• 44 •

Art-Retired

Support BGOL
Registered
Superman & Batman Are Not My Only Heroes















<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KEMTjb-UnEM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KEMTjb-UnEM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deputy dawg

~wait a cotton pickin' minute...
BGOL Investor
Re: Tribute to Our New President

The POWER of a symbol/logo.
Don't undrestimate it.

Are you wearing your flag pin today?
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Obama Enters the Great Game


The first hundred days of his presidency will revolve around
getting a stimulus package passed. But Obama also is now
in the great game of global competition — and in that game,
presidents rarely get to set the agenda.



78ab4dfcc0848858d1a273ac7654dca118444f1e_0.jpg





Strategic Forecasting - STRATFOR
By George Friedman
January 9, 2009



U.S. President-elect Barack Obama will be sworn in on Tuesday as president of the United States. Candidate Obama said much about what he would do as president; now we will see what President Obama actually does. The most important issue Obama will face will be the economy, something he did not anticipate through most of his campaign. The first hundred days of his presidency thus will revolve around getting a stimulus package passed. But Obama also is now in the great game of global competition -- and in that game, presidents rarely get to set the agenda.

The major challenge he faces is not Gaza; the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is not one any U.S. president intervenes in unless he wants to experience pain. As we have explained, that is an intractable conflict to which there is no real solution. Certainly, Obama will fight being drawn into mediating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during his first hundred days in office. He undoubtedly will send the obligatory Middle East envoy, who will spend time with all the parties, make suitable speeches and extract meaningless concessions from all sides. This envoy will establish some sort of process to which everyone will cynically commit, knowing it will go nowhere. Such a mission is not involvement -- it is the alternative to involvement, and the reason presidents appoint Middle East envoys. Obama can avoid the Gaza crisis, and he will do so.


Obama's Two Unavoidable Crises


The two crises that cannot be avoided are Afghanistan and Russia. First, the situation in Afghanistan is tenuous for a number of reasons, and it is not a crisis that Obama can avoid decisions on. Obama has said publicly that he will decrease his commitments in Iraq and increase them in Afghanistan. He thus will have more troops fighting in Afghanistan. The second crisis emerged from a decision by Russia to cut off natural gas to Ukraine, and the resulting decline in natural gas deliveries to Europe. This one obviously does not affect the United States directly, but even after flows are restored, it affects the Europeans greatly. Obama therefore comes into office with three interlocking issues: Afghanistan, Russia and Europe. In one sense, this is a single issue -- and it is not one that will wait.

Obama clearly intends to follow Gen. David Petraeus' lead in Afghanistan. The intention is to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, thereby intensifying pressure on the Taliban and opening the door for negotiations with the militant group or one of its factions. Ultimately, this would see the inclusion of the Taliban or Taliban elements in a coalition government. Petraeus pursued this strategy in Iraq with Sunni insurgents, and it is the likely strategy in Afghanistan.

But the situation in Afghanistan has been complicated by the situation in Pakistan. Roughly three-quarters of U.S. and NATO supplies bound for Afghanistan are delivered to the Pakistani port of Karachi and trucked over the border to Afghanistan. Most fuel used by Western forces in Afghanistan is refined in Pakistan and delivered via the same route. There are two crossing points, one near Afghanistan's Kandahar province at Chaman, Pakistan, and the other through the Khyber Pass. The Taliban have attacked Western supply depots and convoys, and Pakistan itself closed the routes for several days, citing government operations against radical Islamist forces.

Meanwhile, the situation in Pakistan has been complicated by tensions with India. The Indians have said that the individuals who carried out the Nov. 26 Mumbai attack were Pakistanis supported by elements in the Pakistani government. After Mumbai, India made demands of the Pakistanis. While the situation appears to have calmed, the future of Indo-Pakistani relations remains far from clear; anything from a change of policy in New Delhi to new terrorist attacks could see the situation escalate. The Pakistanis have made it clear that a heightened threat from India requires them to shift troops away from the Afghan border and toward the east; a small number of troops already has been shifted.

Apart from the direct impact this kind of Pakistani troop withdrawal would have on cross-border operations by the Taliban, such a move also would dramatically increase the vulnerability of NATO supply lines through Pakistan. Some supplies could be shipped in by aircraft, but the vast bulk of supplies -- petroleum, ammunition, etc. -- must come in via surface transit, either by truck, rail or ship. Western operations in Afghanistan simply cannot be supplied from the air alone. A cutoff of the supply lines across Pakistan would thus leave U.S. troops in Afghanistan in crisis. Because Washington can't predict or control the future actions of Pakistan, of India or of terrorists, the United States must find an alternative to the routes through Pakistan.

When we look at a map, the two routes through Pakistan from Karachi are clearly the most logical to use. If those were closed -- or even meaningfully degraded -- the only other viable routes would be through the former Soviet Union.




    • One route, along which a light load of fuel is currently transported, crosses the Caspian Sea. Fuel refined in Azerbaijan is ferried across the Caspian to Turkmenistan (where a small amount of fuel is also refined), then shipped across Turkmenistan directly to Afghanistan and through a small spit of land in Uzbekistan. This route could be expanded to reach either the Black Sea through Georgia or the Mediterranean through Georgia and Turkey (though the additional use of Turkey would require a rail gauge switch). It is also not clear that transports native to the Caspian have sufficient capacity for this.



    • Another route sidesteps the issues of both transport across the Caspian and the sensitivity of Georgia by crossing Russian territory above the Caspian. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan (and likely at least a small corner of Turkmenistan) would connect the route to Afghanistan. There are options of connecting to the Black Sea or transiting to Europe through either Ukraine or Belarus.



    • Iran could provide a potential alternative, but relations between Tehran and Washington would have to improve dramatically before such discussions could even begin -- and time is short.
Many of the details still need to be worked out. But they are largely variations on the two main themes of either crossing the Caspian or transiting Russian territory above it.

Though the first route is already partially established for fuel, it is not clear how much additional capacity exists. To complicate matters further, Turkmen acquiescence is unlikely without Russian authorization, and Armenia remains strongly loyal to Moscow as well. While the current Georgian government might leap at the chance, the issue is obviously an extremely sensitive one for Moscow. (And with Russian forces positioned in Armenia and the Georgian breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Moscow has troops looming over both sides of the vulnerable route across Georgia.) The second option would require crossing Russian territory itself, with a number of options -- from connecting to the Black Sea to transiting either Ukraine or Belarus to Europe, or connecting to the Baltic states.

Both routes involve countries of importance to Russia where Moscow has influence, regardless of whether those countries are friendly to it. This would give Russia ample opportunity to scuttle any such supply line at multiple points for reasons wholly unrelated to Afghanistan.

If the West were to opt for the first route, the Russians almost certainly would pressure Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan not to cooperate, and Turkey would find itself in a position it doesn't want to be in -- namely, caught between the United States and Russia. The diplomatic complexities of developing these routes not only involve the individual countries included, they also inevitably lead to the question of U.S.-Russian relations.

Even without crossing Russia, both of these two main options require Russian cooperation. The United States must develop the option of an alternative supply route to Pakistan, and in doing so, it must define its relationship with Russia. Seeking to work without Russian approval of a route crossing its "near abroad" will represent a challenge to Russia. But getting Russian approval will require a U.S. accommodation with the country.


The Russian Natural Gas Connection


One of Obama's core arguments against the Bush administration was that it acted unilaterally rather than with allies. Specifically, Obama meant that the Bush administration alienated the Europeans, therefore failing to build a sustainable coalition for the war. By this logic, it follows that one of Obama's first steps should be to reach out to Europe to help influence or pressure the Russians, given that NATO has troops in Afghanistan and Obama has said he intends to ask the Europeans for more help there.

The problem with this is that the Europeans are passing through a serious crisis with Russia, and that Germany in particular is involved in trying to manage that crisis. This problem relates to natural gas. Ukraine is dependent on Russia for about two-thirds of the natural gas it uses. The Russians traditionally have provided natural gas at a deep discount to former Soviet republics, primarily those countries Russia sees as allies, such as Belarus or Armenia. Ukraine had received discounted natural gas, too, until the 2004 Orange Revolution, when a pro-Western government came to power in Kiev. At that point, the Russians began demanding full payment. Given the subsequent rises in global energy prices, that left Ukraine in a terrible situation -- which of course is exactly where Moscow wanted it.

The Russians cut off natural gas to Ukraine for a short period in January 2006, and for three weeks in 2009. Apart from leaving Ukraine desperate, the cutoff immediately affected the rest of Europe, because the natural gas that goes to Europe flows through Ukraine. This put the rest of Europe in a dangerous position, particularly in the face of bitterly cold weather in 2008-2009.

The Russians achieved several goals with this. First, they pressured Ukraine directly. Second, they forced many European states to deal with Moscow directly rather than through the European Union. Third, they created a situation in which European countries had to choose between supporting Ukraine and heating their own homes. And last, they drew Berlin in particular -- since Germany is the most dependent of the major European states on Russian natural gas -- into the position of working with the Russians to get Ukraine to agree to their terms. (Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin visited Germany last week to discuss this directly with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.)

The Germans already have made clear their opposition to expanding NATO to Ukraine and Georgia. Given their dependency on the Russians, the Germans are not going to be supporting the United States if Washington decides to challenge Russia over the supply route issue. In fact, the Germans -- and many of the Europeans -- are in no position to challenge Russia on anything, least of all on Afghanistan. Overall, the Europeans see themselves as having limited interests in the Afghan war, and many already are planning to reduce or withdraw troops for budgetary reasons.

It is therefore very difficult to see Obama recruiting the Europeans in any useful manner for a confrontation with Russia over access for American supplies to Afghanistan. Yet this is an issue he will have to address immediately.


The Price of Russian Cooperation


The Russians are prepared to help the Americans, however -- and it is clear what they will want in return.

At minimum, Moscow will want a declaration that Washington will not press for the expansion of NATO to Georgia or Ukraine, or for the deployment of military forces in non-NATO states on the Russian periphery -- specifically, Ukraine and Georgia. At this point, such a declaration would be symbolic, since Germany and other European countries would block expansion anyway.

The Russians might also demand some sort of guarantee that NATO and the United States not place any large military formations or build any major military facilities in the former Soviet republics (now NATO member states) of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. (A small rotating squadron of NATO fighters already patrols the skies over the Baltic states.) Given that there were intense anti-government riots in Latvia and Lithuania last week, the stability of these countries is in question. The Russians would certainly want to topple the pro-Western Baltic governments. And anything approaching a formal agreement between Russia and the United States on the matter could quickly destabilize the Baltics, in addition to very much weakening the NATO alliance.

Another demand the Russians probably will make -- because they have in the past -- is that the United States guarantee eventual withdrawal from any bases in Central Asia in return for Russian support for using those bases for the current Afghan campaign. (At present, the United States runs air logistics operations out of Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan.) The Russians do not want to see Central Asia become a U.S. sphere of influence as the result of an American military presence.

Other demands might relate to the proposed U.S. ballistic missile defense installations in the Czech Republic and Poland.

We expect the Russians to make variations on all these demands in exchange for cooperation in creating a supply line to Afghanistan. Simply put, the Russians will demand that the United States acknowledge a Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union. The Americans will not want to concede this -- or at least will want to make it implicit rather than explicit. But the Russians will want this explicit, because an explicit guarantee will create a crisis of confidence over U.S. guarantees in the countries that emerged from the Soviet Union, serving as a lever to draw these countries into the Russian orbit. U.S. acquiescence on the point potentially would have ripple effects in the rest of Europe, too.

Therefore, regardless of the global financial crisis, Obama has an immediate problem on his hands in Afghanistan. He has troops fighting there, and they must be supplied. The Pakistani supply line is no longer a sure thing. The only other options either directly challenge Russia (and ineffectively at that) or require Russian help. Russia's price will be high, particularly because Washington's European allies will not back a challenge to Russia in Georgia, and all options require Russian cooperation anyway. Obama's plan to recruit the Europeans on behalf of American initiatives won't work in this case. Obama does not want to start his administration with making a massive concession to Russia, but he cannot afford to leave U.S. forces in Afghanistan without supplies. He can hope that nothing happens in Pakistan, but that is up to the Taliban and other Islamist groups more than anyone else -- and betting on their goodwill is not a good idea.

Whatever Obama is planning to do, he will have to deal with this problem fast, before Afghanistan becomes a crisis. And there are no good solutions. But unlike with the Israelis and Palestinians, Obama can't solve this by sending a special envoy who appears to be doing something. He will have to make a very tough decision. Between the economy and this crisis, we will find out what kind of president Obama is.

And we will find out very soon.







"<a href="http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090119_obama_enters_great_game">Obama Enters the Great Game</a> is republished with permission of Stratfor."








.
 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator

Obama Is Sworn In as the 44th President



20swearing_600.jpg

Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th president of the United States during a ceremony at the
Capitol by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.


The New York Times
By CARL HULSE
Published: January 20, 2009


Barack Hussein Obama became the 44th president of the United States on Tuesday before a massive crowd reveling in a moment of historical significance, and called on Americans to confront together an economic crisis that he said was caused by “our collective failure to make hard choices.”

Mr. Obama spoke just after noon to a sea of cheering people, appearing to number well over a million, who packed the National Mall from the Capitol to the Washington Monument and beyond. Four hours later, at the end of the parade route, he left his car and strolled with his wife along Pennsylvania Avenue on the final steps of a long march to the White House, holding hands and waving to cheering crowds.

In his inaugural address, Mr. Obama acknowledged the change his presidency represented, describing himself in his inaugural address as a “man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant.” But although the crowd and the podium around him were full of elated African Americans, Mr. Obama, the first black to become president, did not dwell on that in his speech.

He spoke for about 20 minutes, after taking the oath of office on the same Bible used by Abraham Lincoln at his first inaugural in 1861, emphasizing his determination to unite Americans in confronting both the economic challenges facing him and the continuing fight against terrorism.

The problems, he warned, “are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.”

Later, during a luncheon with members of Congress, Mr. Obama urged lawmakers to come together “with a sense of purpose and civility and urgency.”

“It doesn’t mean we’re going to agree on everything,” he told the lawmakers, who are already at work on major parts of his agenda. “And I assure you our administration will make mistakes.”

The festive luncheon ended on a subdued note after Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who has brain cancer, was stricken with convulsions. Hours later, the chairman of neurosurgery at the Washington Hospital Center said Mr. Kennedy, the 76-year-old Massachusetts Democrat, had suffered a seizure from “simple fatigue,” but was awake and “feeling well” and would be released in the morning.

With his wife, Michelle, holding the Bible, Mr. Obama, the 47-year-old son of a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Africa, was sworn in by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.a few minutes after noon, a little later than planned, and spoke immediately afterward.

Because the ceremony ran slightly long, Mr. Obama did not recite the oath of office until just after noon, the moment when he officially became president. And there was an awkward moment during the swearing-in when Justice Roberts and Mr. Obama, who is famed for his elocution, mixed up their words slightly.

In his inaugural address, Mr. Obama promised to take “bold and swift” action to restore the economy by creating jobs through public works projects, improving education, promoting alternative energy and relying on new technology.

“Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America,” Mr. Obama said.

Hours later, the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, signed a memorandum sent to agencies and departments to stop all pending regulations until a legal and policy review could be conducted by the Obama administration.

Turning to foreign affairs, the new president made note of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the “far-reaching network of violence and hatred” that seek to harm the country. He used strong language in pledging to confront terrorism, nuclear proliferation and other threats from abroad, saying to the nation’s enemies, “you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”

But he also signaled a clean break from some of the Bush administration’s policies on national security. “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,” he said, adding that the United States is “ready to lead once more.”

The poet Elizabeth Alexander, in a speech following the swearing in, paid tribute to the contributions of working Americans and slaves.

“Sing the names of the dead who brought us here, who laid the train tracks, raised the bridges, picked the cotton and the lettuce, built brick by brick the glittering edifices they would then keep clean and work inside of,” she said.

Former President Bill Clinton, making his way through the Capitol after the ceremony, called the speech thoughtful, weighty and well-delivered.

“It’s obviously historic because President Obama is the first African American president, but it’s more than that,” Mr. Clinton said. “This is a time when we’re clearly making a new beginning. It’s a country of repeated second chances and new beginnings.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/politics/20web-inaug2.html?_r=1&hp
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.whitehouse.gov/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.whitehouse.gov/">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Obama retakes the oath
of office after busy first day


Out of "an abundance of caution" President
retakes oath because of flub by Chief Justice
and nip possible controversy in the bud



Wednesday, January 21, 2009
McClatchy Newspapers
By Margaret Talev


WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John G. Roberts was ushered into the Map Room of the White House on Wednesday night to re-administer the oath of office to President Barack Obama because the original oath on Tuesday had a word out of sequence.

White House counsel Greg Craig said the move was made out of "an abundance of caution." Obama's second swearing-in, devoid of the pomp of the initial event, took place at 7:35 p.m. in the presence of a few aides and reporters. The chief justice was wearing a court robe. "Are you ready to take the oath?" Roberts said. "I am," Obama said, "And we're going to do it very slowly."

The retaking of the oath followed two meetings, one with economic advisers and another with the defense secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others to discuss national security and the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Obama had said that he'd ask top military officials to give him a plan for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq over a 16-month period and redeploying some to Afghanistan. However, a senior military adviser, who wasn't authorized to speak on the matter and couldn't be named, said that no agreement was reached in the meeting on a plan for withdrawal.

Obama began his first full day in office by attending a prayer service at the Washington National Cathedral, a tradition for new presidents. He celebrated a political victory as his former presidential primary rival, Hillary Clinton, was confirmed by the Senate as secretary of state, with a vote of 94-2.

He appeared to be moving full steam ahead on plans to halt military commission trials at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention camp. The new president on Tuesday ordered a 120-day halt to the trials there. Obama was expected to sign an executive order on Thursday to close the military prison at Guantanamo. A draft order of the closure plans was circulating around Washington on Wednesday; the American Civil Liberties Union posted a copy on its Web site.

Obama also found time to call four Middle Eastern leaders on Wednesday morning: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Jordan's King Abdullah II and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement that Obama emphasized protecting a cease-fire in Gaza in part by blocking arms smuggling to Hamas and in part through reconstruction efforts.

Gibbs said that Obama thought it was important "on his first day in office to communicate his commitment to active engagement in pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace from the beginning of his term, and to express his hope for their continued cooperation and leadership."

Later, Obama announced during remarks at a swearing-in ceremony for White House staff and Cabinet officials that he'd freeze the pay of White House employees who make more than $100,000 a year. He told his senior staff that given the economic climate, "it's what's required of you at this moment."

He signed two executive orders and three memoranda to implement the pay freeze, ethics and public records changes.

The executive order on ethics prohibits executive branch employees from accepting gifts from lobbyists. It prohibits anyone who works for the administration to leave and lobby the executive branch "for as long as I am president," Obama said. It also precludes lobbyists hired by his administration from dealing with agencies on matters they lobbied about for two years.

A second order revokes an executive order signed by former President George W. Bush in 2001 that limited release of former presidents' records, and replaces it with new language aimed at more transparency. Obama's order could expand public access to the records of Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney, as well as other former leaders, in the years to come, said Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.

"It's extraordinary that a new president would address this issue on his first full day in office," Aftergood said. "It signifies the great importance he attaches to open, accountable government. The new order suggests President Obama will take a narrow view of executive privilege and assert it in a much more limited way than what we've seen in the recent past."

Bush's order gave former presidents broad ability to claim executive privilege and to designate others — including family members who survive them — to exercise executive privilege on their behalf. Obama's new order gives ex-presidents less leeway to withhold records, Aftergood said, and revokes the ability of presidents' survivors to exercise that privilege.

Another Obama memo issued on Wednesday appears to rescind a 2001 memo by Bush's then-Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft giving agencies broad legal cover to reject public disclosure requests.

"For a long time now, there's been too much secrecy in this city," Obama said. "This administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but with those who seek it to be known," Obama said. "The mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

At the staff swearing in, hours before Roberts came to the White House to re-administer the presidential oath, Vice President Joe Biden took a friendly jab at the chief justice. A day earlier, Roberts had tried to administer the oath to Obama from memory and reversed some words in it. Biden asked for a text to administer the staff oath, saying, "My memory is not as good as Justice Roberts'."

An oath of office do-over is unusual, but there are two precedents. In both cases, questions arose about the legitimacy of the oaths, which were administered following the deaths of sitting presidents.

In September 1881, when President James Garfield died, two months after he was shot by an assassin, Vice President Chester Arthur was sworn in at a private ceremony in his New York City home by a state Supreme Court justice. When President Warren G. Harding died in August 1923, Vice President Calvin Coolidge was sworn in by his father, a notary public, in a Vermont farmhouse. Arthur and Coolidge retook their oaths once they returned to Washington.

(Marisa Taylor, William Douglas, David Lightman and Nancy A. Youssef contributed to this article.)

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/60448.html
 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
AFTER 19 DAYS IN OFFICE . . .

<font size="5"><center>
Unpaid taxes, uncowed GOP:
Obama searches for his style</font size></center>



45-23web-OBAMA-major.major_story_img.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

President Barack Obama is establishing his own style.



McClatchy Newspapers
By Steven Thomma
Sunday, February 8, 2009


WASHINGTON — A few weeks into his presidency, a man with no previous executive experience is finding his leadership style being tested while he's trying to forge it.

President Barack Obama has moved with blazing speed to put his imprint on his young administration, filling out his staff and Cabinet faster than anyone in at least three decades, blasting out executive orders and pressing Congress to pass the most expensive plan in history to stimulate the sinking economy.

In his rush, he's also bypassed his own orders against hiring lobbyists, named at least three senior appointees with tax problems, been forced to admit that he "screwed up" and shifted political strategy as his hopes for quick approval of the $800 billion-plus economic stimulus proposal bogged down in Congress.

"He's beginning to learn that governing requires an entirely different set of tools than campaigning," said Larry Gerston, a political scientist at San Jose State University in California. "It goes for anyone, but in Obama's case they were flying so high that coming down to Earth has been a tough landing,"


<font size="4">So Far, What is his Style?</font size>

As he heads to the Oval Office each day, what is Obama showing the country about his executive style?

Is he the change-oriented outsider unsullied by Washington's ways or the rookie leader who really needs old insiders such as Tom Daschle, the D.C. veteran who was Obama's ill-fated choice to lead the drive for health-care restructuring before tax problems doomed his nomination as health and human services secretary?

Is he a hands-on executive who'll hammer out a deal — think Bill Clinton negotiating with Newt Gingrich — or a big-picture board chairman such as Ronald Reagan, who'll set goals, then let Congress work out the details?

Is he a new age leader of a post-partisan era who has Republicans over for drinks and signs bipartisan agreements into law or a traditional politician relying on his base to push measures through Congress while bashing the other party as obstructionist?

The answer so far is: He's a blend of all of that.

In his approach to the stimulus proposal, for example, Obama started out as the noble leader above partisan politics, confident of broad support for a plan that he said was crucial to avert catastrophe.

When Republicans signaled their first opposition to some proposals, such as money for family planning, he picked up the phone, called Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and asked him to drop it.

Yet lunching with Republicans the next day, Obama didn't mention the concession. He also apparently said nothing as Democrats in the House of Representatives watered down his original goal of $2 in tax cuts for every $3 in federal spending until the ratio ended up as $1 in tax cuts for every $2 in new spending.

This week, as Republican opposition continued, he shifted tacks. Talk of reaching out was toned down, and sharp new criticism of the Republicans took its place.

Talking to House Democrats on Thursday night in Williamsburg, Va., Obama said that he still welcomed talking with the other party but that Republicans shouldn't "come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis."

If he can shift political tactics, he's also signaled that he'll be pragmatic, even about some of his own campaign promises.

He remains publicly committed to withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months, but he also quietly asked the military to assess the pluses and minuses of longer withdrawal periods.

He signed an executive order to close the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for example, but gave the Pentagon a year to figure out what to do with the detainees.

As he works through politics and policy, Obama's also showing a personal style that's different from George W. Bush or other predecessors.

On Friday, he met with the families of 9/11 victims and sailors who were killed in the October 2000 terrorist attack on the USS Cole, many of them irate over his suspension of the military trials off men accused in the attacks. Bush seldom, if ever, met with people who strongly disagreed with him.

Obama also took responsibility for the brouhaha over his nominations of Daschle and others with tax problems. "I screwed up," he said with unusual candor for a politician.

"That message alone, even if contrived and insincere, which I don't think it was, showed a modesty and humility that suggests he might be able to turn mistakes into opportunities," said Michael A. Genovese, a political scientist at Loyola Marymount University in California.

He and others likened it to the candor that John F. Kennedy displayed when he took responsibility after the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba early in his presidency. Kennedy's willingness to admit a mistake was immensely popular. More important, it drove him to adapt as a leader, eventually leading to his administration's sure-footed response to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, which is now held up as a model of successful leadership.

As then, Obama's own style of leadership might not congeal for some time. Said Gerston: "The Obama presidency is a work in progress."

HOW MUCH DETAIL?

Each president has a unique way of governing, even the four of five recent presidents who'd been governors:

  • Jimmy Carter was so hands-on that he insisted on personally setting the schedule for the White House tennis court.

  • Ronald Reagan liked to set the big picture and leave the details to a handpicked staff.

  • Bill Clinton got into the minutiae of policy, sometimes calling aides into the wee hours of the night.

  • George W. Bush, the only president who'd earned an advanced business degree, started out indifferent, sometimes doodling on legal pads while talking to members of Congress, then grew more involved over time.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/61715.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
`

img_1152206756.jpg

<font size="3">Beyond the News Cycle</font size> “Politically, as the dust settles, I
suspect Obama outfoxed his opponents, again. They are playing
the 24 hour news cycle game. Obama isn’t. That’s why he’s
president. Eventually, they’ll figure it out.”



<IFRAME SRC="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/02/the-sausage-eme.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/02/the-sausage-eme.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator
inside the obama's white house

<div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/31073805#31073805" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div>
:yes:
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: inside the obama's white house

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.politico.com/politico44/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.politico.com/politico44/">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: inside the obama's white house

<font size="5"><center>
With Obama's Tucson speech,
his presidency turns a corner</font size></center>



s701-13web-obama-wide.wide_photo.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

First lady Michele Obama, middle, hugs Mark Kelly, husband of Rep. Gabrielle
Giffords. | Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times/MCT



McClatchy Newspapers
By Steven Thomma
ursday, January 13, 2011


WASHINGTON — There are moments that define a presidency, and Barack Obama's speech Wednesday night to a memorial service for Arizona shooting victims may be one.

First in a moving eulogy to those who died, then in the uplifting tales of those who acted heroically, finally in his call to the nation to live up to the ideals of a slain 9-year-old girl, Obama recaptured, at least temporarily, the appeal that first thrust him onto the national stage — the sense that the country is a family that yearns to be united, not divided.

"It reminded us of how he got to be president," said Wayne Fields, an English professor at Washington University in St. Louis and an expert on presidential rhetoric. "It wasn't because of something he was. It was something that we longed for. That was to be whole."

Obama's speech was born of tragedy in Saturday's shooting rampage in Tucson that killed 6 and injured 13, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz. All were gunned down while participating in one of the most basic rituals of American democracy — ordinary people meeting with their member of Congress.

A relatively new phenomenon of American public life, the role of president as the nation's counselor at times of tragedy dates only to Ronald Reagan, who in his 1986 speech after the space shuttle Challenger exploded, showed the world how to channel a nation's grief, put sacrifice into context and point the way forward.

The Tucson shootings presented a test of whether Obama could rise to the challenge — and opportunity — as Reagan did, as Bill Clinton did after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and as George W. Bush did after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Obama wrote much of his remarks himself, and worked with speechwriter Cody Keenan since Monday. He was still making changes after landing in Arizona Wednesday afternoon, and inserted its most dramatic line backstage just minutes before walking into the arena at the University of Arizona.

That was his revelation that the critically injured Giffords had opened her eyes just minutes before, something he learned from her husband on the short limo ride from hospital to arena. People in the arena cheered and cried at the news.

"A powerful moment," Fields said.

Obama started the speech with what amounted to a eulogy for the fallen, telling in simple words the stories of those who'd been killed.

He followed with the stories of those who acted heroically, such as the intern who went to Giffords' aid, the man who instinctively tried to shield his wife from harm, the woman who wrestled with the gunman to take away his ammunition before he could shoot more.

Though he cited Scripture in the emotionally charged account, Obama spoke only about the people involved that day, moving the audience with stories of their lives and actions, not with lofty rhetoric.

"You don't get the phrases you'll rush out and put on a stained glass window," said Fields, author of a book on presidential speechmaking, "Union of Words."

"The moment belongs to the victims and so he tells their story. So many of the speeches in recent days from both the left and right all came back to being about me. He's comfortable not making the occasion solely about him."

Obama built to a crescendo of sorts when he turned finally to the story of Christina Taylor Green, the precocious 9-year-old who was interested in public service and was killed while waiting to meet her congresswoman.

"I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it. I want America to be as good as she imagined it," he said.

With two daughters himself, Obama looked down and appeared to pause to control his emotions at one point while speaking about Christina.

It was a rare glimpse of the personal in a president whose cool demeanor — critics call it a disconnect — stands in contrast to the more emotive Clinton or Bush.

"He was more emotional than I've seen him," said Martha Joynt Kumar, a scholar of presidential communications from Towson University in Maryland. "He was very real, very genuine."

Watching the speech on TV at a Washington restaurant — the major networks interrupted entertainment programming to show Obama's remarks — Kumar said patrons had tears in their eyes.

"The nation stopped," she said. "People stopped and listened and felt the tragedy."

Obama at first appeared surprised by the cheers and applause in the arena.

"I read the speech several times and thought that there wouldn't be a lot of applause, if any," said Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary.

While the bursts of applause and cheers struck some observers, most watching on TV from somewhere else, as inappropriate for a memorial service, aides and analysts said it reflected the venue — a basketball arena rather than a church — and the yearning of Arizonans for good news in a terrible week.

Gibbs said they needed to celebrate the lives of the victims.

For Obama, the speech offered a chance to return to a theme he's talked about periodically, the need for a more civil and less partisan politics. That was the message he delivered as an Illinois state senator at the 2004 Democratic National Convention — the speech that made him a national star — and it also drove much of his appeal in 2008.

Even one of his most vocal critics, talk show host Glenn Beck, lauded the speech.

"This is probably the best speech he has ever given, and with all sincerity, thank you Mr. President, for becoming the president of the UNITED States of America," Beck said Thursday.

It also allowed Obama a new chance to connect with the American people at a moment of maximum exposure.

"Every president begins his term with the almost undivided attention of the American public. But that window of opportunity shrinks almost every day. A moment like this re-expands that window of opportunity," said Dan Schnur, the director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.

"He's always been criticized for being emotionally distant. This may have been the first opportunity since his election to redevelop an emotional connection with voters. . . . By giving a nonpolitical speech, he gave himself an opportunity to benefit politically."



http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/13/106801/with-obamas-tucson-speech-his.html
 

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator
Barack Obama in Russia. 2005 year

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/96e_1295286840"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/96e_1295286840" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>
:cool:
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Barack Obama in Russia. 2005 year


It’s official:
Obama sworn in for second term


13l5mt.WiPh2.91.jpg

President Barack Obama is officially sworn-in by Chief Justice John Roberts
during the 57th Presidential Inauguration in Washington D.C. | Larry Downing/
AP



January 20, 2013


WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama was officially sworn into office for a second term Sunday in a small private ceremony at the White House.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. administered the oath to the 44th president as he was surrounded by only a few family members.

Obama will participate in the traditional -- and much more flashy -- public swearing-in on the steps of the U.S. Capitol Monday, following the lead of his predecessors whose first day in office, as prescribed by the Constitution, fell on a Sunday. Between 600,000 and 800,000 are expected to attend Monday.



Public Ceremony - Tomorrow



SOURCE



 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Barack Obama in Russia. 2005 year


McClatchy-Marist Poll:
Obama gets worst ratings of his presidency​



McClatchy Washington Bureau
By David Lightman
December 9, 2013


WASHINGTON — The American public is unusually pessimistic about the direction of the country and increasingly fed up with Washington gridlock, a sour mood reflected in the worst disapproval ratings for President Barack Obama since he took office nearly five years ago.

People give elected officials unusually low grades – 31 percent rated them “D” and 38 percent gave them an “F,” according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.

“The lack of confidence in Washington to right itself is showing up,” said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in New York.

Obama’s disapproval rating climbed to 53 percent – the worst in 29 polls since he took office in January 2009 – while 43 percent approved of his job performance. The disapproval number was up sharply from the 47 percent reading in September and tops the previous high of 52 percent in September 2011.

Obama retained strong support among Democrats – 77-18 percent approval – and disdain from Republicans – 90-8 percent disapproval. Independents disapproved 56 percent to 41 percent.

Obama’s personal ratings were also down. By 52 percent to 46 percent, people had an unfavorable impression of him, the first time since November 2011 the negative number was higher. The unfavorable number was also the worst he’s endured.​

Obama in recent weeks has been battered by turmoil over his health care program. The highly touted website where people could sign up for coverage proved to be a dysfunctional embarrassment, and Obama had to backtrack from his assertion that people could keep their plans if they wanted.

Congress fared even worse. By 74 percent to 22 percent, voters disapprove of the Republicans’ performance, the highest since the question was first asked in April 2011. Republicans control the House of Representatives and 45 of the Senate’s 100 seats.

People soured on Democrats, too. Sixty-four percent disapproved of congressional Democrats, who control the Senate. Both Republican and Democratic disapproval numbers were up sharply from the last poll in July.

The numbers show that “the unsures have cast their vote with the negatives,” Miringoff said.

The key reason for the glum ratings is the economy. Though indicators suggest a healthy rebound, people aren’t feeling it. Instead, said Miringoff, the two Washington stories that have dominated headlines in recent months were the 16-day October government shutdown and the health care chaos.

That helped create pessimism that found two-thirds seeing things going in the wrong direction, while 30 percent felt matters were heading in the right direction.

Democrats were more optimistic, with the right-wrong direction split 57 percent to 40 percent. Republicans overwhelmingly saw the country moving the wrong way – 95 percent to 4 percent – and independents saw matters heading in the wrong direction, 69 percent to 26 percent.

The federal budget drama is the most obvious symbol of Washington inertia. Lawmakers have wrangled all year, passing stopgaps after extended, often bitter debate. Negotiators this week are said to be close on a deal that will avoid another shutdown when money again runs out Jan. 15.

Obama gets low marks for his handling of the economy. Fifty-eight percent disapproved of how he’s dealing with it, while 40 percent approved.

More people blame Republicans for the budget mess – 48 percent said it’s their fault while 38 percent named Obama.

Obama suffered in two other areas where he had shown some strength, foreign policy and personal appeal.

The latest poll was conducted after the administration announced a pact with Iran that eases some sanctions on that country, in exchange for some limits on Iran’s nuclear program.

That plan has won little congressional support, as lawmakers from both parties have expressed doubts. Forty-six percent approved of Obama’s handling of foreign policy, while 51 percent did not.

Voters have mixed views about how all this will translate in next year’s elections. Equal numbers – 43 percent – said they would vote for a Republican or a Democratic candidate. Independents preferred Republicans, 41 percent to 34 percent, while moderates favored Democrats, 49 percent to 35 percent.


Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/12/09/211090/mcclatchy-marist-poll-obama-gets.html#storylink=cpy



 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Obama Faces Growing Expectations on Race and Policing


22OBAMA-web-master768.jpg

Audience members greeted President Obama after he spoke at the White House Summit on Global
Development on Wednesday. Credit Al Drago/The New York Times


The New York Times
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
JULY 21, 2016


WASHINGTON — At the White House last week, DeRay Mckesson, a Black Lives Matter activist who was arrested only days before in Baton Rouge, La., for protesting police violence against African-Americans, had a lengthy list of demands for President Obama.

The president should visit Baton Rouge and other cities where black men have been killed by police officers, appoint special prosecutors to investigate the deaths and use his executive power to force changes in police departments across the country, Mr. Mckesson said.

The next day, a distraught Erica Garner, whose father, Eric Garner, was killed in 2014 by a New York City police officer who placed him in a chokehold, accosted Mr. Obama after a televised town-hall-style meeting with demands of her own. Why have no police officers been convicted or sent to jail for killing black men, and what was he doing to rid police departments of the tactical military equipment that made community protest routes resemble war zones, she asked.

As Mr. Obama responds to the latest in fatal confrontations between police officers and black men — this time followed by lethal attacks in Dallas and Baton Rouge on law enforcement officers by black gunmen — he has also confronted a growing list of expectations that young black activists have placed on him.

In private meetings and impromptu conversations with Mr. Obama, Black Lives Matter activists and others who share their goals have questioned why a president they see as uniquely aware of racism is not doing more to help them.

It’s complicated, Mr. Obama tries to explain — a response he acknowledges is accurate and unsatisfying.

“I feel like the black community is not being listened to, including by the president,” Ms. Garner said in an interview. “We can’t expect him to do everything, but he is the leader, and he can point us in the right direction to ensure that we can get justice.”​


Mr. Obama gave his condolences to Ms. Garner but said he was not in a position to offer more because it would be seen, he said, as placing his thumb on the scales during an open Justice Department investigation into what happened to her father. As for the military-style equipment used by police forces, the president said, his administration had addressed the issue, a response that Ms. Garner later called “a brushoff.”

The confrontations highlighted Mr. Obama’s struggle to respond to the Black Lives Matter movement, a diffuse group unlike established civil rights organizations that have deep relationships at the White House and on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Obama first invited Black Lives Matter activists to the White House in 2014 after unrest in Ferguson, Mo., following the killing of an unarmed black man, Michael Brown, by a white police officer. White House officials said at the time that the activists had grievances but few constructive suggestions. Mr. Obama has prodded them to focus on solutions.

“The goal of protest isn’t just to protest for the sake of protesting,” he said at last week’s town-hall-style meeting. “The goal of protest is to then get the attention of decision-makers and sit down and say, ‘Here’s what we would like to see,’ and have a negotiation, which over time can actually lead to improvements in the system.”

The president, his advisers say, identifies with the protesters’ cause — a former community organizer, he spoke at last week’s meeting about his experiences of being discriminated against by police officers and others — but as the person who appoints the nation’s top law enforcement official, he is equally sensitive to police concerns.

“His empathy isn’t only with the movement, it’s also with the enormous challenge that law enforcement officers have,” said Valerie Jarrett, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser. “He can feel both perspectives because he is of both perspectives.”

In his meeting with Mr. Mckesson at the White House last week — a four-hour session that included activists and law enforcement and elected officials — Mr. Obama said, according to accounts from several in attendance, that it would not be appropriate for him to visit Ferguson or other cities where police killings of black men have occurred. Visits with the families in those places, he said, could be seen as siding with them in open investigations.

The president thanked Mr. Mckesson pointedly for what he called a long “to-do list,” and he added that his willingness to take hours out of his packed schedule should indicate his seriousness about addressing problems of race and policing.

A night later at the town-hall-style meeting, Mr. Obama offered up a defense of Black Lives Matter against critics who have said the movement is inherently racist.

“The phrase ‘black lives matter’ simply refers to the notion that there’s a specific vulnerability for African-Americans that needs to be addressed,” he said. “It’s not meant to suggest that other lives don’t matter; it’s to suggest that other folks aren’t experiencing this particular vulnerability.”

Although Mr. Mckesson and other activists praise Mr. Obama for inviting them to the White House, they say he has not lived up to his promises from that first meeting in 2014.

“He’s actually backtracking in terms of what we asked him to do: to talk about the epidemic of policing and minority communities, to really identify the problem, to acknowledge the disparities and to come behind us as a black president especially,” said Ashley Yates, an organizer in Oakland, Calif., who attended the 2014 session.

Ms. Yates said she was particularly stung by an open letter Mr. Obama wrote to law enforcement officials this week in which he named and praised in personal terms one of the officers killed in Dallas — something she said he had not done for the black men killed by police officers.

“We do know this is risky business for him and there are political repercussions, but we’re also asking more of our black president — and we’re not seeing it,” Ms. Yates said.

Ms. Jarrett said the criticism ignored important progress that had been made in the two years since Mr. Obama created a policing task force that presented recommendations in 2015 on building trust between law enforcement officials and communities. Twelve states have adopted policies informed by the report.

The administration has also expanded federal grants for body cameras, putting 21,000 on the street. The White House has started data initiatives to better target law enforcement resources and increase transparency about how the police do their work. And Mr. Obama issued an executive order last year to limit the kinds of military equipment federal agencies can provide to local law enforcement agencies.

Brittany Packnett, a member of the policing commission who has done both policy work and community organizing, said she had encouraged fellow activists to aim high in what they are asking of the president, even as her own expectations of what he can do are tempered by experience.

“We should absolutely ask for everything that we need from this president,” said Ms. Packnett, who has met with Mr. Obama several times, including last week. “And also know that we’re not going to get it all now, and we’re not going to get it all from him.”



SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/obama-police-race.html?_r=1



.
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
After getting caught with building a police state, the government manufactured a threat with ISIS to retain this ability and to scare away reforms.
 
Top