepared remarks honoring troops who died fighting for the United States.

Instead he urged the crowd to seek shelter.

"We don't want to endanger anyone, particularly the children, in the audience. A little bit of rain doesn't hurt anybody, but we don't want anybody struck by lightning, " he said from the podium, the storm so loud his words could barely be heard through the amplifiers.

As it became obvious that the storm was not going to ease, aides said Obama would not make his speech. Instead, he climbed onto buses where the crowds had taken shelter to greet the drenched members of the public.

Obama was able before the storm to quietly lay a wreath at another part of the cemetery, and then stood, his head bowed, as a bugler played "Taps."

The president last year marked Memorial Day at Arlington National Cemetery, just outside Washington, where most presidents have laid wreaths on the national holiday. But this year he visited the cemetery about 50 miles southwest of Chicago, where he has been spending the long holiday weekend at his family home with his wife and daughters.

Vice President Joe Biden attended the ceremonies at Arlington in Obama's stead.

After the aborted event at the cemetery, Obama drove back toward Chicago, where he stopped to visit with families of troops and veterans being treated at a Veterans' Hospital just outside the city.

Aides said Obama met with families, including many children, posed for pictures, toured the facility and ate a bratwurst and baked beans that had been made for a Memorial Day barbeque.

OBAMA BESET BY GROWING GULF SPILL FRUSTRATION

* Democratic lawmakers step up the pressure on Obama, BP * Hundreds protest in New Orleans * Next BP well containment option could take 4-7 days * Only surer solution is relief well, two months away (Updates with comments from BP CEO, protest)

U.S. lawmakers and local residents clamored on Sunday for BP and the Obama administration to do more to save the Gulf Coast from an out-of-control oil spill that has become the biggest environmental catastrophe in the country's history.

Lawmakers from U.S. President Barack Obama's own Democratic Party called the nearly six-week oil gush in the Gulf of Mexico an "environmental crime" and demanded $1 billion from BP to protect the region's treasured marshlands.

The failure on Saturday of a "top kill" technique attempted by London-based BP to try to seal its leaking Gulf well has unleashed a surge of anger that poses a major domestic challenge to Obama and his party in an election year.

"This is probably the biggest environmental disaster we have ever faced in this country, " White House adviser Carol Browner told NBC's "Meet the Press."

The Gulf spill has surpassed the Exxon Valdez disaster off Alaska in 1989 as the worst U.S. oil spill, with an estimated 12, 000 to 19, 000 barrels (504, 000 to 798, 000 gallons/1.9 million to 3 million liters) leaking per day.

Given the enormity of the disaster, critics say Obama was too slow to respond.

"I hold Obama responsible for not making BP stand up and look at the people in the face and fix it, " said Dean Blanchard, owner of a seafood business, who spoke at a protest rally in New Orleans on Sunday.

"It's not right what is going on, I didn't do nothing wrong, I didn't deserve this, " he told the hundreds of protesters, some of whom carried signs, such as "Seize BP."

BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward, the target of ire over his company's failures to stop the spill and protect vital wetlands, apologized to Gulf Coast residents.

"The first thing is to say we're sorry, we're sorry for the massive disruption it's caused their lives, there's no one who wants this thing over more than I do, " Hayward said as he visited the fishing hub of Venice on Sunday.

Hayward had predicted that despite risks, the top kill had a 60 to 70 percent chance of success. He said he did not know why it failed to stop the gusher.

The next BP step would involve undersea robots using diamond-rimmed saws to cut off a pipe over the well to put in place a containment device that would try to siphon off most of the leaking oil and gas up to a tanker ship on the surface.

It has never been attempted at the depth of the BP well, a mile (1.6 km) under water.

Even Hayward conceded on Sunday that "there's no doubt that the ultimate solution is the relief well, which is in August."

The possibility of another two months to a definitive solution could spell more financial trouble for BP, whose market value has dropped by 25 percent since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, killing 11 workers, and triggering the spill.

Obama, who has called the spill a "man-made disaster, " has relied on BP and its deep-sea technology to try to stop the leak, although he has made clear the government is in charge.

Critics argue, however, that he has not directed enough resources to the unfolding disaster and he has not been present enough.

The White House said on Sunday that the government will triple clean-up resources in areas affected by the spill, while the administration's top energy and environment officials head back to the Gulf this week following Obama's second visit on Friday.

BP and the entire U.S. oil industry face more probing questions about why safety backups did not accompany their pursuit of oil in ever deeper offshore waters.

"I think without question if the word criminal should be used in terms of an environmental crime against our country, that what's going on in the Gulf of Mexico is going to qualify, " U.S. Democratic Representative Ed Markey told CBS' "Face the Nation."

Department of Justice officials are part of an ongoing federal investigation into the rig explosion and the Obama administration has not ruled out the possibility of a criminal prosecution.

KATRINA 'PART TWO'

In Louisiana, which has borne the brunt of the oil spill impact so far, authorities demanded that BP and the federal government rush a plan to create a sand barrier to the oil by dredging and building up outlying sandbanks and islets.

"I'm devastated ... We are dying a slow death, every time that oil takes out a piece of the marsh, a piece of Louisiana is gone forever, " said Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish, told CNN.

Louisiana Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu called on BP to immediately invest $1 billion to protect marshes, wetlands and estuaries across the region. "While we may not be able to plug the leaking well right away, there is nothing that should stop us from getting help to the Gulf Coast immediately, " she said.

Gulf residents fear the oil slick could be whipped further inshore by what forecasters predict will be the most active Atlantic storm season since 2005, the year of Hurricane Katrina.

That deadly storm proved a political disaster for President George W. Bush, who was accused of complacency in handling it, and Obama is fighting to prevent the Gulf spill from becoming his own "Katrina" ahead of the November congressional elections.

At the New Orleans protest, Jennifer Jones said Louisianians still recovering from Katrina's devastation are frustrated by the response thus far.

"We need the help again, continuing from Katrina, this is like Part Two, " Jones said.

PRESIDENT OBAMA INSISTED ON THURSDAY THAT HIS ADMINISTRATION, NOT OIL GAIN BP, WAS CALLING THE SHOTS IN RESPONDING TO THE WORST OIL SPILL IN THE NATION'S HISTORY

"I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down, " Obama declared at a news conference in the East Room of the White House. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill dominated the hour-long session.He called the spill, now in its sixth week, an "unprecedented disaster" and blasted a "scandalously close relationship" he said has persisted between Big Oil and government regulators. Obama announced new steps to deal with the aftermath of the spill, including continuing a moratorium on drilling permits for six months. He also said he was suspending planned exploration drilling off the coasts of Alaska and Virginia and on 33 wells under way in the Gulf of Mexico. The president's direct language on being in charge of the spill response, which he repeated several times, marked a change in emphasis from earlier administration assertions that, while the government was overseeing the operation, BP had the expertise and equipment to make the decisions on how to stop the flow.

As recently as Monday, the top federal official in charge of dealing with the oil catastrophe, Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, declined to broadly say the federal government was "in charge." Instead, when asked about that, Allen told reporters that BP was responsible for the cleanup and the government was accountable to make sure the company did it. "I would say it's less a case of 'in charge, '" Allen said when asked about that phrase.

Yet with each passing day, public frustration with Obama's administration has grown, and his poll numbers on the matter are dropping. Obama said even his daughter Malia had knocked on his door while he was shaving in the morning to ask, "Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?"

Claiming control carries its own political risks for Obama, because any failure to stop the gusher will then belong to the president. But he could suffer politically if his administration is seen as falling short of staying on top of the problem or not working hard to find a solution.

"The American people should know that from the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort, " Obama said. He was reacting to criticism that his administration has been slow to act and has left BP in charge of plugging the leak.

Obama said many critics failed to realize "this has been our highest priority."

"My job right now is just to make sure everybody in the Gulf understands: This is what I wake up to in the morning, and this is what I go to bed at night thinking about. The spill."

"There shouldn't be any confusion here. The federal government is fully engaged, " he said, underscoring his central point.

As he spoke, BP worked furiously to pump mud-like drilling fluid into the blown-out well.

It was an untested procedure but seemed to be working, officials said Thursday, even as new estimates showed the spill has surpassed the Exxon Valdez in Alaska as the worst in U.S. history.

Obama said while the "top kill" procedure being used by BP demonstrated his administration's willingness to try "any reasonable strategy" to stop the gusher, the process "offers no guarantee of success."

Asked about inevitable comparisons between his handling of the disaster with his predecessor's handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Obama said: "I'll leave it to you guys to make those comparisons and make - and make - and make judgments on it, because - because what I'm spending my time thinking about is how do we solve the problem?

"And I'm confident that people are going to look back and say that this administration was on top of what was an unprecedented crisis, " he added.

"This has been our highest priority, " he said. He conceded that "people are going to be frustrated until it stops."

As an example of the government's hands-on approach, Obama said that BP had wanted to drill a single "relief" well in an effort to eventually stop the leak in several months if all else failed. Instead, the administration insisted on two relief wells being drilled, Obama said.

Over and over, the president sought to counter criticism that the administration was giving too much leeway to BP PLC. "Make no mistake, BP is operating at our direction, " he said.

"We will demand that they pay every dime they owe for the damage they've done and the painful losses that they've cost, " he said. Still, he acknowledged, "We've got to get it right."

He denounced what he called "the oil industry's cozy and sometimes corrupt" ties with government regulators.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg , D-N.J., a critic of offshore drilling, said Obama had taken an important step to halt the most imminent environmental threat to the Atlantic coast, but he said the danger will remain until there is a permanent ban on drilling in the Atlantic.

"BP's oil catastrophe in the Gulf is a wake-up call for our nation. Giving Big Oil more access to our nation's waters will only lead to more pollution, more lost jobs and more damage to our economy, " Lautenberg said.

Obama said the federal government "has acted consistently with a sense of urgency" on the spill. But, he acknowledged a "sense of complacency on the government's part in planning how to deal with the worst-case scenario" before it happened.

He said a cozy relationship between industry and government didn't change when he came into office.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar "came in and started cleaning house. But the culture had not fully changed at MMS. And surely I take responsibility for that."

But, he added, "there is no evidence some of the corrupt practices that took place earlier took place under the present administration's watch."

He spoke shortly after the head of the troubled agency that oversees offshore drilling, Minerals Management Services Director Elizabeth Birnbaum, resigned under pressure.

"I found out about her resignation today. I don't know the circumstances under which this occurred, " Obama said.

    ADD YOUR OWN WORDS FOR BARACK OBAMA

    Barack, Nobel prize, president, change, leadership, experience, energy, honesty, sincerity, optimism, commitment, happiness, peace, hope, economy, diplomacy, integration, family, work, benefits, integrity, compassion, help, new, assistance, improvement, future, health, ecology, democracy, memory, participation, remember, 2008, vote, Obama.


    "America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for this country that we love."
    -- from his June 3, 2008, speech declaring his win as Democratic candidate

    "Im asking you to believe. Not just about my ability to bring about real change in Washington... I'm asking you to believe in yours."

    RACIST OBAMA IMAGE SHINES LIGHT ON WEB SEARCHING

    When a racist image of first lady Michelle Obama surfaced from the ugliest corners of the Internet last week to top Google's image search results, the episode shined a spotlight on the mysterious workings of search engines.

    Google placed an ad near the image, apologizing for its offensive nature. But the company resisted calls to scrub the image from its database, saying its role as a neutral tool for searching the Web means having to live with the results, whether it likes them or not.

    "We have a bias toward free expression, " Google spokesman Scott Rubin told CNN. "That means that some ugly things will show up."

    Google handled almost two-thirds of all Internet searches in the United States in October, according to comScore, making the company the dominant player in the field. Like other search engines, Google relies on a complicated and largely secretive algorithm to decide which Web pages should pop up first based on a user's search terms.

    The popularity of a Web site, the number of times a certain page has been viewed, the number of people who have linked to a page from their own pages -- all weigh heavily in the automated decision-making process triggered each time a user clicks "search."

    "They [Google] have these 200 different factors that they analyze, " said Danny Sullivan, who writes about online search issues at his site, Search Engine Land. "They put them all together and kind of cut it loose and see what it comes up with. It can surprise them as well."

    In the case of the crudely doctored Obama image, which replaced her face with that of an ape, Google eventually removed the page on which it first appeared -- but, according to Google, because the page potentially contained malicious software that could harm the computer of anyone who visited it.

    As of Tuesday, the image did not appear within the first several hundred results for a Google Images search for " Michelle Obama, " although it remained the first result produced by an image search for the words "Michelle Obama ape."

    "When the image was coming up on the term 'Michelle Obama, ' it was coming up that way against an innocuous query, " Rubin said. "If the term you're using is 'Michelle Obama ape, ' one could argue that's a relevant result, however offensive it may be."

    Sullivan believes Google may have tweaked its search algorithm after finding a bug in its system that caused the Obama image to climb on its results pages.

    "When it doesn't do what they want it to do, they go back and start tweaking things, " he said. "Long term, you look at how they got there. When you search for Michelle Obama, do you really think that kind of image is one of the most popular things about her on the Internet? I don't think so."

    Rubin would not comment on whether any changes were made in the wake of the Michelle Obama incident. But Google and other engines are constantly tinkering with their processes.

    Google says it has added an automated feature to prevent "Google bombing, " an orchestrated effort by search-engine users to force a specific result.

    In 2003, critics of former President George W. Bush gamed the system by repeatedly linking the words "miserable failure" to his official White House biography. Supporters of the Republican president apparently responded, pushing former Democratic President Jimmy Carter's autobiography to No. 2 on the search results for the phrase.

    In 2007, comedian and talk-show host Stephen Colbert's fans pushed to link him to the phrase, "greatest living American" -- an effort that worked briefly before Google reversed it.

    "We're always working to improve our algorithm to provide more relevant search results, " Rubin said. "We do not make editorial decisions based on our politics or anyone else's."

    Sullivan and other observers say the Michelle Obama photo did not appear to be a case of "bombing." Instead, they say, it appears to have slowly crept up Google's image search results until it was noticed, and written about, by bloggers and other media whose attention propelled it to the top.

    When negative search results arise on the Web, they recede quicker for some people than for others.

    Rhea Drysdale, who handles online image issues for Internet marketing company Outspoken Media, said that the offensive picture of Michelle Obama will fade quickly for a simple reason -- there are so many other images of her on the Internet.

    "That's not something that's going to stick with her for long, " she said.

    As examples, she cited two people who got negative press in 2009: rapper Kanye West and convicted Wall Street swindler Bernie Madoff.

    A Google search for Madoff's name delivers page after page of news stories about the multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme the former investment banker pleaded guilty to earlier this year.

    West grabbed headlines, and much criticism online, by barging onstage to interrupt an acceptance speech by country singer Taylor Swift at the MTV Music Video Awards in September.

    But search Google for "Kanye West" and the first news account of the incident comes after about half a dozen other items, including West's official Web page, personal blog and Wikipedia entry.

    "It's just a matter of news coverage, " she said. "Kanye has a blog. Kanye has a MySpace page. He has a record label that writes all these other things about him. If you have any of those other properties that are yours out there, they can fill the search results."

    In recent years, a cottage industry has developed among online consultants who help clients manage how they look in Web searches. These hired guns work to push positive news to the top of search results while burying, as best as possible, negative information.

    Meanwhile, Google says it will work to try to keep its search results pure.

    "A result that you're not looking for is not a good search result, " said Rubin, the Google spokesman. "It's not a good search experience."

    OBAMA VOWS RENEWED TIES WITH ASIA

    Touting himself as America's "first Pacific president, " Barack Obama called on his own connections with Asia Saturday as he pledged a renewed engagement with Asia Pacific nations based on "an enduring and revitalized alliance between the United States and Japan."

    The U.S. president, in his first Asia trip since taking office in January, told a packed house at Tokyo's Suntory Hall that all Americans should know that what happens in Asia "has a direct effect on our lives at home."

    "This is where we engage in much of our commerce and buy many of our goods, " he said. "And this is where we can export more of our own products and create jobs back home in the process.

    "This is a place where the risk of a nuclear arms race threatens the security of the wider world, and where extremists who defile a great religion plan attacks on both our continents. And there can be no solution to our energy security and our climate challenge without the rising powers and developing nations of the Asia Pacific."

    Obama met with new Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama Friday after his arrival in Tokyo as well as with the Japanese emperor and empress.

    Obama touched on nearly every part of the Asia Pacific region during his speech, and talked about a boyhood visit to Japan with his mother, his birth in Hawaii, a childhood spent partly in Indonesia and the United States' position as a Pacific nation.

    "There must be no doubt: as America's first Pacific president, I promise you that this Pacific nation will strengthen and sustain our leadership in this vitally important part of the world, " he said.

    He stressed that the United States was not interested in containing the emerging economic growth in China.

    "The rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations, " he said. "And so, in Beijing and beyond, we will work to deepen our strategic and economic dialogue."

    Obama also called on Myanmar to make more definitive moves toward democracy, including releasing all political prisoners; urged North Korea to return to the Six-Party Talks so that the reclusive nation could be reintegrated into the world stage and pledged America's support for eliminating nuclear weapons and efforts to reduce the global effects of climate change.

    His trip is to include stops in Singapore, China and South Korea, during which Obama will hold formal talks with Asian leaders as a group and individually.

    The president plans to meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, Russia President Dmitry Medvedev and Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and will take part in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

    APEC's 21 member nations represent more than half of the world's economic output. The forum sees its goal as "facilitating economic growth, cooperation, trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region."

    During a busy day in Singapore, Obama also will become the first U.S. president to take part in a summit of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) economic alliance.

    In China, Obama will continue efforts to define and strengthen the United States' relationship with the world's largest emerging economy, which has a growing influence in Asia, said Jeffrey Bader, the National Security Council's senior director for East Asian affairs.

    "We see it as a relationship where we're obviously going to have differences, where we are going to be competitors in certain respects, " he said. "But we want to maximize areas where we can work together, because the global challenges will simply not be met if we don't."

    Bader cited North Korea's nuclear weapons program, the economy, climate change, human rights and Afghanistan as among the top issues for the China swing. On human rights, Bader said Obama is likely to address "freedom of expression, access to information, freedom of religion, rule of law and, certainly, Tibet."

    Obama will make clear to Hu that he intends to meet with the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, Bader said. China, which rejects Tibetan aspirations for autonomy, opposes such high-level contacts with the Dalai Lama.

    On North Korea, the State Department announced Tuesday that U.S. officials will travel to the country by year's end to seek a resumption of broader talks on ending the Pyongyang government's nuclear program.

    The Obama administration has claimed initial progress in its strategy of forging an international effort, including China and South Korea, to pressure North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions.

    Japan has been asking for a comprehensive solution to North Korea's missile tests and the abduction of Japanese citizens in the 1970s. Saturday morning, Obama made clear that both were necessary.

    "The path for North Korea to realize this future is clear: a return to the Six-Party Talks; upholding previous commitments, including a return to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and the full and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, " he said.

    "And full normalization with its neighbors can only come if Japanese families receive a full accounting of those who have been abducted. These are all steps that can be taken by the North Korean government, if they are interested in improving the lives of their people and joining the community of nations."

    It won't be all diplomatic meetings, though. Obama's first trip to China will include a town hall-style meeting in Shanghai and sightseeing in Beijing, including a stop at the Great Wall.

    THE WORLD LONGS TO BELIEVE IN THE US AGAIN

    When Obama takes the stage at Oslo City Hall next month, he will not be the first sitting president to receive the peace prize, but he might be the most controversial. There is a sense in some quarters of those not-so-United States that Norway, Europe and the world have not got a clue about the real Obama; instead, they fixate on a fantasy version of the president, a projection of what they wish he was, and what they wish the US was.

    Well, I happen to be European, and I can project with the best of them. So here is why I think the virtual Obama is the real Obama, and why I think the man might deserve the hype. It starts with a quotation from a speech he gave at the United Nations in September: "We will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year's summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time."

    They are not my words, they are Obama's. If they are not familiar, it is because they did not make many headlines. But for me, these 36 words are why I believe Obama could well be a force for peace and prosperity - if the words signal action.

    The millennium goals, for those of you who do not know, are a persistent nag of a noble, global compact. They are a set of commitments we all made nine years ago, whose goal is to halve extreme poverty by 2015. Barack Obama was not there in 2000, but he is there now. Indeed he has gone further - all the way, in fact. Halve it, he says, then end it.

    Many have spoken about the need for a rebranding of the US. Rebrand, restart, reboot. In my view these 36 words - alongside the Obama administration's approach to fighting nuclear proliferation and climate change, improving relations in the Middle East and, by the way, creating jobs and providing healthcare at home - are rebranding in action.

    These new steps - and those 36 words - remind the world that the US is not just a country but an idea, a great idea about opportunity for all and responsibility to your fellow man.

    All right ... I do not speak for the rest of the world. Sometimes I think I do - but as my bandmates will quickly point out, I don't even speak for one small group of four musicians. But I will say that in the furthest corners of the globe, the US president's words are more than a pop song people want to hear on the radio. They are lifelines.

    In dangerous, clangorous times, the idea of the US rings like a bell. It hits a high note and sustains it without wearing on your nerves. (If only we all could.) This was the melody line of the Marshall Plan and it is resonating again. Why? Because the world sees that the US might just hold the key to solving the three greatest threats we face on this planet: extreme poverty, extreme ideology and extreme climate change.

    The world senses that the US, with renewed global support, might be better placed to defeat this axis of extremism with a new model of foreign policy.

    It is a strangely unsettling feeling to realise that the largest navy, the fastest air force, the fittest strike force, cannot fully protect us from the ghost that is terrorism. Asymmetry is the key word from Kabul to Gaza. Might is not right.

    I think back to a phone call I got a couple of years ago from General James Jones. At the time, he was retiring from the top job at Nato; the idea of a President Obama was a wild flight of the imagination.

    Jones was curious about the work many of us were doing in economic development, and how smarter aid - embodied in initiatives like President George W Bush's Emergency Programme for AIDS Relief, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation - was beginning to save lives and change the game for many countries. Remember, this was a moment when the US could not get its cigarette lighted in polite European nations like Norway; but even then, in the developing world, the US was still seen as a positive, even transformative, presence.

    The general and I also found ourselves talking about what can happen when the three extremes - poverty, ideology and climate - come together. We found ourselves discussing the stretch of land that runs across the continent of Africa, just along the creeping sands of the Sahara - an area that includes Sudan and northern Nigeria. He agreed that many people did not see that the Horn of Africa - the troubled region that encompasses Somalia and Ethiopia - is a classic case of the three extremes becoming an unholy trinity and threatening peace and stability around the world.

    The military man also offered me an equation. Stability = security + development. In an asymmetrical war, he said, the emphasis had to be on making US foreign policy conform to that formula.

    Enter Barack Obama.

    If that last line still seems like a joke to you, it may not for long. Obama has put together a team of people who believe in this equation. That includes the general himself, now at the National Security Council; the vice-president, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; the Republican defence secretary; and a secretary of state, someone with a long record of championing the cause of women and girls living in poverty, who is now determined to revolutionise health and agriculture for the world's poor.

    And it looks like the bipartisan coalition in the US Congress that accomplished so much in global development over the past eight years is still holding amid rancour on pretty much everything else. From a development perspective, you could not dream up a better dream team to pursue peace in this way, to rebrand the US.

    Obama said he considered the peace prize a call to action. And in the fight against extreme poverty, it is action, not intentions, that counts.

    That stirring sentence he uttered last month will ring hollow unless he returns to next year's UN summit with a meaningful, inclusive plan, one that gets results for the billion or more people living on less than $1 a day. Difficult. Very difficult. But doable.

    The Nobel peace prize is the rest of the world saying, "Don't blow it."

    But that is not just directed at Obama; it is directed at all of us. What the president promised was a "global plan, " not a US plan. The same is true on all the other issues that the Nobel committee cited, from nuclear disarmament to climate change - none of these things will yield to unilateral approaches. They will take international co-operation and US leadership.

    The US president has set himself, and the rest of us, no small task.

    That is why the US should not turn up its national nose at popularity contests. In the same week that Obama won the Nobel, the US was ranked as the most admired country in the world, leapfrogging from seventh to the top of the Nation Brands Index survey - the biggest jump any country has ever made. Like the Nobel, this can be written off as meaningless, a measure of Obama's celebrity.

    But a US that is tired of being the world's policeman, and is too pinched to be the world's philanthropist, could still be the world's partner. And you cannot do that without being, well, loved. Here come the letters to the editor, but let me just say it: Americans are like singers - we, just a little bit, kind of like to be loved. The British want to be admired; the Russians, feared; the French, envied. (The Irish, we just want to be listened to.) But the idea of the US, from the very start, was supposed to be contagious enough to sweep up and enthral the world.

    And it is. The world wants to believe in the US again because the world needs to believe in the US again. We need your ideas - your idea - at a time when the rest of the world is running out of them.

    BARACK OBAMA SALUTES FALLEN SOLDIERS

    Description: President Barack Obama salutes as a carry team carries the transfer case containing the remains of Army Sgt. Dale R. Griffin of Terre Haute,  Ind.,  who,  accordng to the Department of Defense died in Afghanistan,  during the dignified transfer event at Dover Air Force Base in Dover

    President Obama was hardly visible as the body of Sergeant Dale Griffin was carried down the ramp of a military transport. However, the silhouette of the Commander-in-Chief witnessing the return of America's war dead before dawn may prove a defining image of his agonising over how to prevail in Afghanistan.

    Mr Obama spent four hours at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where most bodies of American soldiers killed in wars arrive back on US soil, and where 18 flag-draped coffins landed on Wednesday night after the deadliest day for Nato forces in Afghanistan since 2005.

    It was longer than many of Mr Obama's official visits, and long enough, he said, to influence his thinking on future troop deployments to a war zone where eight years of fighting have yielded only a bloody stalemate.

    It was a sobering reminder of the sacrifices of US servicemen and women, he said. "The burden that both our troops and our families bear in any wartime situation is going to bear on how I see these conflicts."

    The night helicopter flight to Delaware punctuated a debate on future US strategy in Afghanistan that is building to a climax with reports that Mr Obama will send substantial reinforcements but fewer than his commanding general would like.

    Administration officials told reporters that Mr Obama was considering sending a new troop contingent but one that would fall short of the 44, 000 soldiers requested by General Stanley McChrystal.

    How the reinforcements will be used is expected to be addressed at a war council in the White House today, attended by the Secretary of Defence, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the heads of the army, navy, air force and Marine Corps.

    Pressure will then mount from allies and critics for a decision. A second-round vote for the Afghan presidency is scheduled for November 7 and the White House has all but ruled out a set-piece speech on US strategy in Afghanistan before then. On November 11 the President leaves on an eight-day trip to Asia, leaving a four-day gap when an announcement is most likely.

    Private briefings by White House and Pentagon staff in recent days point to support for a "McChrystal light" strategy based on protecting civilians, winning over insurgents and accelerating the training of Afghan army units and police.

    Mr Obama has requested a province-by-province breakdown of troop requirements and an analysis of how reinforcements would be used from General McChrystal's staf.

    News of the request fitted a pattern of preparation for the weightiest decision of a young presidency, but prompted accusations of micromanaging issues better left to commanders. "It's nuts that we have to do all this in public, " one official said.

    "People on the ground should be able to get on with it and not be second-guessed by know-it-alls in Washington."

    The visit to Dover Air Force Base was first suggested on Tuesday night. It was confirmed at noon on Wednesday but not publicised until Mr Obama was on board the presidential helicopter shortly before midnight.

    After the 40-minute flight to Delaware he was driven to an air force chapel to meet relatives of the 15 soldiers and three Drug Enforcement Agency personnel.

    Shortly before 4am Mr Obama joined the six-person military carry team responsible for taking the bodies from a C17 transport to a waiting van. Four times he boarded the aircraft to witness prayers for the fallen and the air crews that had brought them home. Four times he held a long salute on the runway as the transfer cases - the word "coffin" is not used by the Pentagon - were carried past him.

    "It was hard not to be overwhelmed, " the White House spokesman, who was also present, said afterwards. Apart from a few words of thanks from Mr Obama on his flight back to the White House, no one spoke.

    THE WAR OF THE WORDS

    The official war of words is on. Former Vice President Dick Cheney fired the first shot when he accused President Barack Obama of "dithering" while America's armed forces wait for his decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan. The President's Press Secretary didn't waste any time responding. He accused Cheney of not paying attention to Afghanistan when he was in the White House. Since then, pundits on both sides of the issue have joined in. Obama backers say the President is being thoughtful and thorough. Obama detractors say he is showing he's indecisive and can't govern. But the truth is something else entirely. The truth isn't about Obama watching and weighing events in Afghanistan. The truth is, his administration is more closely watching and weighing political events right here at home. The truth in the Afghanistan presidential decision delay comes down to one word: politics. It's been nearly a year since President Obama was handed an in-depth report on Afghanistan by the Bush transition team, including recommendations on how to handle the war. In March, President Obama met with General Stanley McChrystal - the man he put in charge in Afghanistan - and declared that Afghanistan was the good war and one America would win with the extra troops he was sending there. But after that announcement he didn't meet with General McCrystal again, didn't even talk with him by phone, didn't answer his requests for more troops for a surge to win the war. It wasn't until months later, after a report on CBS's "Sixty Minutes" - where McChrystal admitted he had only met with the President once - that the President scheduled another meeting. Meanwhile, the Commander of NATO forces, General David McKiernan has underscored the need for more troops or risk failure in Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has urged the President to make a decision.
    But to date there is still no answer from Obama about what he will do. It's not due to the President's thoughtfulness, or thoroughness, or indecisiveness. It's the President's politics. He sees his poll numbers falling and doesn't want to anger his far left support by sending more troops overseas. He sees two democratic Governors in trouble and doesn't want to do anything that will cost them their upcoming elections. To wit, he's gone to New Jersey to campaign for Governor Jon Corzine. And it's clear he's trying to help Craig Deeds who's in trouble in Virginia, the swing state that was key to Obama's 2008 victory. If he can stall through those gubernatorial elections - and claim the delay is because he is studying the politics in Afghanistan - his candidates may have a better chance. But mixing politics with international affairs is dangerous. Watching the American President delay a decision on what to do in Afghanistan - send more troops or pull out - doesn't make NATO want to send more troops in, it emboldens the enemy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and - worse - it leaves our military waiting in harms way. There are nuclear weapons on the Pakistan border, the Taliban forces are gathering in Waziristan, vowing to kill Americans, and headed by a leader who was turned loose from Gitmo - as one of the less dangerous prisoners held there. President Obama was given a full military review close to a year ago. Eight months ago he announced that Afghanistan was the right war to fight and we would fight it. These are the facts and the facts are the message to the world. Yet the only message to the world from this White House is coming from the President's Press Secretary, his Chief of Staff and his Special Advisors. It is pure and simply political: Afghanistan? Wait until after the Gubernatorial results are in.

    A FINAL WORD ON THE OBAMA NOBEL


    Now that the ruckus has subsided over the Nobel Prize for Peace to Barack Obama, the time has come to examine an issue largely overlook in recent years. Here is the question: Does the prize hold any relevance, or is it nothing more than a popularity contest judged by a handful of Norwegians with a distorted world vision?

    The Peace Prize, according to the Nobel Foundation, should go to a person who, during the preceding year, did the most "for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." The Norwegian Nobel Committee, however, the small panel that decides who receives what used to be one of the world's most prestigious honors, added to the criteria the protection of the world's climate, thus allowing Al Gore and the International Panel on Climate Change to share the prize in 2007.

    So, who received the award last year? That was Martti Ahtisaari, a former Finnish president and, according to the Nobel Committee, a "citizen of the world" who, in 2005, became the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General to come up with a plan for the future of Kosovo. The Ahtisaari Plan of 2007 promoted Albanian independence for the Christian heart of Serbia. The plan drew harsh and immediate criticism from the Serbian government, particularly in light of Muslim-backed terrorism against the Christian population of Kosovo that resulted in the damage or destruction of approximately 150 Christian sites between 1999 and 2004.

    The awards to Obama and Ahtisaari were not the first to be greeted with bewilderment. The Gore award in 2007 and Jimmy Carter's in 2002 were among the more recent curious selections of the past twenty years.

    Mikhail Gorbachev received the 1990 award for his part in ending the Cold War, which he could not have accomplished without the politics and policies of President Ronald Reagan, whom the Norwegians believed was unworthy of a share in the prize.

    Rigoberta Menchu got her 1992 award "in recognition of her work for social justice and ethno-cultural reconciliation based on respect for the rights of indigenous peoples." The Nobel Foundation let her keep it, even after learning her autobiography was a lie. One might call it a disingenuous indigenous story.


    Yasser Arafat, an avowed terrorist widely considered someone who enjoyed the company of young boys, and who once packed heat when addressing the UN General Assembly, shared the prize in 1994.

    Kofi Annan and the United Nations sharing the prize in 2001 may be the most outlandish decision in the controversial history of the prize, one akin to holding up Adolph Hitler as a champion of peace. Although Annan took the money and a bow, he admitted three years later he did nothing to stop the slaughter of nearly one million Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. "The international community failed Rwanda and that must leave us always with a sense of bitter regret, " he said.

    Sports analogies have a way of keeping controversial decisions from becoming slam dunks. Several stories about Obama's prize pointed out that winning Rookie of the Year does not qualify one for the Hall of Fame, or sentiments along that line.

    A recent statement regarding this year's Heisman Trophy brought to mind its relationship to the Nobel Peace Prize selection. Here's what happened. A college football announcer stated there's talk that University of Houston quarterback Case Keenum is a serious candidate for the Heisman Trophy, given each year to the person selected as the nation's best collegiate football player. The color guy quickly sacked that comment by saying Keenum doesn't belong in the conversation.

    He could have said Keenum is one of several good players in the running this year. He could have said there's still a half-season of football to be played, but Keenum certainly deserves consideration. He could have said Keenum has given some strong performances this season and that he hopes Kennum continues to have a good year. But he didn't. Instead, he scoffed at the player who leads the nation in total offense with 2, 501 passing yards, 76 rushing yards, and 19 touchdowns.

    One can only assume "the other guy in the booth" based his snobby snub on the fact Keenum does not play in a conference with an automatic Bowl Championship Series berth. In other words, he's not a member of the self-ascribed elite and doesn't deserve even the utterance of his name in conversation.

    How like the peace prize selection process this sounds: A small group of individuals of dubious importance deciding who deserves the highest accolade they have to offer, regardless of talent, accomplishments, or other tangible measures of success.

    And the world buys into it each year.

    "...Mundus vult decipi..." (the world wants to be deceived)


    OFF THE HOOK


    It's late; I know you've gotten a lot of messages from us recently, and everyone here at OFA headquarters is pretty tired. But the last reports of calls and commitments are just coming in from events on the West Coast, and I wanted to share the news with you.

    As you know, we set a big goal: 100, 000 calls to Congress placed or committed to in a single day by OFA supporters and allied organizations. By 2:30 p.m., you had crushed it. So, we gulped and said let's go for 200, 000, not knowing what would happen. But the calls just kept pouring in -- keeping phones ringing off the hook in congressional offices in D.C. and your representatives' district offices around the country.

    Then, OFA supporters gathered in over 1, 000 living rooms and community centers from Macon, Georgia to Missoula, Montana. You called hundreds of thousands of key voters in your community and got them to agree to call Congress and speak out for reform, too. President Obama joined in at a call party in New York -- and he had some amazing words of support for the folks like you who make this movement possible.

    I'm looking at the numbers, and with almost all of the reports now in, the tally wasn't 200, 000 calls placed or pledged -- it was 315, 023. You did it. Your voice was overwhelming -- with reports in the media of congressional offices "completely crushed with calls." CBS News described your effort as an "onslaught." And a congressional aide was quoted with a common response, saying their office was deluged by "pretty much non-stop health care calls from OFA."

    You set a new OFA record, you caught the national media's attention, and you certainly put Congress on notice. But you know that's not what really matters.

    The message I sent earlier talked about a woman, Jenny U., whose insurance company cut off her coverage because they decided her kidney donation to her sick daughter counted as a "pre-existing condition." What really matters is that today you brought America one giant, irreversible step closer to being a place where no one will ever have to suffer that kind of injustice again. That's what all the messages, late nights, and phone calls ultimately add up to. It's what makes everything we do together worthwhile -- and it's why we'll keep fighting together until the job is done.

    100, 000 CALLS TO CONGRESS

    Jenny U. from Missouri did what any parent would: When her son needed a kidney, she donated one of hers. But she didn't realize insurance companies would use her kindness as an excuse to never cover her again, calling her donation a "pre-existing condition."

    Now, insurance companies are spending millions on a campaign of lies to kill health reform that would help folks like Jenny. So, today, with crucial negotiations taking place in Congress, we're raising our voices and making it clear: It's time to deliver on reform.

    We've set a big goal: 100, 000 calls to Congress made or committed to in a single day. To hit it, we'll need your help -- will you take 3 minutes to call Congress now? Call you representatives and tell them: Its time to Deliver on health reform. Click here to look yours up. Health insurance reform is finally ready for consideration by the full Congress, and hundreds of insurance company lobbyists on Capitol Hill are working overtime to kill it. Calling is quick and easy, but effective -- and your voice has tremendous power at this critical moment.

    After you make your call, tell the staffer who picks up where you live and that you're counting on Congress to deliver on health reform. Let them know that Americans like you support the President's plan -- and that if your representatives are working to pass it, they have your thanks.

    If we hit 100, 000 calls made or committed to, we'll send an unmistakable signal that this time, families must come before insurance companies.

    HILLARY CLINTON MORE POPULAR THAN OBAMA

    She lost to him in last year's battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, but a new national poll suggests that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now more popular than her boss, President Barack Obama.

    A Gallup survey released Thursday indicates that 62 percent of Americans hold a favorable view of Clinton, 6 points higher than the 56 percent who view Obama favorably.

    According to the poll, the president's favorable rating has dropped 22 points from its inaugural-month level in January. The survey indicates that Clinton's favorable rating has only edged down 3 points since the beginning of the year.

    Nine in 10 Democrats questioned in the poll view both Obama and Clinton favorably, with independents split. Fewer than one in five Republicans hold a favorable opinion of the president, while 35 percent see Clinton in a positive light. According to the survey, Obama has dropped 23 points with independents and 41 points with Republicans since January, while Clinton has dropped just 6 points among independents and stayed even among Republicans since the start of 2009.


    "This is a common pattern in recent polling. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice consistently had higher favorable ratings than George W. Bush. Madeleine Albright was more popular than Bill Clinton. Secretaries of State don't get blamed for economic problems or unpopular domestic policies, and they often don't get the same share of the blame as the commander-in-Chief for international slip-ups either."

    The Gallup telephone poll of 1, 013 adults was conducted October 1-4, before the president was named winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

    OBAMA WILL NEVER PLEASE SOME PEOPLE

    Our president wins the Nobel Peace Prize. It is without a doubt one of the most distinguished honors in the world.

    So now, some folks are clamoring for President Barack Obama to give back the $1.4 million prize - which he is donating to charity - ostensibly because he doesn't "deserve it."

    As I'm sure most of you know, Obama was awarded the prize on Friday. It was a surprise - even to the president, who questioned whether he was worthy of such recognition.

    The Nobel committee in Oslo, Norway, apparently thought so. It said that Obama was selected for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

    Obama's win, so early in his presidency, has generated considerable debate. Some have questioned whether he merited such a great honor based on his record of actual achievement.

    There have been some Democrats as well as Republicans who have expressed reservations.

    Obama-hating conservatives have become completely unhinged at such a prestigious, international recognition given to their arch nemesis.

    While foreign leaders from France to Russia to South Africa were applauding Obama's selection as a positive step, some of his own countrymen back home were - like the Taliban in Afghanistan - running him down.

    I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota, but that is the only thing I can think of from this news."

    Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, insists Obama won the prize for "awesomeness." That his selection shows how "meaningless a once honorable and respected honor has become."

    Actually, the Nobel is still a huge deal. That's why Steele and his followers are so besides themselves.

    Steele is even attempting to twist the president's Nobel win into something sinister to help raise money for the GOP cause.

    "Democrats and their international leftist allies want America made subservient to the agenda of global redistribution and control, " says a GOP fundraising letter. "And truly patriotic Americans like you and our Republican Party are the only thing standing in the way."

    Truly patriotic Americans? Hmm.

    The fact is, these folks are so consumed with hatred for Obama that he will never do anything right in their eyes. In their warped view, patriotism equals rejecting the democratically elected president of the United States - because he's secretly a Muslim foreigner, or he's the Antichrist, take your pick.

    The Obama rejectionists have one goal and one goal only: for Obama's program to fail so they can say, I told you so.

    These "patriots" were giddy when the Olympic committee chose Rio de Janeiro over Chicago last month for the 2016 Olympics. This after Obama had made a trip to Denmark to make a pitch for his home city.

    Obama haters would rather see the U.S. lose out as Olympic host than have their nemesis be able to claim credit for anything.

    Alfred Nobel, who established the Nobel Peace Prize in 1895, said it should go to the individual who has contributed the most to the development of peace in the previous year. It is not necessarily a lifetime achievement award. Nowhere does it say the award is for any single accomplishment.

    "Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?" said Thorbjoern Jagland, head of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.

    The committee applauded Obama for his efforts to help reduce the spread of nuclear weapons as well as his efforts to reach out to the Muslim world.

    True, Obama has only been in office since January.

    But since then, our frosty relations with Europe have begun to warm. The U.S. is attempting to negotiate with traditional foes such as Iran rather than looking for a pretext to invade them.

    The Nobel committee said it wanted to recognize Obama's diplomatic efforts thus far and encourage him to continue reaching out to other nations in a spirit of cooperation for the better good.

    What is so wrong with that?

    OBAMA'S NOBEL PEACE PRIZE IS WELL DESERVED

    Yes, President Obama does deserve The Nobel Peace Prize.

    He was given the unenviable task of repairing America's broken image with European allies, and with the heads of emerging nations. Yes, it's still early, but here's the truth: in ten months under Obama, America's image in the world is decidedly better than it was under the previous president.

    This is not supposition, but fact. International and regional polls confirm this.

    And how has Obama done it mostly? With soft power - this was sorely lacking in the hard power-heavy approach of President George W. Bush. The world was certainly impressed with Obama's great inaugural speech, and his powerful declaration, "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." These are not the words of a pacifist, but in fact, a peace advocate.

    No president ever went on a lengthy European Tour to meet with the heads of state and engage the citizens in town hall meetings. This has never happened. Don't tell me you weren't impressed with his hour long discussion with Turkish students. And please don't tell me you weren't impressed with his riveting speech to Egyptian students at Cairo University.

    But even more compelling is this assertion: America should be honored by Obama's Nobel Peace Prize because we elected him, and his diplomatic and measured approach is what clearly impressed the Nobem Commitee.

    But his critics claim that he only won because of his soaring speeches, and not his accomplishments. This is a ridiculous claim. I see people have forgotten Huffpost Blogger Ilan Goldenberg's awesome post onObamas 100 foreign policy achievements in just hist first 100 days. So this madness about "what has he done" must stop.

    As for Obama's words ... every fight for human dignity is imbued with impassioned words. Susan B. Anthony's words provided momentum to the women's suffrage movement. Martin Luther King's words provided momentum to the civil right movement. Anthony and King were beaten, spit on, ostracized, jailed, and demeaned in the mainstream press. But their words (speeches, books, letters, and protest chants) provided the spark and lasting sustenance for the movements of which they were apart.

    Yes, words are powerful. Obama's words are powerful. And in just ten months, the world believes Obama's achievements also merit some recognition. But the award is not just for him. It's also for this country. You would think the "country first" crowd of the last election would at least see that.

    After all, many of these "country first" activists cheered wildly whne Chigaco lost the Olympics, and they have been absolutely disgusting in attacking Obama for just about anything.

    Consider this: our president and his family receive over 30 death threats a day (a day!) yet that hasn't shaken the Obamas' belief that we live a great country. Those town hall meetings and Tea Party gatherings had nasty conspiracy theories and ugliness from many right wingers, but Obama still believes in bi-partisanship and reaching out. Yes, still, after all of that. Clearly, this is a man of peace - both nationally and internationally. Again, not a pacifist, but a peace advocate. He wants the people of the world to work together, for the people of the United States to work together, and I can't say I disagree with him on that.

    I see his award as a recognition of what he has worked very hard to do globally (and succeeded to a degree), and, a push for him to go even farther, and achieve even more. So it doesn't say "Obama has arrived" as much as it says "Obama is on the right track". Our president earns his keep every minute of the day, and we must make sure it continues. Arianna Huffington wrote in January that Obama wasn't the only one being inaugurated - that we all are. Likewise, Obama didn't just win the Nobel Peace Prize - we all did. I am happy that we all - in this multi-ethnic, multi-racial nation - share this incredible honor.


    WORDS SPEAK LOUDER THAN ACTIONS


    Just about nine months into his presidency, Barack Obama has earned the right to be put in the same league as people like Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Mikhail Gorbachev, Frederik Willem de Klerk and the Dalai Lama. That's a league so extraordinary that things like ending apartheid, tearing down the Berlin Wall and ministering to the impoverished, malnourished, sick and orphaned is just the tip of the iceberg. Quite a privilege indeed. At 48 years old, Barck Obama is one of the youngest people ever to win this prestigious award. At such a relatively young age, one can't help but wonder what makes President Obama so exceptionally deserving of such an award. Especially considering how many other qualified candidates there were.Alfred Nobel once said that the Nobel Peace Prize is dedicated to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"
    Obama certainly has talked about laudable things like ending wars, closing prison camps and promoting peace.

    A CALL TO ACTION (EMAIL SENT BY BARACK OBAMA

    "This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

    To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

    But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

    That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

    This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

    So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

    Thank you, President Barack Obama"

    THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR 2009 -PRESS RELEASE


    The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

    Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

    Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

    For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

    Oslo, October 9, 2009

    NOBEL PEACE PRIZE IS 'CALL TO ACTION'

    Nobel Peace Prize is 'call to action'

    President Barack Obama said Friday that he was humbled by the decision of the Norwegian Nobel Committee to award him the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

    President Obama,  speaking Friday,  said the award was

    "I am both surprised and deeply humbled, " Obama said at the White House.

    "I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments. But rather as an affirmation of American leadership. ... I will accept this award as a call to action."

    Obama said he did not feel he deserves "to be in the company" of past winners, but would continue to push a broad range of international objectives, including nuclear non-proliferation, a reversal of the global economic downturn, and a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    He acknowledged the ongoing U.S. conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, noting that he is the "commander in chief of a country that is responsible for ending" one war and confronting a dangerous adversary in another.

    "This award is not simply about my administration, " he said. It "must be shared" with everyone who strives for "justice and dignity."

    The Nobel Committee said it decided to honor Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

    The president had not been mentioned as among front-runners for the prize, and the roomful of reporters in Oslo, Norway, gasped when Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Nobel committee, uttered Obama's name.

    The Nobel committee recognized Obama's efforts to solve complex global problems including working toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

    "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future, " the committee said.

    Jagland said the decision was "unanimous" and came with ease.

    Obama will donate the roughly $1.4 million award to charity, a White House spokesman said Friday.

    OBAMA RALLIES DOCTORS ON HEALTHCARE REFORM

    AHEAD OF SENATE VOTE

    President Barack Obama talks to doctors about healthcare reform

    President Barack Obama talks to doctors about healthcare reform.

    President Obama rallied doctors to his cause for healthcare reform today but in a speech outlining the emerging legislation failed to press for a government-run medical insurance scheme that was once a centrepiece of his plans.

    The president spoke as congressional leaders began work to merge bills from two Senate committees in to a single piece of healthcare legislation that is expected to be voted on later this week.

    One of the bills, from the finance committee, which does not include government insurance is expected to have the greater influence over the new law because a number of Democratic senators have said they are not prepared to support the "public option" that has been a primary source of sometimes bitter division in the healthcare debate. Obama needs the support of all 60 Democratic members to prevent a Republic filibuster when the issue comes to a vote of the full Senate.

    The president told the white-coated doctors in the White House Rose Garden, who represented every state as well as an array of professional organisations, that the medical profession overwhelmingly backs reform because healthcare workers deal first hand with the shortcomings of the present system.

    "We have listened to every charge and every counter charge from the crazy claims about death panels [deciding to kill off old people] to misleading warnings about a government takeover of our healthcare system. But when you cut through all the noise and all the distractions that are out there, I think what's most telling is that some of the people who are most supportive of reform are the very medical professionals who know the healthcare system best, " he said. "The reason these doctors are here is because they've seen first hand what's broken about our healthcare system. They've seen what happens when their patients can't get the care they need because some insurance company has decided to drop their coverage or water it down. They've seen what happens when a patient is forced to pay out of pocket thousands of dollars she doesn't have for treatments she desperately needs."

    Obama said that wrong will be righted by reform that will bar insurance companies from suddenly dropping patients who suddenly need expensive care or capping the amount that can be paid out. Those without insurance will be able to go to an exchange to find the most suitable coverage.

    But while there appears to be consistent public support for a government-run insurance plan alongside the existing policies offered by private companies, Obama made no reference to the public option.

    The nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation's conducted a survey last month that showed 57% of Americans support establishing a "public health insurance option" similar to the one that now exists for the elderly.

    But there is deep hostility to a government role in parts of the country, particularly the south where Democratic senators fear they will be vulnerable to political opponents who will accuse them of increasing government spending or putting bureaucrats between patients and their doctors.

    The healthcare industry has lobbied strongly against a public option, fearing that it will cut into profits.

    IS FACEBOOK GOOD FOR US PRESIDENT OBAMA ?

    YES and NO.

    Mr. Obama has used Facebook and other social media platforms to reach out to millions and advance his agenda. He is a social media magnet. At the time of writing this article, the Facebook group, Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack), had 1 063 122 members.

    The group also links with the White House, giving Mr. Obama and his supporters tremendous opportunities to advance his agenda.

    But the social media might also be one of Mr. Obama's greatest threats. A poll posted to Facebook last Saturday asked users to vote:"should Obama be killed?"

    Freedom of expression? The responses were crafted specifically to generate support for the diabolic wish to have the US President assassinated. The responses: "yes, " "maybe, " "if he cuts my health care, " and "no."

    Facebook has since removed the offensive poll, which was posted through a third-party application. And the US Secret Service is investigating.

    But this Facebook poll clearly shows how the social media can be exploited to nourish diabolical wishes and plots against Mr. Obama. The creator of the poll and those who voted anything other than NO are not practicing freedom of expression. They are mobilizing for terror and aren't any different from Osama bin Ladens of this world.

    Facebook owes Barack and millions of it's peace-loving users around the world. This time it's not the usual violation where third-party applications manipulate Facebook policies or user photos and personal information. It's about the heinous dream to have the President of the United States assassinated.

    It's terror wish.

    Such wishes must be kept as far away as possible from popular public spaces such as Facebook. Facebook must clean its act and tighten it's policies. Facebook users must stay vigilant and report polls like this before they spread like a virus.

    Facebook is our playground. It's no place for hate and terror plots.


    ECONOMY PROBABLY WON'T PRODUCE

    ENOUGH JOBS UNTIL 2010


    President Obama says that despite signs of economic recovery, the country will not see large-scale job growth until next year.

    President Obama discusses the economy and other topics with CNN's John King.

    President Obama discusses the economy and other topics with CNN's John King.

    In a wide-ranging interview broadcast Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union, " Obama said reversing job losses from the recession will come at the end of the recovery period, not the start.

    "I want to be clear, that probably the jobs picture is not going to improve considerably -- and it could even get a little bit worse -- over the next couple of months, " Obama told CNN chief national correspondent John King in the interview, conducted Friday.

    It was one of five interviews Obama conducted for broadcast over the weekend as part of his stepped-up campaign to push his priority issues, especially promoting comprehensive health care legislation. In addition to CNN, Obama spoke to CBS, NBC, ABC and Univision

    Obama told CNN he believes the economy will be creating jobs through the end of 2009 -- but not enough to keep pace with population growth nor to make up for steep losses in employment that occurred earlier this year.

    "I think we'll be adding jobs, but you need 150, 000 additional jobs each month just to keep pace with a growing population, " the president said. "So if we're only adding 50, 000 jobs, that's a great reversal from losing 700, 000 jobs [a month] early this year -- but, you know, it means that we've still got a ways to go."

    He called the issue "something that I ask every single one of my economic advisers every single day, because I know that ultimately the measure of an economy is, is it producing jobs that help people support families, send their kids to college?"

    "That's the single most important thing we can do, " Obama said.

    On Health care reform, another of his top domestic agenda items, the president rejected a recent comment by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, that conservative opponents were "winning the health care debate."

    McConnell was referring to heated town hall meetings around the country and a recent march on Washington organized by conservatives opposed to Obama's policies, which he said were forcing the president and Democrats to soften some positions.

    Asked about McConnell's comment, Obama responded "Well, you know ... they were saying they were winning during the election, too."

    McConnell appeared later on the program and was asked what defines winning the health care debate.

    "Winning is stopping and starting over and getting it right, " McConnell said. "I don't know anybody in my Republican conference in the Senate who's in favor of doing nothing on health care. We obviously have a cost problem and we have an access problem."

    He called for a less comprehensive approach that focused on specific issues such as limiting medical malpractice lawsuits, rather than the overhaul sought by Obama and Democrats.

    "There's a very big difference about whether or not it's appropriate to have a major rewrite of about one-sixth of our economy in the process, " McConnell said. "My members just don't think that's the right way to go."

    Addressing one of the most controversial issues in the health care debate, Obama repeated his opposition to providing health insurance or government subsidies for coverage to illegal immigrants. Republicans have said that Democratic proposals in Congress have loopholes that would allow illegal immigrants to get free coverage or funding, a charge that Obama and Democrats initially denied as misinformation.

    The issue gained prominence after Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina, shouted "You lie!" at Obama during the president's September 9 address on health care to a joint session of Congress. Wilson, who was criticized by Democrats and Republicans and immediately apologized, was formally rebuked by the House of Representatives, but insists his action -- while inappropriate -- prompted Democrats to promise stronger enforcement sought by Republicans.

    In the interview, Obama called for a "verification mechanism" similar to procedures for other social programs, calling it "a pretty straightforward principle that will be met."

    He also said a compromise health care proposal coming before the Senate Finance Committee this week contains many of the provisions he is seeking in a final bill.

    The measure, engineered by Finance Committee chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, emerged from months of negotiations involving six committee members -- three Democrats and three Republicans.

    While the talks were intended to generate bipartisan support for a proposal, the three Republican negotiators have yet to support the plan unveiled by Baucus last week. Republicans say the proposal is too ambitious and expensive, even though it drops a government-run public health insurance option that they unanimously oppose.

    The lack of a public option concerns liberal Democrats, who say the Baucus proposal will make required health insurance coverage too expensive for some of the low- and middle-income families it is intended to help.

    Obama said in the interview that he also is concerned about ensuring that millions of Americans currently without coverage can afford a plan if required by law to get one.

    "I'd like to make sure that we've got that affordability really buttoned down, because I think that's one of the most important things, " Obama said. "... If we're offering people health insurance and we're saying that people have to get health insurance ... we've got to make sure it's affordable."

    Asked if he would sign the Baucus proposal as is, Obama refused to answer what he called a hypothetical question. He noted that the plan meets the broad goals he has set, such as prohibiting the denial of health coverage due to pre-existing conditions. The proposal also would not add to the federal deficit in the next 10 years while holding down the rise in health care costs, Obama said.

    "[T]here are a whole bunch of details that still have to get worked out, " Obama said. "But what I'll say is, is that right now I'm pleased that, basically, we've got 80 percent agreement, we've got to really work on that next 20 percent over the last few weeks."

    In the health care debate, heated rhetoric has been flung in the president's direction. Obama rejected suggestions by some -- including former President Jimmy Carter -- that much of it is fueled by racism.

    In the interview with CNN, Obama acknowledged that racism plays a role in some of the criticism against him but added that race is "not the overriding issue."

    "I think there are people who are anti-government, " the president said. "I think there's been a long-standing debate in this country that is usually that much more fierce during times of transition, or when presidents are trying to bring about big changes.

    "I mean, things that were said about FDR [Franklin Delano Roosevelt] were pretty similar to things that were said about me. 'He's a communist, he's a socialist.' Things that were said about Ronald Reagan when he was trying to reverse some of the New Deal programs, you know, were pretty vicious as well."

    On foreign policy, Obama said it was too soon to decide whether more U.S. forces are needed in Afghanistan. "I don't want to put the resource question before the strategy question, " Obama told King. "Because there is a natural inclination to say, if I get more, then I can do more. But right now, the question is, the first question is, are we doing the right thing? Are we pursuing the right strategy?"

    The president said the answer to that important strategic question will come from his secretary of defense, his national security adviser, and commanders on the ground in Afghanistan, including Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

    Obama is currently considering an assessment of troop levels done by McChrystal. The report is believed by some members of Congress to recommend additional troops be placed in the country. However, some influential Democrats on Capitol Hill have expressed reluctance to send more troops to Afghanistan.

    "What I will say to the American public is, it's not going to be driven by the politics of the moment, " Obama said. A proper strategy will provide "clear benchmarks" to set a "matrix of progress, " the president said, noting that the original goal for Afghanistan was to "get al Qaeda, the people who killed 3, 000 Americans, " referring to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

    "To the extent that our strategy in Afghanistan is serving that goal, then we're on the right track, " Obama said. "If it starts drifting away from that goal, then we may have a problem."

    Asked about North Korea, Obama said his administration has been successful so far in ratcheting up international diplomatic pressure.

    "We have been able to hold together a coalition that includes the Chinese and the Russians to really apply some of the toughest sanctions we've seen, and it's having an impact, " the president said.

    In addition, former President Bill Clinton brought back valuable information about North Korean leader Kin Jon II from his mission to help two imprisoned American journalists return home, Obama told King.

    "I think President Clinton's assessment was that [Kim is] pretty healthy and in control, " the president said, "And that's important to know, because we don't have a lot of interaction with the North Koreans. And, you know, President Clinton had a chance to see him close up and have conversations with him.

    "I won't go into any more details than that. But there's no doubt that this is somebody who, you know, I think for a while people thought was slipping away. He's reasserted himself. It does appear that he's concerned about -- he was more concerned about succession when he was -- succession when he was sick, maybe less so now that he's well."

    With the U.S. government expected to begin a large-scale vaccination effort next month against the H1N1 FLU virus, Obama said the first family will not get any special consideration compared to other Americans.

    "Here's what I guarantee you, " the president said. "We want to get vaccinated. We think it's the right thing to do. We will stand in line like everybody else. And when folks say it's our turn, that's when we'll get it."

    The president said high-risk populations for the H1N1 virus -- like health care workers, pregnant women, and children -- will be first in line for vaccinations against the disease. So he speculated that his two daughters, who are both under the age of 12, would likely get vaccinated before him.

    "I suspect that I may come fairly far down the line, " Obama said.


    WITH CHANGE AGENDA AT RISK, OBAMA

    FACES CRUSICAL TESTS


    President Barack Obama is on the ropes barely seven months into his tenure, facing a cauldron of crises including health care reform, the war in Afghanistan and an anemic US economy.

    With his approval ratings sliding, he faces a crucial test of his ability to push through his change agenda, particularly on health care reform, details of which he will lay out Wednesday in a rare address to a joint session of the US Congress.

    Critics say Obama has not offered enough specifics of the plan, following an August marked by volatile town hall meetings in which conservatives railed against changing the system.

    Republican foes and some moderate Democrats have suggested Obama trim the sweeping health care reform plan -- or at least introduce it in stages -- as the president's administration was poised to raise the 10-year US budget deficit forecast to about nine trillion dollars.

    Obama spent the first several months in office working to avoid a US economic collapse; controversial government interventions saw him pump billions of dollars into teetering banks, financial giants and a collapsing US auto industry.

    While many economists credit the president's 787-billion-dollar economic stimulus plan with salvaging a tanking economy, recent polls suggest Americans have grown skeptical of the plan's success.

    And while a series of signs show a fragile financial-market recovery has begun, and that the massive pace of job losses has eased, concerns remain about the overall health of the economy.

    Official data on Friday showed US unemployment climbed to 9.7 percent last month, the highest level since June 1983.

    Debate has persisted over whether Obama is engaging in an ambitious and activist agenda to change America or fighting carryover fires left by the previous administration of George W. Bush.

    Obama has determined to draw down the US troop presence in Iraq, pledging to remove all but 50, 000 troops by next August.

    But he is expected to request additional troops for Afghanistan, where the United States is fighting a war, with escalating casualties, that nearly six in 10 Americans now oppose, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

    Republicans are squaring off against the president on several fronts other than just health care, complicating Obama's attempts at consensus politics with some Democrats unwilling to compromise on key issues when Obama's party controls the White House and both chambers of Congress.

    Complicating matters over the Labor Day weekend, the White House announced that Obama's special adviser for green jobs, Van Jones, resigned under pressure from leading Republican politicians.

    He stepped down after it was revealed he signed a petition that questioned whether officials in the administration of George W. Bush may have allowed the September 11, 2001 attacks to occur, perhaps as a pretext for war.

    And on Tuesday Obama walks into another thicket: he plans to give a speech to American schoolkids -- the first by a president in 18 years -- but conservatives have blasted it as an attempt to brainwash children to his "socialist" agenda.

    The White House described it as a back-to-school address that would encourage improved academic achievement and higher graduation percentages.

    But the Department of Education raised hackles when it said that one of the suggested activities for school children tuning into the speech was that they write about "how they could help the president."

    "That's Obama-centric. It's not focused on education but on the worship of Barack Obama, " Michael Leahy, spokesman for the conservative grassroots Nationwide Tea Party Coalition, told AFP.

    A Pew Research Center poll released Friday has Obama's approval rating dropping 10 points, to 52 percent, since his 100-day mark in April, when efforts to haul the struggling economy out of recession were at center stage.

    "We're having an economic culture war, " said Democratic pollster David Beattie.

    "The criticisms of Obama are about the fundamental role of government in our economy."

    PRESIDENT IS SET TO 'TAKE THE BATON' :

    HEALTH CARE REFORM 2009


    Six months into his presidency, Barack Obama may have no greater test of his ability to translate personal popularity into a successful legislative agenda than the upcoming two weeks.

    With skepticism about the president's health-care reform effort mounting on Capitol Hill -- even within his own party -- the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to dramatically increase public pressure on Congress: all Obama, all the time.

    Senior White House aides promise "an aggressive public and private schedule" for Obama as he presses his case for reform, including a prime-time news conference on Wednesday, a trip to Cleveland, and heavy use of Internet video to broadcast his message beyond the reach of the traditional media.

    "Our strategy has been to allow this process to advance to the point where it made sense for the president to take the baton. Now's that time, " said senior adviser David Axelrod. "I don't know whether he will Twitter or tweet. But he's going to be very, very visible."

    Another senior White House aide added: "It's time to raise the stakes on this."

    But even as Obama returns to full-time campaign mode, he is facing increasing calls to show that his presidency can manage the tough, nitty-gritty of lawmaking by cutting deals with his allies to keep his health-care legislation moving in the House and Senate committees.

    Conservative Democrats in the House are promising to vote against reform as it now stands, and are preparing two dozen amendments, including measures aimed at lowering the effort's long-term cost. In the Senate, members from both parties are urging the president to break his campaign promise to preserve the tax-free status of health benefits. And a chorus of weary voices from Capitol Hill is urging him to abandon his demand for passage of bills in the House and Senate by Aug. 7.

    "I don't think we should be bound by a timetable that isn't realistic, " Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), a key swing-vote on health care, told Obama last week as she reminded him that President Lyndon B. Johnson took 1 1/2 years to pass Medicare.

    Obama has not officially budged on the timetable, although he and aides notably have not mentioned the August deadline in recent remarks. But he is quietly working with conservative, Blue Dog Democrats in the House on an amendment to create an independent panel to govern Medicare reimbursement rates that could help reverse crippling health-care inflation.

    Most difficult for Obama is the pressure to accept a tax on health benefits as a way of financing the massive insurance reform he wants.

    Speaking on "Fox News Sunday, " White House budget director Peter Orszag would not rule out support for the benefits tax, but he continued to promote Obama's preference for limiting deductions for wealthy taxpayers.

    Some Democrats close to the negotiations say they think it is only a matter of time before Obama backs off. One proposal that has emerged would tax insurance companies, as opposed to beneficiaries, and is considered a potential compromise approach that he may be able to embrace.

    Aides said Obama and his team plan a rapid response to new developments, as they did Thursday with a quickly arranged conference call to rebut assertions by the Congressional Budget Office that health-care costs would go up, not down, if the Democratic bills pass.

    The effort began Friday with impromptu remarks by Obama from the Diplomatic Room, even as groups allied with the White House launched political ad campaigns this weekend aimed at wavering lawmakers. On Monday, his advisers say, he will do a round of interviews to drive the narrative for the week. Private meetings with lawmakers will become more frequent and urgent.

    The decision to vault Obama to the front carries huge risks.

    The decades-long drive to reform the health-care system now rests largely on Obama's ability to quell revolts among Democratic allies, many of whom have spent the past several weeks picking at pieces of his proposals.

    If conservative House Democrats succeed in sowing fear of rising deficits, it will be seen as Obama's fault that he could not rein them in. If Democrats in the Senate do not agree on financing, Obama must explain the failure despite his party's majorities in both chambers.

    The health-care debate was at the center of private discussions at the annual summer meeting of the National Governors Association over the weekend. The health-care legislation under consideration in Congress envisions a significant expansion in eligibility for Medicaid, whose costs are shared by Washington and the states. Their budgets squeezed by the recession, governors fear a costly mandate to cover the newly eligible. The governors devoted most of a private lunch to the issue Saturday and earlier voiced objections to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) over funding plans.

    Obama's top strategists, including Axelrod and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, have repeatedly defended the administration's ambitious agenda by saying that success breeds success -- each legislative victory makes the next one easier to accomplish, they insist. The flip side, then, is that a health-care failure could doom the rest of Obama's agenda.

    Obama's advisers express confidence that the setbacks of the past week can be overcome, and they insist they have spent "no time" discussing the impact on his political fortunes if health-care reform does not pass this year.

    "We don't do doom-and-gloom, " Axelrod.

    But the president's top advisers also recognize that the sense of optimism about health-care reform that existed in Washington several months ago has largely evaporated.

    Cable news programs repeatedly declare the president's health care program is "teetering" or "embattled, " despite a week in which Obama's proposals were endorsed by the doctor and nurses associations and committees in both legislative chambers passed major bills.

    "We're swimming upstream against a culture of failure on health care in Washington, " said one adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's strategy.

    The White House decided early in the year on a hands-off approach to health-care legislating.

    "Had we put a plan out, the entire debate would have been changes to the plan, " said Emanuel, a veteran of the failed Clinton health battle. "It would have been how the president is failing or succeeding."

    But even as he shifts into a more active role, Obama must be mindful of his legislative allies. Rather than strong-arming these old bulls, the White House must tiptoe around them.

    Baucus was a veteran lawmaker in 1994 when the Clinton plan ran aground. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) is a leading health-care expert. Senate health committee Chairman Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is battling brain cancer, voted to create Medicare in 1965.

    For health-care reform to succeed, Obama will have to carefully navigate between paying the appropriate respect to those men while exerting the leadership that many are demanding.

    "It's getting hotter, and there are bumps, but we are closer to health-care reform than ever before, " Emanuel said.

    Article Courtesy of Mobi.NU and India.TC


    OBAMA'S FIRST 100 DAYS: THE GOOD AND THE BAD


    Has it been only 100 days since Barack Obama took the oath of office? Actually, it's only been 98, but sometimes 100 days feels like more than 100 days. This is one of those times. Obama's first 100 days have been among the most eventful in history.

    So how's it going?

    According to the American people, pretty damn good. Not only does 69 percent of the public approve of the job Obama is doing, but last week, for the first time since January 2004, more Americans felt the country is headed in the right direction than in the wrong direction (48 percent to 44 percent). Remarkably, this "right direction" number has been steadily rising even as the economy has been steadily falling.

    In his Grant Park acceptance speech on election night, the newly elected president warned that "the road ahead will be long, " and "our climb will be steep." But his poll numbers are a vindication of the idea that, with the right leadership, Americans are mature enough to heed those words and not expect immediate results.

    So any list of the most impressive achievements of Obama's first 100 days should start with the intangible qualities of transformational leadership --- from the president's personal equanimity (which Robert Reich described as "the serene center of the cyclone -- exuding calm when most Americans are petrified") to his masterful use of the bully pulpit.

    In just his first 100 days, Obama has had almost as many prime time press conferences as George Bush did in his entire first term. And it's not just press conferences. Obama's willingness to speak directly to the American people -- in town halls around the country, on YouTube, on Leno, on ESPN, etc -- and to engage with them by answering questions online and reading ten letters a day from the public, is a powerful reminder that the White House isn't a privatized bubble or underground bunker off limits to the people.

    He's also offered tone setters that are a useful reminder that the president is more than just the country's chief executive -- that he and the First Lady are also potentially the country's chief teachers. They've already taught the country a lot of lessons -- about what we eat and how we eat by planting an organic vegetable garden at the White House, and about commitment to family through their relationship with their daughters and by having the First Granny move into the White House to help Sasha and Malia settle into their new lives.

    Now to the more tangible aspects of his presidency. Let's start with the pluses:

    • The stimulus package. It wasn't big or bold enough, and it suffered from the malodorous scent of Eau de Congressional Business as Usual, but the speed and focus with which it was passed showed how serious Obama was about pulling America out of its economic free-fall. And how competent his team was at hitting the ground running. Plus, it taught the new president an important lesson about the limits of bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship.
    • Passing and signing the national service bill. Not so long ago, a call for sacrifice meant asking people to go shopping or take a trip to Disney World. Creating a system in which more people can feel as if they're true stakeholders in their communities will not only produce physical benefits -- it will help repair America's moral infrastructure as well. And their answering of the call will be additional proof that Americans have been waiting for a leader to ask more of them.
    • Reversing course on stem cells. It was a clear statement about the return of the reality-based world. As Obama put it when he signed the order "It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda, and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."
    • A progressive budget. Healthcare, provisions to tackle rising economic inequality, a more rational defense budget, tax cuts for all but the very wealthy -- as David Leonhardt of the New York Times wrote, Obama's budget is "nothing less than an attempt to end a three-decade era of economic policy dominated by the ideas of Ronald Reagan and his supporters."
    • Foreign Relations. From granting his first presidential interview to Al-Arabiya TV to loosening the embargo on Cuba to hanging an open sign on the State Department, Obama has signaled that the bellicose days of antagonism as our default foreign policy position are over. And his decision to close Guantanamo also sent the right message to the world.
    • The rescue of Captain Richard Phillips of the Maersk Alabama. Blowing away fears of a sea-faring Black Hawk Down, Obama's restrained behind-the-scenes handling of the volatile hostage situation demonstrated that the new commander-in-chief is not afraid to pull the trigger when an American life is on the line. Bonus points for causing the Limbaugh-Hannity worldview about Democrats being nothing but bleeding hearts to shift on its axis.


    A solid run of pluses. Now for the minuses:

    • The bank bailout. In his appointments at almost every agency, Obama has demonstrated a desire to receive a wide range of opinion. But the exception is a doozy: at Treasury, the range of opinion goes all the way from Goldman to Sachs. Several hundred billion dollars later, the banks still aren't lending, the zombies are still on their feet, preferred shareholders are still being catered to, the knowledge of where our money has gone is spotty at best, and oversight and transparency remain unfulfilled promises. The Obama White House's vision for the rescue remains startlingly myopic. The result is the continued funneling of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to the very people who got us into the mess we are in -- with very little accountability demanded in return. The biggest black mark on Obama's first 100 days is his head-scratching reliance on the bank-centric beliefs of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner.
    • Afghanistan. Obama has committed 21, 000 more troops to Afghanistan but as many, including Obama himself, have noted, there is no exclusively military solution to Afghanistan. What's more, unlike with Guantanamo, Obama has adopted Bush's policies regarding the enemy prisoners being held at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan.
    • Torture accountability. Obama has said he wants to look forward and not back, and it's reasonable for him to not want his agenda sidetracked by torture commissions and investigations. But the way we respond to the revelations about the Bush administration's use of torture isn't merely a question of policy; it a question of morality. The minute the president starts framing the issue as a matter of right vs wrong, his choices will be clear. Because if there is one thing Obama cannot afford to abandon it's the moral high ground. And he can trust the American public to walk and chew gum at the same time -- to be able to support a national health care plan, a new energy plan, the reforming of our education system, and at the same time support accountability for those who undercut our fundamental values.
    • Sensible gun control. Despite a recent run of deadly gun rampages and an appeal from the president of Mexico, whose country is paying a heavy price for bought-in-America guns, Obama has chosen the path of political expediency and turned his back on his campaign promise to reinstate a ban on assault weapons.


    For the last eight years, we suffered from the soft bigotry of low presidential expectations. Taken as a whole, Obama's first 100 days have been an inspiring change from a White House that expected as little from us as it did from itself.

    The road ahead is indeed going to be long and steep. But at least we're on the right road.


    2009: WHAT OBAMA HAS DONE SO FAR?


    1. Begun closing of Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.

    2. Barack Obama faces the greatest challenge of his young presidency tonight (Feb. 24th 2009) as he seeks to convince America and hostile Republicans in a prime time address to Congress that he can pull the nation out of its economic crisis.

    3. President Obama can't assure that the economy will bounce back this year, but he says he will "get all the pillars in place for recovery this year." In a new interview,  President Obama says the economy may not rebound this year. In a new interview, President Obama says the economy may not rebound this year.

    Obama made the pledge in a 35-minute interview -- largely focused on the economy and the war in Afghanistan -- with The New York Times aboard Air Force One on Friday, according to a story published Saturday.

    "I don't think that people should be fearful about our future, " he told the newspaper. "I don't think that people should suddenly mistrust all of our financial institutions."

    Conservative opponents have criticized Obama's new administration, saying it has pushed the country toward socialism and that his $787 billion economic stimulus package will do little to revive the struggling economy.

    However, during the interview, Obama "exhibited confidence, " saying the nation should not fear the future, the Times reported.

    "Look, I wish I had the luxury of just dealing with a modest recession or just dealing with health care or just dealing with energy or just dealing with Iraq or just dealing with Afghanistan, " Obama said. "I don't have that luxury, and I don't think the American people do, either."

    When asked if the United States was winning the war in Afghanistan, where he is sending another 17, 000 troops, Obama replied, "No."

    He said his administration is reviewing the U.S. policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the intention of finding a new strategy in the region. Obama said that reaching out to Sunni militant groups, such as the Taliban, to fight al Qaeda and other terror groups -- a tactic employed by Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq -- "should be explored."

    "If you talk to General Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of al Qaeda in Iraq, " Obama said.

    4. There is a battle looming in Congress, a contest that will pit many of the most powerful companies in America against each other, potentially reallocate trillions of dollars in spending, and literally impact the future health and well-being of each and every American. No one knows how the conflict will end, just yet, or who the winners and losers will be. But if Thursday's Health Care Reform summit at the White House is any indication, there is no doubt who will be standing at the middle of the scrum: The nation's self-anointed Mediator-in-Chief, President Barack Obama.

    "I just want to make sure that I don't get in the way of all of you moving aggressively and rapidly, " he told a crowd of corporate and trade group Leaders and members of Congress in an afternoon East Room ceremony. "To the extent that this work is being done effectively in these various committees, then I assure you that we are going to do everything that we can to work with all of you."

    They were soothing words, but all was not as touchy-feely as it seemed. Even as he offered himself up as a head referee more than a star player, Obama left no doubt about who was in charge. Congress and the trade groups, he said, could haggle over the terms. But they could not obstruct the project, and they would walk away at their own peril. "The status quo is the one option that's not on the table, and those who seek to block any reform at all, any reform at any costs, will not prevail this time around, " he told the group.

    The sheer enormity of the task has been clear for months. But it was on sometimes painful display at the two breakout sessions to discuss healthcare that Obama has already organized at the White House. The first session, which occurred in late February in the Indian Treaty Room, had a somewhat comical cast to it. Dozens of powerful people sat around a square table in one of the most gaudy and expensive marble rooms ever built by the U.S. government. The task: Figure out how to save money on health spending. The solution, according to almost every person present: Spend more money.

    The nurses association wanted more investment in the nursing workforce. The head of the hospitals association wanted more money for hospitals. The head of the American Medical Association wanted higher Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., wanted more money for community healthcare centers. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., wanted a better focus on investigations of white collar fraud in the healthcare sector. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., wanted greater investment in HIV-AIDS prevention. Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., spoke of greater National Institutes of Health Funding. It went on.

    If there was hope, it was to be found in the fact that all these people were, in fact, sitting at the same table. All of them, from health insurance companies and medical providers to politicians from both left and right, said they were committed to reducing healthcare costs, and growing coverage, the two guiding principles that Obama has insisted on.

    Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., spoke to this commitment on Thursday, during the second round of breakout sessions organized by the White House, this time in the more tastefully appointed State Dining Room. "I just want to express the intensity of my confidence that there is a path through this for us, " he said, before referencing the famous television advertising that the insurance industry funded to knock down the last major attempt at health-care reform. "We are past the 'Harry and Louise' moment. We are at the Thelma and Louise moment. We are in the car. We are headed for a cliff."

    Whitehouse's optimism was confirmed a few minutes later by Scott Seroto, the president of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and a representative of the industry that had funded the "Harry and Louise" ads in 1994. "Consider that the past, " he said of the ads. "We are embracing the need for reform... It just needs to be appropriate and sustainable."

    This message was long ago delivered to the White House. One senior Administration official explained the situtation, last week, during an interview in the Ward Room, a navy themed dining hall near the White House mess. "If you reflect back on what health-care reform looked like and how it played out 15 years ago, some of the stakeholders who were fighting very hard against it are people who I think will start to come around to the table for the conversation now, " the official said.

    At the center of this strategy, as its linchpin, is the President, who has positioned himself not as the author of the new health plan, but as its mediator, facilitator and, if needed, as the taskmaster who intends to keep everyone on track. In his recently proposed budget, and on the campaign trail, Obama proposed the vague outline of a policy solution, including nearly $630 billion in new spending on health care in the short term, which would be coupled with long term cuts in the growth of medical costs. But he told leaders Thursday afternoon that he is not wedded even to his own ideas.

    "If there is a way of getting this done where we're driving down costs and people are getting health insurance at an affordable rate and have choice of doctor, have flexibility in terms of their plans, and we could do that entirely through the market, I'd be happy to do it that way, " the president said. "If there was a way of doing it that involved more government regulation and involvement, I'm happy to do it that way, as well. I just want to figure out what works."

    If that was the carrot for lawmakers, his command that they fix the problem was the stick. At one point, he joked about Whitehouse's allusion during the breakout session to Thelma and Louise, a movie that ends with the protagonists dying in a blaze of glory. "If you actually saw the movie, they did drive over the cliff, " he said, to laughter. "So just want to be clear, that's not our intention here."

    5. President Obama signed an executive order Monday repealing a Bush-era policy that limited federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research. President Obama signs the executive order on stem cell policy Monday at the White House.

    Obama's move overturns an order signed by President Bush in 2001 that barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.

    Obama also signed a presidential memorandum establishing greater independence for federal science policies and programs.

    "In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values, " Obama said at the White House.

    "In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research -- and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."

    While conceding that "the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown" and "should not be overstated, " Obama nevertheless expressed hope that the order will help spur faster progress in the search for cures to afflictions such as Parkinson's disease, cancer and spinal cord injuries.

    At the same time, Obama's memorandum is expected to create a clear change of tone from the Bush administration on a broad range of scientific issues.

    Bush's critics argued the former president allowed political factors improperly to influence funding decisions for science initiatives as well as to skew official government findings on issues such as global warming.

    Obama's memorandum directs the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy "to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making."

    In a thinly veiled criticism of his predecessor, Obama reiterated a promise to base "public policies on the soundest science" as well as to "appoint scientific advisers based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology."

    Obama's action is part of a broader effort to separate science and politics and "restore scientific integrity in governmental decision-making, " White House domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes said Sunday.

    In a conference call with reporters, Barnes said funding Research is also part of the administration's plan to boost the plunging U.S. economy.

    "Advances with regard to science and technology help advance our overall national goals around economic growth and job creation, " she said, adding, "I think anytime you make an effort to try and separate these pieces of the puzzle, you're missing the entire picture."

    But one prominent GOP critic on Sunday accused the administration of using the issue as a distraction from the country's economic slump.

    "Why are we going and distracting ourselves from the economy? This is job No. 1. Let's focus on what needs to be done, " told Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia.

    Cantor, the Republican whip in the House of Representatives, has been among the leaders of GOP opposition to Obama's economic policies.

    Because stem cells have the potential to turn into any organ or tissue cell in the body, research advocates say they could yield cures to debilitating conditions such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease and spinal injuries. But because work on embryonic stem cells involves the destruction of human embryos, many conservatives supported the limits Bush imposed by executive order in 2001.

    Bush twice vetoed legislation -- in July 2006 and June 2007 -- that would have expanded federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

    At the time, Bush argued that scientific advances allowed researchers to conduct groundbreaking research without destroying human embryos. Bush's actions led to Democratic criticism that he had put politics over science.

    Dr. Harold Varmus, president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and co-chairman of Obama's science advisory council, said Sunday that Obama will "endorse the notion that public policy must be guided by sound, scientific advice."

    Obama's order will direct the National Institutes of Health to develop revised guidelines on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research within 120 days, said Varmus, who joined Barnes in the conference call with reporters.

    "The president is, in effect, allowing federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research to the extent that it's permitted by law -- that is, work with stem cells themselves, not the derivation of stem cells, " he said.

    Supporters of the ban said researchers could still obtain private funding or explore alternatives such as adult stem cells. Opponents said the research could be carried out using embryos left over in fertility clinics, which otherwise would be discarded.

    6. President Obama needs to end Bush's disastrous policies at the Bagram Air Base prison in Afghanistan.

    He has given a newly convened task force six months -- a long time when people are being held in harsh conditions without charges or recourse -- to consider the matter of Bush administration detention practices and formulate new policies (or, of course, retain old ones). Here are some guidelines that may prove helpful when it comes to Bagram:

    1. On secrecy: The appeal to secrecy and national security has been an all-purpose refuge of official rogues for the last seven years. Reconsider it. A sunshine policy should apply, above all else, to detention practices. Ideally, the U.S. should simply release full information on Bagram and the prisoners being held there. When, in specific cases, information is not divulged, the reasons for not doing so should be fully revealed. Otherwise, the suspicion will always arise that such withheld information might be part of a cover-up of government incompetence or illegality. That must be ruled out. It is imperative that President Obama's administration not double-down on the Bush administration's secrecy policy from a desire not to look back and so to avoid future prosecutions of Bush officials.
    2. On the classification of prisoners: The Obama administration should seriously consider declaring the prisoners at Bagram to be "prisoners of war, " and so subject to the Geneva Conventions. Currently, they are classified as enemy combatants, as are the prisoners at Guantnamo, and so, in the perverse universe of the Bush administration, free from any of the constraints of international law. The idea that the conventions are too "rigid" for our moment and need to be put aside for this new extra-legal category has always been false and pernicious, primarily paving the way for the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques."
    3. On "ghost prisoners": The Obama administration should reject out of hand the idea that prisoner invisibility is acceptable anywhere, including Bagram. The International Committee of the Red Cross must be granted access to all of the prisons or prison areas at Bagram, while conditions of detention there should be brought into accordance with humane treatment and standards. No "ghost prisoners" should be allowed to exist there.
    4. On guilt and innocence: The belief that there is a categorical difference between guilt and innocence, which went by the wayside in the last seven years, must be restored. All too often, the military brass still assumes that if you were rounded up by U.S. forces, you are, by definition, guilty. It's time to change this attitude and return to legal standards of guilt.

    In the Bush years, we taught the world a series of harmful lessons: Americans can be as cruel as others. Americans can turn their back on law and reciprocity among nations as efficiently as any tribally organized dictatorship. Americans, relying on fear and the human impulse toward vengeance, can dehumanize other human beings with a fervor equal to that of others on this planet.

    It's time for a change. It's time, in fact, to face the first and last legacy of Bush detention era, our prison at Bagram Air Base, and deal with it.

    President Obama has the right team in place to address this nightmarish legacy in a wise and timely way. We should expect no less from them than a full restoration of a government responsible to the law and confident of its power to deter enemies legally -- be it on the battlefield or in the courtroom. So, too, we must expect them to possess the courage to confront truths, even if those truths mean heading down the path toward the prosecution of crimes of the Bush years.

    7. President Obama today sharply criticized America's public school system, and he outlined a strategy to reward good teachers and fire bad ones, establish uniform academic achievement standards and increase spending on the first and final stages of a person's education.

    In a speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Obama called on teachers unions, state education officials and parents to change a "relative decline of American education" that "is untenable for our economy, unsustainable for our democracy and unacceptable for our children."

    "For decades, Washington has been trapped in the same stale debates that have paralyzed progress and perpetuated our educational decline, " Obama said. "Too many supporters of my party have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though it can make a difference in the classroom. Too many in the Republican Party have opposed new investments in early education, despite compelling evidence of its importance."

    Obama's speech, his first devoted to education since he became president, had a tone of urgency at a time when the public education system is scheduled to receive about $100 billion of new federal money under the recently passed stimulus plan. The money might give Obama and his education secretary, Arne Duncan, more power to change a public education system traditionally guided more at the state and local levels than by the federal government.

    Although many of the ideas he outlined have been proposed before or are in the works, Obama used the speech to offer a sense of his priorities, linking many of them to the success of the U.S. economy. He encouraged experimentation in the public school system, including lifting the limits on the number of charter schools allowed in some states and considering longer school days to bring U.S. classroom hours in line with some Asian countries where students are scoring higher on standardized tests.

    The president signaled a willingness to take on some traditional Democratic constituencies, including teachers unions, which in the past have been skeptical of some merit pay proposals. Senior administration officials, who declined to be named because they were describing the speech before it was delivered, said Obama would include the unions in discussions about any incentive plans.

    He said he intends to treat "teachers like the professionals they are while also holding them more accountable." Good teachers will be given pay raises, he said, and "be asked to accept more responsibility for lifting up their schools."

    But Obama also said stated that school systems must be "taking steps to move bad teachers out of the classroom."

    "Let me be clear: If a teacher is given a chance but still does not improve, there is no excuse for that person to continue teaching, " Obama said. "I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences."

    Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, a union with more than a million members, said in a statement that "teachers want to make a difference in kids' lives, and they appreciate a president who shares that goal and will spend his political capital to provide the resources to make it happen."

    "As with any public policy, the devil is in the details, " Weingarten said. "And it is important that teachers' voices are heard as we implement the president's vision."

    Obama's call for states to adopt uniform academic achievement standards is likely to anger many Republicans, who generally favor giving local school systems the ability to design curriculum and set testing standards. To make his point, Obama said, "Today's system of 50 different sets of benchmarks for academic success means fourth-grade readers in Mississippi are scoring nearly 70 points lower than students in Wyoming -- and getting the same grade."

    Obama chose the venue, senior administration officials said, to emphasize the growing proportion of Latinos entering the public school system. Obama said a quarter of public-school kindergartners are Latino, adding that they "are less likely to be enrolled in early education programs than anyone else." He said the stimulus plan includes $5 billion to expand the Early Head Start and Head Start programs.

    He also noted that Latino students are "dropping out faster than just about anyone else, " a national problem that cuts across ethnic lines he said must be resolved. He noted that "just 2, 000 high schools in cities like Detroit, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia produce over 50 percent of America's dropouts."

    Regarding higher education, Obama said he would expand several federally funded grant programs, including allowing Pell Grants to rise at the rate of inflation and take on "wasteful student loan subsidies." The goal, he said, was to make "college affordable for 7 million more students."

    "So, yes, we need more money. Yes, we need more reform. Yes, we need to hold ourselves accountable for every dollar we spend, " Obama said. "But there is one more ingredient I want to talk to about. The bottom line is that no government policies will make any difference unless we also hold ourselves more accountable as parents."

    8.President Barack Obama called for international allies to sign on to more aggressive steps to jump-start their own economies, warning that U.S. efforts to pull its own economy back from the brink will falter without global coordination.

    "We can do a really good job here at home, with a whole host of policies, but if you continue to see deterioration in the world economy, that's going to set us back, " Obama told after receiving an Oval Office briefing from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

    Geithner is headed to Britain this week for talks with the finance ministers of 20 advanced and developing nations. Those meetings are a precursor to a leaders' summit on the global financial crisis that is taking place in London early next month.

    Geithner said there have been many ideas passed among the nations, and good progress made, but that the time for talk is over.

    "It's time now for us to move together and to begin to act, " he said. "Everything we do in the United States will be more effective if we have the world moving with us."

    Obama said the United States has two goals for the so-called Group of 20 summit: to make sure there is "concerted action around the globe to jump-start the economy" and to achieve consensus on regulatory reform to take place in each country.

    He did not directly criticize other nations, such as in Europe, which have been reluctant to adopt the kind of expensive stimulus packages for their own economies that have been approved in the United States. But his message that allies are not doing enough compared with the United States was clear nonetheless.

    "The United States has actually taken a significant lead on a number of these steps that are required, " he said. "As aggressive as the actions we are taking have been so far, it's very important to make sure that other countries are moving in the same direction, because the global economy is all tied together."

    Obama has met with several G-20 leaders already in the lead-up to the summit, including Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, hammering home the notion that they only benefit from a strong U.S. economy. The president said those talks have made him "optimistic about the prospects" for a good agreement to come out of London.

    "They're rooting for our success, we got to make sure we're rooting for theirs, " Obama said

    9. President Barack Obama sounding weary of criticism over federal earmarks, defended Congress' pet projects as he signed an "imperfect" $410 billion measure with thousands of examples.

    But he said the spending does need tighter restraint and listed guidelines to do it. Obama, accused of hypocrisy by Republicans for embracing billions of dollars of earmarks in the legislation, said they can be useful and noted that he has promised to curb, not eliminate them.

    On another potentially controversial matter, the president also issued a "signing statement" with the bill, saying several of its provisions raised constitutional concerns and would be taken merely as suggestions. He has criticized President George W. Bush for often using such statements to claim the right to ignore portions of new laws, and on Monday he said his administration wouldn't follow those issued by Bush unless authorized by the new attorney general.

    White House officials have accused Bush of using the statements to get around Congress in pursuing anti-terror tactics.

    Obama signed the bill in private, unlike a number of recent signings that took place with fanfare, but he raised the issue of earmarks in public remarks playing down their scope and possible harm in the measure. They comprise about 1 percent of the spending package, which will keep the government running through September.

    "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts. And that's why I've opposed their outright elimination, " he said.

    Still, the president acknowledged the storm of criticism from watchdog groups, talk show hosts and many Republican lawmakers _ including some who have obtained earmarks _ who call them wasteful and politically motivated. They are special provisions earmarking money in spending bills for specific projects.

    Obama, too, has criticized them as overused and subject to abuse.

    Proposing new safeguards, he asked Congress to require that any earmark for a for-profit company be subject to competitive bids. He also said he would work with Congress to eliminate earmarks or other specific items in spending bills that he believes serve no legitimate purpose. But he did not specify how.

    Critics were unmoved. Obama "naively asked earmark addicts to police themselves, " said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. Lawmakers "trumpet their pork on their Web sites, " he said, "and nobody believes we will have public hearings on pet projects."

    Presidents can ask Congress to rescind various spending items. But the authority has little bite because lawmakers tend to ignore requests to undo their work.

    Sen. John McCain, Obama's GOP opponent in last year's election, wants to require Congress to vote on a president's rescission requests. Obama is open to such a change, spokesman Robert Gibbs said, but has not proposed it.

    "It doesn't do anybody any good to send up a rescissions package, " Gibbs said, if it "becomes a piece of paper in somebody's file drawer."

    Congress has wrestled for years with how to regulate earmarks, the targeted spending items for construction projects, weapons systems, research grants and thousands of other programs sought by Senate and House members. Voters tend to disdain earmarks in the abstract, but they often embrace the money and jobs that earmarks produce close to home. Many lawmakers base their re-election bids on the goodies they steer to constituents, and efforts to eliminate earmarks have repeatedly met strong resistance in both parties.

    Nearly all earmarks serve some public purpose, even the so-called "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. But abuses have included tying earmarks to kickbacks, including those that sent former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., to prison in 2006.

    Congress tightened regulations after that, including requirements that requests for earmark be made public and subject to scrutiny. The number has decreased since then, but they still totaled 7, 991, costing $5.5 billion, in the "omnibus" spending bill Obama signed Wednesday.

    The president called the bill imperfect and recommended further earmark changes "to ensure that the budget process inspires trust and confidence instead of cynicism."

    For a time, President Bill Clinton enjoyed line-item veto power, which allowed him to strike specific projects, including earmarks, from massive spending bills. But the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1998. Since then, presidents have had to accept or veto entire spending bills, often packed with thousands of items, some of them earmarks.

    Congress' Democratic leaders issued statements Wednesday praising Obama's remarks and defending earmarks in general. The House Appropriations Committee announced said it would submit every future earmark to the appropriate executive branch agency for a review.

    But a statement issued by the committee's chairman, David Obey, D-Wis., hinted at irritation with the public's focus. "With all of the hyperventilating over the 1 percent of the omnibus appropriations bill that is made up of earmarks, " he said, "Washington has mostly glossed over the important results it has achieved with the other 99 percent of the bill."

    It was unclear how Congress might prevent earmarks from being directed to specific for-profit companies. House Appropriations staffers said the process will be changed to prevent "sole-sourcing" of contracts through earmarks and to require an open bidding process instead.

    Obama's signing statement said he wouldn't be bound by provisions of the bill in five areas. They involved negotiations with foreign governments, limits on using U.S. troops in U.N. missions, protections for government whistleblowers, a congressional claim of authority over the spending of money already approved by Congress and congressional demands that the administration submit budget requests in certain forms.

    10. Democrats to Obama: Hurry up and fix the economy.

    Some Democrats are increasingly concerned about President Obama's $787 billion financial fix for the ailing economy, and are demanding greater transparency on further spending.

    With the White House seemingly comparing the nation's economy to a house on fire, some congressional Democrats are asking, where's the fire truck?

    One New Hampshire congresswoman said as much to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on Capitol Hill recently.

    "I said, hurry, please hurry, because people are waiting and they are hurting, and they need the help now, " Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-New Hampshire, said.

    She's one of a growing number of nervous Democrats on edge or at odds with some of the Obama's administration's plans on the economy. Some are taking aim at the president's budget proposals that would curb popular tax deductions for wealthier Americans.

    "I don't think ultimately the criticism is surprising. That certainly happens and is all part of the process, " said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

    As a nod to moderate concerns, Obama took steps to make his budget more transparent. He included items former President George W. Bush passed separately in recent years to obscure the true operating cost of the government, such as the money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an annual multibillion-dollar fix of the fees Medicare pays physicians and Alternative Minimum Tax relief for the middle class.

    Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Indiana, who along with Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson and Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman is one of the so-called Gang of 15 -- a coalition of moderate Democratic senators -- says it's all about the messaging.

    "Like getting health care costs under control is important to the economy and getting the deficit down, " he said. "Sustainable sources of energy at reasonable prices is also important to the economy. Dealing with the financial crisis is obviously important to the economy."

    Bayh added: "So what needs to be done is, Obama's got to move on all these fronts but also integrate them back to the same theme of always strengthening the economy, getting people to work, growing businesses, improving our standard of living."

    Rep. John Tanner, D-Tennessee, is a member of the "Blue Dog" group of 47 fiscally conservative Democrats in the House -- six of whom voted against Obama's stimulus plan. He said Obama at least is being honest about the dire condition of the economy.

    "At least the budget that the Obama administration presented, even though it's huge and it's a huge deficit -- and that enables the other team to beat up on it -- the truth is that it's honest and truthful, " he said.

    Democratic media consultant Steve Murphy, who represents several moderate Democrats, said that Blue Dogs are all "deficit hawks, " so they're "nervous about spending."

    "They're against giving more money to the banks without any accountability, they want to zero in on wasteful spending and they strongly believe the shrinking deficit and eventual balanced budget was the underpinning of our economic success in the '90's, " he said.

    Murphy added that these Democrats do, however, realize that more money is going to be needed.

    "So I expect them to be about greater accountability and fairness for the taxpayer. They won't join [GOP House Minority Whip Eric] Cantor's 'Hell No' chorus."

    And that is something resonating with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who said top economists told her a second stimulus package may be necessary.

    "You have to keep the door open to see how this goes, " she said.

    House Democrats heard that message in a meeting with top economists, who predicted the president's stimulus plan will fall short of saving or creating three to four million jobs, as he promised.

    "Over the first two years about 2 1/2 million jobs saved and created, " said economist Allen Sinai. "A little less than the administration and perhaps Speaker Pelosi has said ... the jobs created may be a little disappointing."

    Sinai said that over time, the economy may produce the jobs president Obama promised, but that people should try to be patient.

    But budget hawks in the party don't like the sound of that.

    "I mean, if we were to take a vote this afternoon, the stimulus package would probably fail, " said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-North Dakota. "If they want substantial, more public funds committed, they're going to have to go out there and explain precisely how this is going to work."

    Shea-Porter said she's simply on the message she's getting at town meetings back home, a message that's also aimed at some in the media.

    "It's terrifying people. Before, people were very optimistic and the leaders were optimistic. Then we hit a spell here where we're hearing a lot of media ... people who are frightening without necessarily giving both sides, " she added.

    For now, the White House says it has no plans for another stimulus, arguing its plan needs time to work.

    In other words, the fire is not out yet.

    11. President Barack Obama signs spending bill, Vowing to Battle Earmarks.

    President Obama's call to rein in the use of earmarks was met with derision yesterday even from some of his past reformer allies, dealing an early blow to his attempt to change how business is done in Washington.

    Obama signed what he called an "imperfect" $410 billion measure to fund most government agencies through September. He used the occasion to criticize the more than 8, 500 projects, costing more than $7.7 billion, that lawmakers inserted into the bill, and he declared that "this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand."

    But as he vowed to press Congress to shun earmarks in the future, a bipartisan collection of lawmakers said the proposals he offered yesterday would do little to curb the practice and would do nothing to address the appearance of a connection between campaign contributions and spending programs ordered up by lawmakers.

    While Obama campaigned on a promise of bringing reform to Washington, the reality remains that most lawmakers believe it is their constitutional prerogative to direct money to their districts. Earmark supporters and opponents alike said Obama's words would carry little weight unless he also vowed to veto critical legislation that is full of spending projects.

    "Absent a genuine veto threat, he's just spittin' in the wind, " said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), an earmark opponent who walked through the House chamber yesterday carrying almost 100 pages of approved spending requests from a lobbying firm that is under federal investigation.

    Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who said yesterday that Obama is trying "to fine-tune a fundamentally flawed process, " supports legislation that would give the president a limited line-item veto authority, allowing him to cross out specific items and give Congress the chance to override those actions. Feingold is cosponsoring that measure with Obama's 2008 challenger, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the highest-profile opponent of the spending practice. Feingold helped Obama write ethics reforms in 2007.

    Representing less than 2 percent of the discretionary federal budget, earmarks have become a lightning rod for critics who say they waste taxpayer money on projects that are requested more to win votes for lawmakers at home than they are for their merits. The connection between earmark recipients and the lobbyists who made campaign donations to lawmakers to secure their passage was central to criminal investigations that landed former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former congressman Randall "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) in federal prison.

    "The problem is not earmarks, the problem is secrecy which led to abuses in the past, " said Sen Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

    Obama and congressional Democratic leaders offered a proposal that would require lawmakers to publish on their Web sites all requests they make to the appropriations committees. (Currently, lawmakers are required to detail only requests for funding that is granted.) The earmark lists would be publicly available when subcommittees consider the spending requests under their jurisdiction, weeks earlier than they are now. Agencies would be given 20 days to deem certain proposals inappropriate.

    Obama said he would direct agencies to conduct competitive bidding for earmarks targeted to private companies and also threatened to highlight earmarks considered inappropriate by asking Congress to revoke funding for such projects in the future.

    "On occasion, earmarks have been used as a vehicle for waste, fraud and abuse. Projects have been inserted at the eleventh hour, without review, and sometimes without merit, in order to satisfy the political or personal agendas of a given legislator, rather than the public interest, " the president said in his speech yesterday.

    Those comments were met with strong resistance from some of the most renowned earmark patrons on Capitol Hill, who suggested that the executive branch should not intrude on Congress's constitutional duty to control the treasury's purse strings.

    "I would hope that the Obama administration would be sensitive to not tip the balance. The reality is that every dollar in the budget is earmarked. The question is: Who does the earmarking?" said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee. Moran suggested that Obama's attempts to trim specific earmarks could be used to publicly shame "any member that doesn't play ball" on his agenda.

    Since implementing rules requiring lawmakers to be identified as cosponsors of earmarks, their overall dollar value has dropped slightly over the past two years. Still, with total estimates for 2009 appropriations bills ranging from $11.6 billion to $18 billion, earmark funding requests match or exceed the annual budget of the Interior Department.

    Obama backed away from bolder proposals that had been under discussion, including one that would have banned earmarks for private contractors, which was at the root of most recent corruption scandals. Sen Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) has instead offered legislation that would allow earmarks only for schools, hospitals, municipalities and other state and local authorities.

    Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), who as commerce committee chairman is quarterbacking much of Obama's agenda, said of the earmarks: "I think they're completely out of hand, completely out of control. Most of them are driven by lobbyists." But he added that he is dissatisfied with reform proposals from Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress and that he will maintain his prohibition against seeking earmarks.

    Earmarking is bipartisan in nature, with tradition dictating that the majority party gets about 60 percent of the total dollar value of the requests. In this year's spending bills, all but four Republicans and three Democrats in the Senate accepted earmarks for their states.

    Criticizing the new proposal, Flake said federal agencies are not equipped to thoroughly investigate thousands of earmark requests in the less than three weeks they would be given under Obama's proposal. In addition, earmarks for Pentagon projects are already required to face a competitive bidding process, but Flake said Defense Department officials rarely reject the original designee for the funding. He said those officials fear that they will lose budget money if they cross congressional appropriators, whose power has grown significantly over the past 15 years.

    "If they don't fund that earmark request where Congress wants it to go, they might lose funding next year, " he said.

    12. US President Barack Obama assured the chief executives of some of the world's biggest companies today that he has no interest in expanding the role of the US Government.

    But gave no excuses for his sweeping plans to overhaul health care, energy and education policy as he wrestles with the financial crisis.

    "I am not choosing to address these additional challenges just because I feel like it, or because I'm a glutton for punishment, " Mr Obama told the Business Roundtable in Washington.

    "I am doing so because they are fundamental to our economic growth and ensuring that we don't have more crises like this in the future."

    During prepared remarks and a question-and-answer session that ran longer than an hour, Mr Obama gave assurances that he wants to keep US businesses competitive with their rivals around the world, said he would soon unveil plans to boost small businesses and indicated he's willing to cut corporate tax rates as part of a deal that closes loopholes.

    "My interest over time (is) in potentially lowering corporate rates in exchange for closing a lot of the loopholes that make the tax system so complex, that's a very appealing conversation to me, and I'd like to pursue it, " Mr Obama told the group.

    The president also offered a preview of next month's Group of 20 summit, saying countries need to implement "significantly robust" stimulus plans to boost global growth and that a revamp of the financial regulatory architecture will include enhanced co-operation but "not necessarily a supraregulator".

    Mr Obama's call for robust stimulus comes as European leaders - including French President Nicolas Sarkozy - say they're reluctant to go deeper into debt to counteract the global recession.

    Mr Sarkozy and others want to emphasise stricter regulatory oversight at the London summit, while the White House says regulation, as well as enhanced stimulus plans, can be addressed.

    Mr Obama's remarks to the roundtable addressed concerns that his agenda is overly ambitious and that it will trigger a dramatic expansion of the federal Government.

    Mr Obama characterised himself as a "strong believer" in the free market, but said the Government has a role to play during periods of economic hardship.

    "I think there are times where sometimes our economy gets out of balance. This is obviously one of those times, " he said. "And so government has to intervene in the crisis, but the goal should always be to right the ship and let private enterprise do its magic."

    But he rebuffed critics who say he's an advocate of extreme government intervention.

    "I'm amused sometimes when I read sort of this talk of, well, you know, the Obama administration wants to get government into everybody's business. I don't. I want you guys to do your thing, " Mr Obama said.

    "Our expectation is that we can use this moment to create a stronger free market system, one that's more stable, one that's more profitable over the long term."

    The Business Roundtable is an association of chief executives of US companies with more than $US5 trillion ($7.6 trillion) in combined annual revenue.

    According to its website, the group's members comprise almost one-third of the value of US stock markets and pay nearly half of all corporate income taxes.

    One of the group's members, Daniel S. Fulton, CEO of Weyerhaeuser, told Mr Obama that he's concerned the administration's cap and trade proposals could impose significant costs and hurt his company's ability to invest in new technologies.

    Mr Obama said the administration is looking for a pricing system for cap and trade that strikes the right balance.

    "If you're giving away carbon permits for free, then basically you're not really pricing the thing, and it doesn't work. Or people can game the system in so many ways that it's not creating the incentive structures that we're looking for, " he said.

    "The flip side is... if it's so onerous that people can't meet it, then it defeats the purpose. And politically we can't get it done anyway."

    13. The Department of Justice drops the "enemy combatant" designation.

    The Department of Justice has just announced a significant break with Bush administration policy: It will no longer be employing the "enemy combatant" designation as the rationale used to hold suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.

    Observers are still figuring out exactly what this will mean, but the Associated Press reports, "Obama still asserts the military's authority to hold prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. But he says that authority comes from Congress and the international laws of war, not from the president's own wartime power."

    Here's the DOJ's press release announcing the move:

    In a filing today with the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Justice submitted a new standard for the government's authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. The definition does not rely on the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress's specific authorization. It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress. It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase "enemy combatant."The Department also submitted a declaration by Attorney General Eric Holder stating that, under executive orders issued by President Obama, the government is undertaking an interagency review of detention policy for individuals captured in armed conflicts or counterterrorism operations as well as a review of the status of each detainee held at Guantanamo. The outcome of those reviews may lead to further refinements of the government's position as it develops a comprehensive policy.

    "As we work towards developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law, " said Attorney General Holder. "The change we've made today meets each of those standards and will make our nation stronger."

    In its filing today, the government bases its authority to hold detainees at Guantanamo on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which Congress passed in September 2001, and which authorized the use of force against nations, organizations, or persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons. The government's new standard relies on the international laws of war to inform the scope of the president's authority under this statute, and makes clear that the government does not claim authority to hold persons based on insignificant or insubstantial support of al Qaeda or the Taliban.

    The brief was filed in habeas litigation brought by numerous detainees at Guantanamo who are challenging their detention under the Supreme Court's decision last summer in Boumediene v. Bush.

    So far, most observers are concluding that this decision is largely just a change in language that won't have much of an actual effect. Advocates for detainee rights, in particular, are saying this does not go far enough

    "This is really a case of old wine in new bottles, " the Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement. "While the new government has abandoned the term 'Enemy Combatant, ' it appears on first reading that whatever they call those they claim the right to detain, they have adopted almost the same standard the Bush administration used to detain people without charge -- with one change, the addition of the word 'substantially' before the word 'supported.'"

    At SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston outlines what he says are the differences between the Bush administration's policy regarding who can be detained and this new formulation:

    First, the new version requires proof of "substantial" support of Taliban or Al-Qaeda forces, while the former version required proof of "direct" support of such forces.

    Second, the new version requires proof of "substantial" support of forces (other than Taliban or Al-Qaeda) engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and its coalition partnes, while the former version only required "support."

    And, third, the new version applies to a person who "directly" supported hositilities to aid enemy armed forces, while the former version only required "support" of such hostilities, and did not include the word "armed" as to enemy forces who had been supported.

    These new terms are, as yet, largely undefined.

    "It is neither possible nor advisable to attempt to identify, in the abstract, the precise nature and degree of 'substantial support, ' or the precise characteristics of 'associated forces, ' that are or would be sufficient, " the DOJ says in its memorandum. "Although the concept of 'substantial support, ' for example, does not justify the detention at Guantanamo Bay of those who provide unwitting or insignificant support to the organizations identified in the AUMF, and the Government is not asserting that it can detain anyone at Guantanamo on such grounds, the particular facts and circumstances justifying detention will vary from case to case."

    14. President Barack Obama can take credit for markets good week

    The way the Obama administration has been hyping the slight uptick in good news about the economy in the last few days is fantastic. Yes, the Dow had its best week since November, Citigroup and Bank of America say they expect to make money this quarter, GM won't need an immediate infusion of tax dollars, and retail spending seems to have stabilized, at least for now. On Thursday Obama himself told business leaders that the crisis is "not as bad as we think, " and on Friday National Economic Council director Larry Summers said the spending numbers were "modestly encouraging signs" that the stimulus might already be having an effect.

    As someones who has repeatedly defended Obama from GOP efforts to blame him for the current crisis and to deride the "Obama economy" only 55 days into his presidency, we think the administration could be playing a dangerous game. Live by the week's economic news, die by it as well. If the Dow dives next week, or retail spending dips again, does that mean the stimulus failed?

    We think the administration got rattled by Wall Street criticisms that Obama was at risk of talking down the markets and, at minimum, simply wasn't paying enough attention to them. I thought that was the right course, actually - he needs to take a longer view, and the Dow isn't necessarily the most important indicator of economic vitality. And just when some of Obama's critics are starting to get called on their market boosterism - boy, has Jim Cramers taken a dive thsi week - unfortunately, their nagging seems to have had some effect.

    We thought Larry Summers sounded a little bit like Cramer when he insisted theres never been a better tiem to buy, hailing possible big gains from investment in construction and the stock market. And not surprisingly, Cramer was impressed by Summers' speech and took it as evidence that the administration is listening to guys like him. "I think they got some religion when they saw the market go down so much, " Cramer said to CNBC today.

    We believe it's important that Obama project optimism that we can turn this problem around - and indeed, that we've already begun to - with his economic stimulus package, banking reforms and mortgage efforts. But to hail the earliest signs of progress in a battle that's likely to take months, if not years, seemed like a rare Obama political mistake.

    15. President Barack Obama reassures China on investments.

    President Barack Obama rejected suggestions of a rift in the G20 and assured China on Saturday its U.S. investments were safe after a meeting with Brazil's president that also touched on relations in Latin America.

    Obama and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva discussed the economic crisis during their White House visit and the U.S. president said hints of a split in the G20 were false.

    "I can't be clearer in saying that there are no sides, " Obama told reporters about apparent tensions between European countries and the United States over whether more emphasis should be placed on spending versus regulatory reform to address the global financial crisis.

    Washington has pushed for increased government spending, while countries such as France favor more emphasis on tough market regulation.

    Calling it a "phony debate, " Obama said there would be no firmer proponent of the need for financial regulation reform than he.

    "We have to take a whole range of approaches. Financial regulation is front and center, " he said. "We also think we've got to see worldwide concerted action to make sure that this massive contraction in demand is dealt with."

    Obama also sought to reassure China, which expressed concern on Friday that massive U.S. deficit spending and near-zero interest rates would erode the value of China's huge U.S. bond holdings.

    "Not just the Chinese government but every investor can have absolute confidence in the soundness of investments in the United States, " Obama said.

    "There is a reason why even in the midst of this economic crisis, you've seen actual increases in investment flows here in the United States. I think it's a recognition that the stability not only of our economic system but also our political system is extraordinary."

    Lula said he told Obama they should work to reopen world trade talks known as the Doha round while acknowledging that could be difficult to achieve during the economic crisis.

    "At the same time, (I) believe that to conclude the Doha round could be one of the components to relieve the poorest or less developed countries of the world vis a vis this crisis."

    Obama said he was committed to closing "the gap" that had blocked an agreement from being reached.

    "It may be difficult for us to finalize a whole host of trade deals in the midst of an economic crisis like this one, although we have committed to sitting down with our Brazilian counterparts to find ways that we can start closing the gap on the Doha round and other potential trade agreements."

    Separately, Obama acknowledged that U.S. tariffs on Brazilian shipments of ethanol to the United States had been "a source of tension" that would not change overnight.

    Brazilian ethanol producers are upset the United States still levies a 54 cent import tariff on each gallon of exported Brazilian ethanol. American ethanol producers, who receive government subsidies, are worried ethanol imports would flood the U.S. market and hurt their business.

    "Over time, the source of tension can get resolved, " Obama said, without indicating whether there would be an easing of the U.S. ethanol import tariff, which lasts through 2010.

    Lula, a former union chief and a moderate among Latin America's leftist leaders, wants the United States to end the long-standing trade embargo on Cuba and seek a rapprochement with Venezuela's socialist president, Hugo Chavez, one of Washington's fiercest critics.

    "President Obama ... has a unique and exceptional position to improve the relationships with Latin America, " Lula said.

    Obama, said he looked forward to visiting Brazil sometime soon and joked that Republicans would support such a trip, too, if he got lost in the Amazon.

    16. President Barack Obama tries to loosen credit for small businesses.

    President Barack Obama freed billions of dollars to help the nation's small businesses on Monday, hoping to get credit flowing again to Main Street, not just Wall Street. He heaped praise on the little guys of American industry, often overshadowed in the blitz of government bailouts.

    The centerpiece of Obama's latest plan will allow the government to spend up to $15 billion to buy the small-business loans that are now choking community banks and lenders. That, in turn, could allow those banks to start lending money again to small companies to invest, pay bills and stay afloat.

    "You deserve a chance. America needs you to have a chance, " Obama said in an appeal to all those who run small businesses or hope to one day.

    Obama's effort was, at one level, fundamental to helping the economy rebound. Small businesses have created about 70 percent of the new jobs over the past decade, and as their credit lines have dried up, so has their ability to thrive or survive.

    There was also a political component to all the attention the president gave to small businesses. The White House is aware of the nation's bailout fatigue; hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have gone to prop up financial giants who made poor decisions, while many others who have done no wrong have paid the price.

    So Obama made clear to show he was on the side of everyday entrepreneurs.

    He said small businesses "are the heart of the American economy" and "the heart of the American dream" and the core of "America's story."

    Meanwhile, the president pledged to try to stop American International Group, the bailed-out insurance giant, from paying $165 million in executive bonuses. The revelation of that bonus pay, coming from a struggling company that has received more than $170 billion in federal rescue dollars, has evoked disgust.

    "I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?" Obama said.

    He directed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to pursue every legal means to block the bonuses. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said later the administration would modify the terms of a pending $30 billion bailout installment for AIG to protect taxpayers.

    Obama's primary focus was on leaders of small companies and community lenders. He met with some privately in the White House's Roosevelt Room and cited their stories as inspiration as he announced his details in the East Room.

    Normally, primary bank lenders can issue loans to small businesses and then sell those loans to what's known as a secondary market of bigger bankers. The sales allow the community lenders to make even more loans and keep the credit cycle going. But that isn't happening. Skittish investors have been staying away.

    So under Obama's plan, the government will start buying up many of the loans directly, with terms to be worked out as soon as the end of the month. The $15 billion will come from a bailout plan already approved by Congress to rescue the financial sector. Obama aides say the plan will offer fast, direct help.

    On Capitol Hill, House Republican Leader John Boehner was unmoved. He called Obama's White House event "simply an attempt to provide political cover for the job-killing burden the president's budget would place on our nation's small businesses." The House Republican whip, Eric Cantor of Virginia, said Obama's plan was welcome, but he predicted it would affect only a small portion of the loan market for small businesses, leaving others and their workers "in the cold."

    Two months into office, Obama's job approval rating is at 61 percent, new Gallup polling finds. That number has been relatively stable so far this month but has dropped from the 68 percent when he took office. The major factor has been a decline in support among Republicans, from 41 percent to 26 percent.

    A separate poll out Monday by the Pew Research Center put Obama's approval at 59 percent, slipping from 64 percent last month. The Pew poll found that a growing number of Americans see him as listening more to the liberals than to the moderates in the Democratic Party.

    The White House unveiled a series of other steps to help lenders, including bigger lending guarantees, reduced fees and quicker turnaround times for loans. Geithner made a blunt appeal to banks to start lending to businesses again. He said the danger now is that banks are taking too little risk, not too much.

    "You banks need to make the extra effort to make sure that good loans are getting to creditworthy small businesses, in order to serve the larger public good, " Geithner said. "And given that role that many banks played in causing this crisis, you bear a special responsibility for helping America get out of it."

    Geithner also ordered the Internal Revenue Service to issue new rules to help small businesses. One of them will allow businesses that make up to $15 million to claim losses for the past five years in the current tax year. The White House says that amounts to a rebate on taxes paid in previous years.

    White House aides say Obama has taken steps to help small business owners since the start, not just now.

    Obama looked delighted when one restaurant owner, Marco Lentini of Philadelphia, introduced him as "unquestionably a president of the people."

    17. Take this Bonus and shove it. President Obama is raising his voice to condemn AIG executives. But singing an angry song may be all he can do about the fat paychecks.

    "Bonus" doesn't quite seem like the right word for the payouts that AIG executives got late last week. The insurance company lost $108 billion in 2008; the federal government, which forked over $170 billion to keep it in business since last fall, now owns 80 percent of the company. But AIG officials still felt compelled to pay $165 million in "retention bonuses" to people whose dealings in bizarre financial derivatives helped unravel the company and the global economy along with it. After such a dynamite performance, "plunder" or "booty" might do a better job of describing the extra pay.

    No matter what you call it, though, whoever got the bonuses probably ought to cash the checks pronto, and then go hide. By nightfall Monday, politicians in both parties were on the verge of assembling a posse to go looking for the executives to tear them limb from limb. And the sheriff at the head of the unruly mob was none other than President Barack Obama.

    "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?" Obama asked at an afternoon event that was supposed to focus on the administration's aid to small-business owners. Late in the morning, White House aides stuck the AIG lines into the top of his prepared remarks and then alerted reporters to look out for them. The administration has obviously realized, along with everyone else in Washington who depends on the approval of voters to keep their jobs, that AIG executives are the hottest target going right now for government wrath. "In the last six months, AIG has received substantial sums from the U.S. Treasury, " Obama said. "And I've asked [the Treasury Department] to use that leverage and pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole."

    But saying the government will get the money back, and doing it, might be two different things. Before the public outrage, AIG officials reportedly argued, and the Treasury reportedly agreed, that they were legally required to pay the bonuses by the contracts they'd signed with the recipients. On Capitol Hill, aides who looked at the laws involved weren't sure what the administration would be able to do about the payments. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama had ordered a review of options, which didn't exactly inspire confidence that officials would soon be swooping in with the rescued money. AIG is still drawing money from the $700 billion corporate bailout fund Congress approved last fall, so the administration's new rules limiting executive pay don't apply.

    That's not to say the government won't make a show of trying, even if the effort fails. The bonuses inspired the kind of bipartisan harmony that has eluded the administration on most issues. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said that the top management at AIG should be fired for "rewarding incompetence." A subcommittee of the House Financial Services panel scheduled a hearing Wednesday to hear from AIG CEO Edward Liddy and others about the company. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, chimed in, demanding an "exit strategy" from the entire business of bailing out Wall Street firms. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., took to the Senate floor to declare the bonuses "a breach of public trust, " and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Treasury should "use whatever tools at its disposal to make AIG repay taxpayers" -- which conjured up images of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner playing the Laurence Olivier role in a remake of "Marathon Man."

    Even outside Washington, politicians seized the chance to look tough. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who may be trying to move up to governor by this time next year, subpoenaed AIG officials to find out who got the bonus money. "If the taxpayer didn't bail out AIG, those contracts wouldn't be worth the paper they're printed on, " Cuomo told reporters. "Just because there's a contract doesn't mean there's no way around the contract."

    It's not hard to see why the bonuses made the insurance giant public enemy No. 1. Voters are so furious about taxpayer money going to Wall Street, and so resentful that financial wizards still took down seven-figure salaries last year while 401K accounts evaporated, that there's no political downside to attacking anyone connected to it all.

    "[Voters] wouldn't mind seeing some of the executives hanging from lampposts on Wall Street, " said Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster. If the administration is going to have to come back to Congress to ask for more money to help stabilize banks -- a prospect officials seem resigned to doing -- bashing excessive pay can't hurt. What's harder to figure out is why AIG didn't try harder to find some way around the contracts. "These guys apparently were not reading the newspaper the day the auto execs came to Washington in their private jets, " said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. "It's a difference between running a private company and being in the public light -- they're just not used to it. For anybody who's worked in politics -- for anybody who's ever read a newspaper, let alone working for one -- this is a no-brainer."

    But apparently not for financial honchos. When Obama announced the plans to cap salaries, bonuses and corporate expenses for companies that take bailouts in the future, administration officials said they didn't need to worry too much about putting tough enforcement mechanisms into the proposal; publicly airing news of lavish bashes or embarrassing pay deals would help shame companies out of such behavior in the future.

    AIG sent its checks out on Friday the 13th, less than two weeks after the government gave it another $30 billion in aid. The company has been even more profligate with money it disbursed to other financial firms than it has with its bonus payments -- it sent $75 billion to other foreign and domestic companies with whom it traded esoteric derivative securities.

    If there's any point the bonus brouhaha should drive home, once and for all, inside the Beltway, it's that the financial collapse has gone way past the point of "shame on you." Unless the government gets tougher with the banks it now owns huge stakes in, the Obama administration itself may be soon be bellowing "shame on me."

    18. President Obama said Wednesday that no one in his administration had been responsible for supervising ailing insurance giant AIG but that ultimately, the buck stops with him.

    President Obama spoke outside the White House on Wednesday before heading to California.

    "Nobody here drafted those contracts; nobody here was responsible for supervising AIG and allowing themselves to put the economy at risk by some of the outrageous behavior that they were engaged in, " he said outside the White House. "[But] we are responsible, though. The buck stops with me."

    Obama, in a defiant tone, once again lashed out at the controversial bonuses given to executives at AIG, which received $173 billion in government bailouts over the past six months.

    "People are right to be angry. I am angry. ... People are rightly outraged about these particular bonuses, " he said. "But just as outrageous is the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of that have existed for far too long, a situation where excess greed, excess compensation, excess risk-taking have all made us vulnerable and left us holding the bag."

    Obama said he held discussions with his economic team and with Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Frank presided over hearings Wednesday on the AIG bonus controversy.

    On Wednesday afternoon, AIG chief executive Edward Liddy told Congress that he has asked employees of the bailed-out insurer who took home more than $100, 000 in bonuses to return at least half.

    Liddy, saying he knew that the public's patience is "wearing thin, " said some employees have decided on their own to return their entire bonuses to the company.

    But shortly before Liddy testified, Obama delivered a harsh message to companies like AIG and, in general, Wall Street: Don't plan on returning to business as usual.

    "The business models that created a lot of paper wealth but not real wealth in the country and have now resulted in crisis can't be the model for economic growth going forward, " he said.

    But the president said that rather than continuing to argue about AIG, anger must be channeled in a constructive way.

    "We're trying to do is get ourselves in a position where we make sure that, going forward, we're not held hostage to all these bad decisions that were made by these huge institutions in the past and that we create a system where they can't make all these bad bets, " he said.

    "And I am confident that we can strike the right balance that allows our financial system to stabilize, allows people to innovate in the financial markets, but don't allow them to put everybody else's savings, everybody else's well-being, other people's jobs, other people's homes at risk."

    Obama also defended his criticized Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, saying he "is making all the right moves in terms of playing a bad hand."

    "There has never been a secretary of the Treasury, except maybe Alexander Hamilton, right after the Revolutionary War, who has had to deal with the multiplicity of issues that Secretary Geithners having to deal with, " he said.

    19. While everyone was losing their minds at President Barack Obama's ill-advised "Special Olympics" quip, here's an interesting part of the interview that seems to have gone unremarked upon, by and large:

    LENO: Well, when will the money -- this money was given out to the banks. I would have thought by this time it would have sort of trickled down to Main Street, to people wanting to get loans -- I mean, it all went out there months and months ago. Where is it?


    OBAMA: Well, what's happening is a lot of these banks are keeping it in the bank because their balance sheets had gotten so bad that they decided, you know what, for us to stay solvent we need to maintain certain capital ratios; we've got to have a certain amount of capital in the bank -- and they haven't started lending it yet. And that's why what we've got to do -- right now what we're doing is essentially doing a diagnostic test -- trying to use some auto language here so you -- (laughter) -- we're doing a diagnostic on each of the banks, figuring out what are their capital levels? Can they sustain lending? And then I think we're going to separate out -- those banks that are in good shape, we're going to say to them, all right, you're on your own; go start lending again. Those banks that still have problems, we'll do a little more intervention to try to clean some of those toxic assets off their books.

    But I actually have confidence that we'll get that done. In the meantime, we're taking a lot of steps to, for example, opening up -- open up separate credit lines outside of banks for small businesses so that they can get credit -- because there are a lot of small businesses out here who are just barely hanging on. Their credit lines are starting to be cut. We're trying to set up a securitized market for student loans and auto loans outside of the banking system. So there are other ways of getting credit flowing again.

    20. President Barack Obama says treasury secretary is one job that's not up for grabs.

    In an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes" Obama said that if Treasury chief Timothy Geithner offered his resignation, the answer would be, "Sorry buddy, you've still got the job."

    Obama also took the opportunity to strike back at recent comments by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who claimed that plans to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center will make the U.S. less safe.

    Obama contended that the Bush administration's policy of holding detainees for years on end with no trials is "unsustainable, " and has only fueled anti-American sentiments. At the same time, Obama said that U.S. authorities haven't done a good job determining who should be released from the Navy base in Cuba.

    On Geithner, Obama reiterated his support for the beleaguered secretary who has been roundly criticized over the recent corporate bonus flap and steps to revive the economy. And he urged patience.

    "It's going to take a little bit more time than we would like to make sure that we get this plan just right. Of course, then we'd still be subject to criticism, " he said in the interview, taped Friday and set to air Sunday evening. "What's taken so long? You've been in office a whole 40 days and you haven't solved the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression."

    Obama also said corporate executives would better understand the public's outrage over bonuses if they ventured out of New York and spent time in Iowa or Arkansas. There, he said, people are thrilled to be making $75, 000 a year with no bonuses.

    Public outrage spilled over last week after revelations that struggling insurance giant American International Group Inc. doled out $165 million in bonuses to employees, including to traders in the financial unit that nearly caused the company's collapse.

    On the Bush administration's detainee policies, Obama criticized the failure to bring terrorists to justice, despite holding hundreds of men at Guantanamo for a number of years.

    Among those who have been released, more than 60 former Guantanamo detainees are believed to have rejoined the fight, the Pentagon says.

    "There is no doubt that we have not done a particularly effective job in sorting through who are truly dangerous individuals to make sure (they) are not a threat to us, " Obama said.

    Some 800 men have been held at Guantanamo since the prison opened in January 2002, and 240 remain. Some are admitted terrorists, including confessed Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was transferred to Guantanamo from CIA custody in September 2006. But officials have said that many may have been innocent men unconnected to the Taliban or al-Qaida, but were swept up by U.S. forces in the early days of the Afghanistan war.

    Since taking office, Obama has taken aim at Bush administration policies, suspending military trials for suspected terrorists and announcing he will close Guantanamo and other overseas sites where the CIA has held some detainees. The president also ordered CIA interrogators to abide by the U.S. Army Field Manual's regulations for treatment of detainees and denounced waterboarding, part of the Bush program of enhanced interrogation, as torture.

    On CNN last weekend, Cheney charged that those moves have made the country less safe and raised the risk of another attack.

    21. Obama Defends budget as essential to recovery.

    President Obama presented a sober assessment of the state of the economy in his prime time news conference Tuesday, but he insisted his administration has a strategy in place to "attack this crisis on all fronts."

    President Obama says the country

    "It took many years and many failures to lead us here. And it will take many months and many different solutions to lead us out. There are no quick fixes, and there are no silver bullets, " he said.

    The president defended his budget, which has come under criticism for its hefty price, saying the plan he proposed is "inseparable" from the overall strategy for economic recovery.

    "We've got to make some tough budgetary choices, " the president said in his second prime time news conference. "What we can't do, though, is sacrifice long-term growth, investments that are critical to the future, and that's why my budget focuses on health care, energy, education, the kinds of things that can build a foundation for long-term economic growth, as opposed to the fleeting prosperity that we've seen over the last several years."

    The president brushed off criticism of the scope of his investments, saying, "We haven't seen an alternative budget out of them." He also reiterated his pledge to cut the deficit in half over the next five years.

    Asked whether he would sign a budget that doesn't include a middle-class tax cut, Obama said he has "emphasized repeatedly" what his expectations are.

    "I haven't seen yet what provisions are in there, " Obama said. "The bottom line is that I want to see health care, energy, education and serious efforts to reduce our budget deficit. And there are going to be details that still need to be worked out."

    Obama's appearance comes on the heels of the unveiling of the Treasury Department's new bank rescue plan.

    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday announced a plan to remove troubled assets from banks' books by partnering with private investors.

    The goal is to buy up at least $500 billion of existing assets and loans, such as subprime mortgages that are now in danger of default.

    Following the announcement of the plan, the stock market rallied, posting the biggest gains in months.

    Obama said he supports Geithner's push to seize financial institutions whose failure would pose serious risks to the U.S. financial system.

    "Keep in mind that it is precisely because of the lack of this authority that the AIG situation has gotten worse, " Obama said, referring to the troubled insurance giant.

    It was revealed last week that AIG doled out massive bonuses to executives after receiving more than $170 billion in bailout funds.

    Pressed about why he waited three days to publicly speak out against AIG paying out the bonuses, Obama told reporters, "It took us a couple of days because I like to think about what I'm talking about before I speak."

    Obama's news conference comes after he made the rounds on television this past week, with an appearance on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, " and an interview on CBS's "60 Minutes."

    On the morning of the news conference, Obama reached out to citizens of the world in an op-ed piece that ran in 31 newspapers around the world.

    In the op-ed, Obama said there is an urgent need for worldwide economic cooperation and spoke about the upcoming G-20 meeting.

    The G-20 meeting, in which leaders of the world's richest nations will discuss the global economic downturn, takes place next week in London, England.

    In his first prime time news conference, the president used the national platform to make the case for his economic stimulus plan, which has since been passed by Congress and signed into law.

    Obama took questions from 13 different reporters at the February news conference. Eight questions were about the economy, three were about foreign policy and one was about creating a truth and reconciliation committee to investigate the Bush administration.

    22. Obama answers seven of 90, 000 Web questions.

    In an appeal to the tech-savvy public, the White House's Web site opened itself to questions for President Obama's online town hall meeting Thursday.

    The virtual meeting, a new take on President Franklin Roosevelt's fireside chats, was another sign that Obama is reaching out to online followers as he tries to rally an anxious country in support of his solutions to the economic crisis.

    Obama began his address by trying to draw a clear line between what he sees as the political games of Washington and the actual needs of the American people.

    "What matters to you and your families and what people here in Washington are focused on are not always" the same, he said, criticizing the winner-loser mindset of the politicians in the nation's capitol.

    "This isn't about me, it's about you, " he said. "It's about the families whose letters I read every single day, and, for the American people, what's going on is not a game."

    After the call for questions closed at 9:30 a.m., more than 90, 000 people had submitted more than 104, 000 questions for the president. The questions largely focused on the economy but spread across several categories. Online users ranked the questions more than 3.6 million times, according to WhiteHouse.gov.

    Obama had promised to answer popular questions from the site.

    The idea that a president would want to talk directly to the American people has been around since the days of FDR, but what was new about Obama's online town hall is that it encouraged members of the public to interact with each other, said Julie Moos, director of Poynter Online, a nonprofit journalism site.

    "By allowing [Internet users] not just to submit questions but to see the other questions ... and to rank the questions continues to connect them in the same way that the [Obama] campaign did, " Moos said. "And I think that's one of the most innovative things that they're doing."

    Flanked by a flat-screen TV and backed by a 100-person audience in the White House's East Room, the president answered text questions and those submitted in video format.

    Obama answered seven of the most popular online questions. That included a paraphrase of a question asked by several people online: would legalizing marijuana help jumpstart the economy.

    The president grinned through his answer: "I don't' know what this says about the online audience, " he said, adding: "The answer is, 'No, ' I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy."

    Other questions -- some of which came from the live audience -- focused primarily on health care, job loss, mortgage payments and energy.

    A video question from three bubbly college students was well received by the audience. In it, the young women asked how Obama will make college more affordable and when a national program may start.

    Obama said too many college students finish school while drowning in debt. He said a public service program will begin in a matter of weeks.

    "If you come out of college with $50, 000 worth of debt it's then hard for you to start making a decision about wanting to be a teacher or wanting to go into social work, " he said.

    In one video question, a woman asked the president if manufacturing jobs that have gone overseas will come back.

    No, Obama answered.

    America needs to create new jobs "that can't be outsourced, " he said. Many of those will be in the renewable energy sector, he said.

    During the address, the online community commented on Obama's answers and the format of the town hall. Users could watch streaming video of the question-answer session online at WhiteHouse.gov.

    On the social media site Twitter, a user named kfoggy1 wrote: "[I] didn't vote for Obama, but I really like what he is doing with technology. Good for democracy."

    A user called BeaconOfLight was less impressed.

    "Another chance for Obama to get TV time. Get your glass the 'kool aid' will flow, " the user wrote.

    A quick survey of the more than 90, 000 questions submitted at WhiteHouse.gov revealed an America troubled by the state of the economy and struggling to make ends meet.

    The White House asked the public to submit questions only about the economy, but the site divided them into several subcategories.

    In education, several popular questions came from people who criticized the state of the nation's educational system, or were having trouble paying off college debt.

    "The Founding Fathers believed that there is no difference between a free society and an educated society. Our educational system, however, is woefully inadequate. How do you plan to restore education as a right and core cultural value in America?" asked Takeok, from Boston, Massachusetts.

    In the "home ownership" category, several users wrote that they feel they've been making all the right financial moves and still find themselves in turmoil.

    "Why aren't you helping the people who want to PREVENT foreclosure?" asked MistyLee, from Providence, Rhode Island.

    Some health care submissions questioned why more Americans aren't covered.

    Richard from California asked why this nation can't have universal health care like countries in Europe, "where people are treated based on needs, rather than financial resources."

    Questions filed under green jobs and energy prodded the president to reconsider ethanol subsidies and asked him to explain how the stimulus plan will affect green jobs and home weatherization.

    Larkin, a user from Gaithersburg, Maryland, was one of several people to raise the issue of public transit.

    "Will we ever see high-speed passenger rail service in the U.S.?" the user asked.

    In the finance category, Web users wanted to know more about why the government couldn't break up large financial institutions into smaller entities.

    Adrian, of Collinsville, Illinois, worried about businesses that have survived the economic collapse.

    "What rewards are there for those people and businesses that chose to live and operate within their means?" the user asked.

    The site began taking questions on Tuesday and stopped on Thursday at 9:30 a.m. ET. The Web service was hosted by Google, but the White House said it will protect user information in accordance with its own privacy guidelines.

    Questions asked on the site were made public immediately, the White House said. Users could flag questions they deemed inappropriate.

    Moos, of Poynter, said one of the biggest take-aways from the event is that it connected these audiences to the president and a sense that they're part of a valued online community -- an engaged citizenry.

    23. Obama: 'It is time for us to transition to the Iraqis'

    resident Obama lauded the U.S. military in Baghdad on Tuesday during an unannounced visit to Iraq, reminding troops that the next 18 months will be difficult as the United States plans to start withdrawing its forces.

    President Obama greets troops during a visit to Camp Victory on Tuesday.

    "I was just discussing this with your commander, but I think it's something that all of you know. It is time for us to transition to the Iraqis, " Obama said, according to a transcript from the White House. "They need to take responsibility for their country and for their sovereignty.

    "And in order for them to do that, they have got to make political accommodations. They're going to have to decide that they want to resolve their differences through constitutional means and legal means. They are going to have to focus on providing government services that encourage confidence among their citizens."

    Obama reiterated that Iraqis must do those things themselves, and "we can't do it for them."

    "But what we can do is make sure that we are a stalwart partner, that we are working alongside them, that we are committed to their success, " he added.

    Obama said that in terms of training the Iraqi security forces, the U.S. must make sure "they know that they have a steady partner with us."

    Obama's visit to Iraq was the last stop on his first trip overseas as president.

    The president thanked the troops for giving Iraq "the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country."

    The president addressed about 1, 500 service members, civilians and contractors who gathered in the rotunda of the Al Faw Palace, one of dozens of palaces that were used by former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The palace is now headquarters for the Multi-National Corps.

    Obama last month announced the United States' plan to withdraw most of its troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010. A residual force of between 35, 000 to 50, 000 troops will remain until December 31, 2011. There are 142, 000 American troops in Iraq now.

    Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, met Obama shortly after Air Force One landed Tuesday in Baghdad at about 4:42 p.m.

    The troops "are doing extraordinary work, " Obama said shortly after landing. "They're just putting their heart and soul into this."

    About 600 troops assembled to greet the president at Camp Victory, near the Baghdad airport.

    Yassin Majid, the spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said Obama met with the prime minister, and they discussed bilateral relations and other issues. Obama also was to meet with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and the nation's two vice presidents.

    Ali Jalal, a businessman, called Obama's visit "a good sign to Iraqi people, and will solve the political crisis."

    "If God wills, he [Obama] should know that Iraq belongs to Iraqis, " Jalal said, then added, "I ask the U.S. President Barack Obama to solve the problems of Iraqi people and to speed up the withdrawal of U.S. troops."

    Government employee Nazar Sami-a said, "His visit is for Americans' interest and not for Iraqi interest."

    Obama arrived in Europe last week for a series of summits, initially meeting with world leaders at the G-20 summit in London, England, to discuss the global financial crisis.

    At the NATO summit in France and Germany, the president was hoping to get a boost in resources for the war in Afghanistan. He did get allies to pledge about 5, 000 troops, but in the form of police and security trainers, not combat troops.

    During the campaign season, Obama visited Iraq on a multi-stop overseas trip. That trip also included stops in Afghanistan, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

    A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that 79 percent of Americans surveyed feel that Obama has had a "more positive" effect on how people in other countries view the United States. Only 19 percent of those surveyed thought he's had a "more negative" effect.

    The poll also indicated that only 35 percent of Americans currently approve of the U.S. war in Iraq; 65 percent disapprove.

    Almost seven in 10 Americans agree with Obama's plan to remove most U.S. troops from Iraq by next August, while leaving a residual force of between 35, 000 and 50, 000 troops.

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    24. Obama's lucky numbers.

    Don't call him lucky. Barack Obama assumed the presidency of the United States just in time to be challenged by a painful recession, African pirates and a disease spread by pigs. But he can at least take comfort in some lucky numbers.

    100 -- Obama marked a traditional milestone for new chief executives this week: the first 100 days since he took office. Whether or not you agree with his policies, Obama's been self-assured, energetic and ambitious. He's spending boldly to help the economy and breaking with Bush administration policy on issues ranging from Guantanamo Bay to global warming. Whatever else happens, historians will probably credit him with a decisive debut.

    75 -- Obama didn't have an especially easy time convincing Americans he was the right man to be president. He won with about 53 percent of the vote. But this week's CNN/Opinion Research Poll found that 63 percent of Americans support him and fully 75 percent say he has the personal qualities a president needs. Americans don't all agree with him, but a solid number admire him nonetheless.

    60 -- Despite his support from voters, the Congress has been a problem for Obama. A governing party needs 60 of the Senate's 100 seats to be sure it can pass the legislation it wants. The Democrats won 58 and expect to capture a 59th because of one close Senate election that will be decided by the courts. This week, Republican Arlen Specter switched parties. The court's ruling remains to be seen, but Obama stands to get his 60.

    0 -- Obama is the undisputed leader of the United States and its Democratic Party. Who really speaks for the Republicans? After presidential candidate John McCain lost the election, he lost the right to speak for the party.

    For the time being, the Republicans have no national figure who commands anywhere near the public support or media attention Obama does. Right now, President Obama wins any contest of leadership with the Republicans by a 1-0 shutout.

    Maybe we should call him lucky, after all.

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    25........next.....

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    What's ahead for Obama in the next 100 days

    After passing the 100 days benchmark, President Obama pushes on with a daunting task ahead of him: Tackling foreign and domestic issues while dealing with a Republican Party opposed to nearly all his major economic initiatives..

    President Obama faces daunting foreign and domestic policy challenges in the next 100 days.

    The second 100 days will be a critical test of Obama's power in getting key legislative priorities -- such as economic recovery, health care, energy and immigration -- passed.

    With recent polls showing the American public giving him a job approval rating in the mid-60s, he already starts off on the right footing.

    But a poll out Monday suggests that Obama is personally more popular than his policies. The poll showed that three in four Americans feel Obama has the personal qualities a president should have. But when the respondents were asked if they agree with the president on the issues, that number drops to 57 percent. For Republicans, the support is more than lackluster: Only 28 percent say Obama is doing a good job.

    And with the GOP opposing nearly all of Obama's major initiatives in the first 100 days -- especially the economic stimulus and FY 2010 budget plan -- it will be bipartisanship that will be a task for the president. Can he bridge the divide on major issues?

    At his press conference on Wednesday night, the president once again seemed to extend the proverbial olive branch to the GOP.

    "To my Republican friends, I want them to realize that me reaching out to them has been genuine, " Obama said at a prime time news conference capping his 100th day in office. "I can't sort of define bipartisanship as simply being willing to accept certain theories of theirs that we tried for eight years and didn't work and the American people voted to change."

    And Republicans may be realizing the scenario before them: Democratic control of the Executive and Legislative branches. Getting GOP legislation passed without bipartisan support will be next to impossible.

    Just this week, veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania announced that he was leaving the GOP and joining the Democratic Party. It was a seismic shift in Washington and could be a major boon for Obama. With Specter's switch and Democrat Al Franken's likely victory in the Minnesota Senate race, Democrats are poised to have a 60-seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

    In other words, Democrats will set the agenda.

    But Obama is not taking any chances, saying he's under no illusions that he'll have a "rubber-stamp Senate" now that Specter has switched parties.

    Nonetheless, the Republican leadership is looking ahead -- and signs of bipartisanship may beginning to slowly show.

    "Obviously, the country's got terrific challenges before it. ... I think bipartisanship can work. If there is a commitment on both sides, obviously, to try and work towards solutions in these very difficult issue areas, " House Minority Whip Eric Cantor said last Wednesday. "But look, there's no question. We need to both be open to try to work together."

    But not so fast, says one GOP aide.

    Sen. John McCain's spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said Thursday that the Arizona Repubican believes the president and Democrats don't really want to compromise on big, controversial issues. "Reaching out and bringing ideas to the table with a real interest in compromise are two different things, " Buchanan said.

    The next 100 days will also be a critical test for Republicans looking to improve their brand. The latest Washington Post/ABC Poll showed only 21 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as Republican, which down from 25 percent in a late March poll.

    The poll, on the other hand, showed that 35 percent identified themselves as Democrats; and 38 percent called themselves independents.

    Besides the major task of handling the country's recession, two major domestic policy issues are sure to come up, and Obama's popularity and outreach to Congress will be critical.

    Health care reform, for one, was one of Obama's early 2008 campaign pledges -- and is sure to come up.

    And it could likely pass this year because of a special legislative process, known as budget reconciliation, which won't allow Republicans to filibuster the legislation. Democrats, who control 59 seats in the Senate, will be able to pass it with a simple majority vote instead of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.

    Another issue near and dear to Obama is energy. Can Obama put forth an energy plan that both parties can agree on?

    Obama has signaled in his first 100 days that finding alternative energy sources -- such as wind, hydropower, solar -- will be vital in ending the country's dependence on foreign oil. For Obama, it's not just an energy dependence issue, but one of national security.

    On the foreign policy front, Obama will continue to pursue his strategy for combating increasing violence in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and Taliban encroachments in Pakistan.

    While the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are inherited from the Bush administration, his strategy going forward -- adding additional troops to Afghanistan and a withdrawal timeline in Iraq -- will prove critical to his legacy.

    Political analyst David Gergen, who has a long history working for both Democratic and Republican presidents, says what has impressed him about Obama is his strategic vision for the war-torn area.

    "On Afghanistan, they really did sit down and try to do their homework, and try to figure out how is this going to work out over time, " he said.

    Gergen says Obama's next 100 days will show that he is a "pragmatic liberal" -- legislating from left-of-center.

    But Fareed Zakaria disagrees, pointing out that Obama's foreign policy is one Republican hawks "would be very comfortable with."

    "I think right now the truth of the matter is, he's put forward a kind of beautiful overture, by which I mean he's reached out to Iran; he's reached out to Syria; he's put forward stuff for the Middle East peace process, " Zakaria said.

    But it's also relations with historically Anti-American countries like Cuba and Venezuela that will put to the test Obama's campaign promise to open up a dialogue -- much to the chagrin of Republicans. Obama has signaled he wants to work with both countries, and has already eased restrictions on travel to Cuba.

    Will a lifting of the nearly 50-year trade embargo with the Caribbean nation be next?

    The president's second 100 days will, for all intents and purposes, will likely be another "Hallmark holiday" style benchmark. But a lot can happen in 100 days -- and Obama's leadership on key issues will be put under the microscope -- issues that could set the tone for America's relations abroad for decades to come.

    It is all about Democrats and Republicans

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    2008

    Barack Obama Speaks

    Breaking our oil addiction is one of the greatest challenges our generation will ever face. It will take nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy.Thi s transformation will be costly, and given the fiscal disaster we will inherit from the last administration, it will likely require us to defer some other priorities.

    I've often said that this election is a defining moment in our history. On major issues like the war in Iraq or the warming of our planet, the decisions we make in November and over the next few years will shape a generation, if not a century. Nowhere is that more true than when it comes to our economy. You don't have to watch TV or read the newspaper to know what's happening - you feel it in your own lives and in your own communities. July was the seventh straight month of job loss. Gas prices are out of control. Food prices are soaring. If you're lucky enough to have health care, your copays, deductibles, and premiums are skyrocketing. College is becoming less affordable. And we've seen more foreclosures than at any time since the Great Depression. Back in the 1990s, your incomes grew by $6, 000, and over the last several years, they've actually fallen by nearly $1, 000.

    I stand here before you today feeling no small amount of gratitude. Because I know that my story, and so many other improbable stories, would not be possible without all that the Urban League has done to put opportunity within reach of every American. It's because of the doors you've opened, because of the battles you've fought and won, because of the sacrifices of people in this room and all those who came before you, that I come here today as a candidate for President of United States of America. And I'll never forget how my journey began. I'll never forget that I got my start as a foot soldier in the movement the Urban League built - the movement to bring opportunity to every corner of our cities.

    We meet at a moment when this country is facing a set of challenges greater than any we've seen in generations. Right now, our brave men and women in uniform are fighting two different wars while terrorists plot their next attack. Our changing climate is placing our planet in peril. Our economy is in turmoil and our families are struggling with rising costs and falling incomes; with lost jobs and lost homes and lost faith in the American Dream. And for too long, our leaders in Washington have been unwilling or unable to do anything about it. That is why this election could be the most important of our lifetime. When it comes to our economy, our security, and the very future of our planet, the choices we make in November and over the next few years will shape the next decade, if not the century. And central to all of these major challenges is the question of what we will do about our addiction to foreign oil.

    Sixty-one years ago, George Marshall announced the plan that would come to bear his name. Much of Europe lay in ruins. The United States faced a powerful and ideological enemy intent on world domination. This menace was magnified by the recently discovered capability to destroy life on an unimaginable scale. The Soviet Union didn't yet have an atomic bomb, but before long it would. The challenge facing the greatest generation of Americans - the generation that had vanquished fascism on the battlefield - was how to contain this threat while extending freedom's frontiers. Leaders like Truman and Acheson, Kennan and Marshall, knew that there was no single decisive blow that could be struck for freedom. We needed a new overarching strategy to meet the challenges of a new and dangerous world.

    "When I was a young man, I thought life was all about me - how do I make my way in the world, and how do I become successful and how do I get the things that I want.
    But now, my life revolves around my two little girls. And what I think about is what kind of world I'm leaving them. Are they living in a county where there's a huge gap between a few who are wealthy and a whole bunch of people who are struggling every day? Are they living in a county that is still divided by race? A country where, because they're girls, they don't have as much opportunity as boys do? Are they living in a country where we are hated around the world because we don't cooperate effectively with other nations? Are they living a world that is in grave danger because of what we've done to its climate?
    And what I've realized is that life doesn't count for much unless you're willing to do your small part to leave our children - all of our children - a better world. Even if it's difficult. Even if the work seems great. Even if we don't get very far in our lifetime.

    That is our ultimate responsibility as fathers and parents. We try. We hope. We do what we can to build our house upon the sturdiest rock. And when the winds come, and the rains fall, and they beat upon that house, we keep faith that our Father will be there to guide us, and watch over us, and protect us, and lead His children through the darkest of storms into light of a better day. That is my prayer for all of us on this Father's Day, and that is my hope for this country in the years ahead. May God Bless you and your children. Thank you."

    "Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain, " Senator Clinton told her cheering audience in the Las Vegas suburb of Henderson. "Remember who we were fighting for in my campaign. We may have started on two separate paths, but we are on one journey now."

    "Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America." These phrases were followed by several deftly chosen images designed to skewer the stereotypes that red and blue Americans entertain about each other. "We worship an awesome God in the blue states, " Obama thundered. "And yes, " he added, "we've got some gay friends in the red states." Barack Obama moved closer to John McCain's tough position regarding the military conflict in Georgia on Monday, issuing a statement from Hawaii scolding Russia for the intensifying violence in the conflict.

    "No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country, " Obama said in a statement distributed by his campaign. "Russia has escalated its military campaign through strategic bombing and the movement of its ground forces into the heart of Georgia. There is no possible justification for these attacks."

    Democratic presidential Barack Obama said that he supports putting former rival Hillary Clinton on the nomination ballot at this month's Democratic convention. "I am convinced that honoring Clinton's historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong, united fashion, " Obama said in a statement.

    "For the first time in a long time, we have the chance to build a new majority of not just Democrats, but Independents and Republicans who've lost faith in their Washington leaders but want to believe again - who desperately want something new."

    Barack Obama said that his greatest moral failure was selfishness. "I had a difficult youth; I experimented with drugs and drank. I trace this to a certain selfishness on my point. I couldn't focus on other people, " Obama told Rev. Rick Warren. "It's not about me."

    Obama said that the country's greatest moral failure was not doing enough for its underprivileged:"We still don't abide by that basic precept of Matthew: Whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me, "

    On abortion, Obama said that although he's pro-choice and supports Roe v. Wade, his goal is to reduce the number of abortions in America."On this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception ... and you are consistent, then I can't argue with you on that, " he said. "What I can do is say, are there ways we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?"

    He also touched on same-sex marriage. When asked to define marriage, he said: "It's a union between a man and a woman.For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God's in the mix." Obama added that he does support same-sex civil unions, saying, "I can afford those civil rights to others even if I don't have that view."

    "My vice president will be a member of the executive branch. He won't be one of these fourth branches of government where he thinks he's above the law."

    "I guess if you think that being rich means you've got to make $5 million and if you don't know how many houses you have, then it's not surprising that you might think the economy was fundamentally strong, but if you're like me, and you've got one house, or you are like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so they don't lose their home, you might have a different perspective."

    "The American people are still checking me out, because I am relatively new...John McCain has been in the public eye for 25 years...a very effective debater...disciplined and concise...will there be a handful of folks around the country who don't vote for me because of my race? Sure. Will there some who vote for me because of my race? Sure...if voters decide I'm going to be good for their pocketbook and good for their safety, I'm going to win, and if they decide John McCain is going to do better at those things, he's going to win."

    "There's no doubt that the enthusiasm and grass-roots energy we built carries with it its own dangers...We're cutting through all the sizzle and getting to the steak..."

    This Knol is a contribution of Daddynames LLC for CenterZero.com and Domains.com.bz

    [[ct]]: Gaming Chair Steering Wheel


    YouTube Presents MBC K-pop concert

    22 May 2012 at 12:13am


    Introducing the Leap

    21 May 2012 at 5:15am


    Next page: Canon Ef 75 300mm F 4 5.6 Usm Lens


    Gaming Chair Steering Wheel News