POTUS Feed

Obama Increases Support of AIDS Programs, but U.S. Can’t Fight Disease Alone

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:57:17 GMT

President Obama declared yesterday’s World AIDS Day as “the beginning of the end of AIDS.” To that end, he earmarked $50 million for domestic treatment of the 1.2 million Americans who suffer from HIV and AIDS and praised former president George W. Bush’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, saying that the initiative is one of his predecessor’s “greatest legacies.”

While HIV and AIDS rates are decreasing globally, America’s number of infected citizens has remained somewhat stagnant over the years. President Obama said in front of an audience including Bill Clinton, Bono, and Senator Marco Rubio, “there are communities in this country being devastated by this disease. When new infections among young, black, gay men increase by nearly 50 percent in three years, we need to do more to show them that their lives matter.” And with this new initiative, he has, albeit with a nominal amount of money.

However, just because global HIV/AIDS rates are decreasing, it doesn’t mean that the international community is anywhere close to eradicating the virus. There are currently as estimated 33.4 million people in the world who are infected with HIV or AIDS; 2.1 million of whom are children.

With that in mind, yesterday President Obama built upon G.W. Bush’s relief plan by pledging to help 6 million people from across the globe get access to much-needed antiretroviral drugs by 2014. That’s an increase of 2 million people the U.S. originally pledged to help.

The global financial crisis has devastated international AIDS programs. Most notably, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which is the world’s largest financial institution dedicated to AIDS funding, has raised less than half of the $20 billion it had hoped to distribute to HIV/AIDS programs in 2012. The United States has historically been the largest donor country to the Global Fund, usually contributing over 33% of total country donations. In 2010 alone, the U.S. donated $1.05 billion. However, due to America’s poor economic standing, the budget for Bush’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is not expected to increase anytime soon.

In an effort to counter America’s inability to increase its relief budget, President Obama called upon the international community, specifically China, to join in the fight against AIDS, "Countries that haven't made a pledge need to do so. That includes China and other major economies that are now able to step up as major donors."

Obama’s pointed remarks for China follow on the heels of his return from an extensive trip to Southeast Asia, where he called upon China to reform its economic practices or risk throwing the global economy off-kilter. While those remarks were met defensively by the rising world power, one would hope that the President’s goal of eradicating AIDS will be met with compassion. As Obama said yesterday, “we are winning this fight. But the fight is not over, not by a long shot.” And it won’t be without the aid of China and the rest of the global community.

The War of Words Between Obama and China

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:21:44 GMT

President Obama may be visiting Australia this week, but while he’s talking to Prime Minister Julia Gillard, it seems his thoughts are occupied with China.

Obama’s trip to Canberra celebrates the 60^th anniversary of the defense treaty between the US and Australian governments. As a sign of America’s reaffirmation of that treaty, Obama has pledged to send 250 Marines to various Australian military bases for six-month stints. Within the next five years, 2,500 American troops are expected to serve tours in Australia in an effort to boost America’s presence in an area close to South East Asia.

Fresh from the APEC Summit earlier this week, Obama’s military commitment to Australia reflects America’s growing concern over China becoming the next world superpower. While President Obama assured the world stage that he “welcome[s] the peaceful rise of China,” he also had some harsh words for its government: “when it comes to [China’s] economic practices, there are a range of things that they have done that disadvantage not just the United States but a whole host of their trading partners and countries in the region.”

Obama cited issues with China’s currency and its snail’s pace at moving towards a market-based system that would make American exports to China cheaper. According to the Administration, China’s reluctance to import goods from foreign countries “throws the whole world economy out of balance.” In addition, China does not do enough to protect the intellectual property rights of foreign innovators. One only has to look at the ChiPad to realize that China is producing low-cost versions of high-end products invented in other countries.

Obama spent the summit vacillating between wanting to be China’s friend and business partner and warning them not to take advantage of us, saying “enough is enough.” For his part, Chinese President Hu Jintao stuck to his message that the two countries can work together with “mutual respect and mutual interest.”

However, while Hu Jintao may have kept his cool during his meetings with President Obama, the state-controlled Chinese media were busy counterstriking Obama’s attacks. The Xinhua News Agency questioned Obama’s interest in Chinese business while the American economy continues to decline: "Obama, whose job approval rating continues to slip, seems to be staking his reelection on high-profile diplomatic ambitions in Asia Pacific, as he is failing to bring America's slack economy back to the path of strong growth in his first term."

The Chinese media are looking to discredit Obama’s criticisms, saying he is focusing on China as a way to distract Americans from our own struggling economy. However, the proposed strategy would only be effective if the average American citizen were literate in foreign affairs. As it stands, most Americans are concerned with what is going on in their own backyards, and it’s not that surprising that Obama is trailing Republican contender Mitt Romney in New Hampshire by ten points. So at least in one regard, the Chinese media has got it right: While Obama is busy touring South East Asia this week, this thoughts should really be occupied by what is going on back home.

Obama Ignores Child Soldiers Protection Act for the Second Year in a Row

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:52:25 GMT

It pains me to write this article…again.

Last November, I wrote about President Obama’s decision to waive restrictions under the Child Soldiers Protection Act (CSPA) of 2008 that allowed Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Yemen and Sudan to receive American military aid despite the fact that they actively recruited children under 15 years of age for their respective military forces. The reasons given for the waiver originated from a desire to foster cooperation between the States and these countries in an effort to thwart terrorism. At that time, we were assured by the Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs, Samantha Power, that these four countries would not “get so lucky next time if we don't see some progress” by 2011.

Well, guess what? It’s 2011 and these countries have made minimal, if any, progress against the recruitment of child soldiers; and yet, the Obama Administration has decided to continue to turn a blind eye in order to keep Chad, DRC, Yemen and what is now South Sudan under US influence.

According to the official memorandum, the Administration insists that Chad has implemented sufficient measures to prohibit the recruitment of child soldiers. Those measures have manifested into the mainly symbolic gesture of signing a United Nations action plan. However, to give credit where credit is due, it is important to point out that the U.N. Country-Led Task Force on Monitoring and Reporting Children and Armed Conflict recently reported that is has not “verified” any child recruitment on the part of Chad’s government.

As for the DRC, the White House admits that while the country has taken some small steps in order to comply with the CSPA, the changes made “do not yet represent the kind of institutional change required to make real progress toward eliminating child soldiers.” However, the Administration insists that it is in our country’s national interest to continue to fund the DRC, so, as a type of compromise, the U.S. will withhold $1.3 million in military financing, but allow military training to continue. However, as Foreign Policy’s blog, The Cable, points out, military financing for Chad was already prohibited through the Trafficking Victims Prevention Act, which basically means that Chad receives no punitive measures for violating the CSPA.

On the other side of the coin, Yemen has made no effort whatsoever to comply with the CSPA, but the country will continue to receive the full amount of allocated financial aid from the States in the name of national security. Obama reasons that “cooperation with the Yemeni government is a vital piece of the U.S. national strategy to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qa’ida … by denying them sanctuary in the ungoverned spaces of Yemen’s hinterlands.” Basically, without U.S. aid, Yemen’s counterterrorism missions will be compromised. This is the same excuse the Administration gave last year.

But unlike last year, the Administration didn’t even bother to come up with an excuse as to why South Sudan should continue to receive aid despite its breach of the CSPA. According to The Cable, the last report on child soldiers was released June 27, 2011—twelve days before South Sudan gained independence from the Republic of Sudan. Because of this technicality, the State Department insists that South Sudan does not qualify to fall under the CSPA. In fact, the country wasn’t even mentioned in the Administration’s official memorandum, so South Sudan will receive $100 million in military aid this year.

When I first wrote about this story last November, I lamented the fact that ForeignPolicy.com was the only news outlet to fully cover this story. Unfortunately, it still is. Last year, I said that in the same way Obama tried to shame these countries by calling them out on their use of child soldiers, the President himself should be ashamed for continuing to support these countries financially despite their clear violations of the CSPA. Unfortunately, he still should be. However, because the President’s decision regarding the CSPA will never reach media saturation, this betrayal of yet another one of his promises will not affect his standing in the polls or the upcoming presidential election. Unfortunately, it will surely affect the child soldiers currently fighting, and dying, in the military forces of Chad, South Sudan, the DRC and Yemen.

Rick Perry to America: The Sky is Falling and I Have the Only Umbrella

Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:10:08 GMT

Quick, everyone! Hide under your desks! Bury your gold! No one is safe!

What, you didn’t hear the news? Don’t you know that the world is ending? It’s true; all the evidence is in Rick Perry’s new political ad, “Rick Perry: Proven Leadership.” That’s right, and if we believe what he says, the only way to save the “last great hope for mankind” (which is America, of course) is to kick the villainous President Obama out of the White House and elect the God-fearing, shooting-coyotes-while-jogging, Senator from Texas, Rick Perry.

So if you don’t feel like spending upwards of $15 to go see the movie Contagion in theaters, just watch the first 44 seconds of Perry’s ad to see what America would look like if Obama’s political plague isn’t stopped. Perry hired directorial wunderkind, Lucas Baiano, the 23-year-old mastermind behind former candidate Tim Pawlenty’s eye-catching political ads, to set the scene of a post-apocalyptic America that Obama single-handedly created: subway cars run empty, people are begging in the streets, and Times Square is devoid of pedestrians. A dramatic score worthy of any Michael Bay flick plays in the background as a barrage of fast cuts show newscasters reporting zero-job growth in the past months. And then, following the formula of a high-budget movie trailer, the sentence, “US Poverty Rate Hits All-Time High,” flashes across the screen like it’s a movie review from the Rolling Stone.

Obama is easily painted as the American economy’s number one villain. We hear him saying as a washed-out image of his old and tattered campaign poster emerges on the screen, “I love these folks who... say this is Obama's economy. That's fine. Give it to me.” In reality, the BBC points out that Obama’s actual quote was, “"I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, ‘Well, this is Obama's economy’. That's fine. Give it to me.” But facts don’t matter when our country is in such peril. Right before the commercial reaches it dramatic climax, we hear President Obama tell a crowd: “I’m just getting started!”

Then, just as your blood-pressure starts to rise to unhealthy proportions, the screen goes black and our hero arrives. Horses gallop on the beach, the sun rises, and Senator Rick Perry speaks: “A renewed nation needs a new president.” Suddenly, American flags are everywhere; people are back to work, farms flourish, and a picture of Rick Perry looking strong and confident in his old military uniform hovers on the TV. And just like a teaser for a summer action-thriller, these words appear across the screen: “In 2012... America will discover... a new name for leadership... an American who served for freedom... a president who will lead a nation…Perry for President”

It’s a beautiful thing. This ad is so well made that it necessitates repeated viewings. And its message, at least in the beginning, is hard to argue with: America is not in a good place right now. According to an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, America hasn’t been in a good place for the last eight years. And Perry’s campaign team has come up with a great nickname for President Obama: “President Zero”—as in zero jobs, zero change, and zero hope.

Perry isn’t the only candidate smartly exploiting our current economic woes to gain points in the upcoming presidential election. Fellow Republican contender Mitt Romney took a somewhat subtler approach last month when he said, “We stand near the threshold of profound economic misery…Four more years on the same political path could prove disastrous.” While the message doesn’t overload our senses like Perry’s video does, it definitely left his audience feeling depressed and hopeless in the same way.

Obama and his fellow Democrats always knew that the President would have a hard-fought time gaining constituents’ confidence in 2012, but Rick Perry just made it that much more difficult. This ad captures the imagination, and dare I say it, leaves us wanting more. Well, at least more from director Lucas Baiano, who, by the way, was born and raised in Canada. The future does seem bright for the up-and-coming filmmaker, who also directed political ads for Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Unfortunately, Baiano’s talents will make Obama’s prospects all the more dismal, and as for the “last hope great hope for mankind,” America, whatever the outcome of 2012 is, it look likes it’s not going to become that much brighter.

Obama & Boehner: Fighting Over All the Wrong Things

Thu, 01 Sep 2011 15:21:36 GMT

Yesterday, President Obama sent a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell requesting a joint session of Congress for his speech on job, growth scheduled for September 7^th. Obama has been touting this speech for weeks, and in his eyes, this will be a Very Big Deal—something that deserves the same audience as a State of the Union address.

One would think that an event like this—the goal of which is to not only turn around the struggling economy but also Obama’s struggling re-election campaign—should be scheduled so that the President is assured of the largest audience possible without the distraction of other highly publicized concurrent events. Surprisingly however, the Obama White House choose to take the opposite approach and, in what had to be a calculated move, scheduled the President’s big speech at the same time that Republican presidential candidates are set to take the stage for an NBC-Politico presidential debate at the Reagan Library. The date of the GOP debate was scheduled as early as May, so no one can say that the White House wasn’t aware of the prime-time conflict.

Regardless, Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney insists that the timing of the events was just coincidence. When directly asked about the matter, he explained, “There are a lot of factors that go into scheduling a joint session of Congress for a speech. You can never find a perfect time…There are many channels to watch the president and to watch the debate.” Carney’s response did little to appease the GOP. Ron Paul’s campaign manager called the seemingly-deliberate scheduling conflict “undignified” and hinted that Paul was thinking of trying to force a roll-call vote to block the President’s request. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus called the assumed-tactic a “thinly-veiled political ploy” that “cements his reputation as Campaigner-in-Chief.” Despite the outrage, the GOP remained firm and chose not to reschedule their debate for another day.

Boehner, for his part, wasted little time in drafting his own letter to the President, asking him to delay his speech by one day, citing security concerns. While it’s hard to believe that the original scheduling conflict was just a coincidence, it’s even more difficult to believe that Boehner’s real reason for requesting a delay is due to logistics.

After Boehner chose to publicly spar with the Commander-in-Chief, spectators from both sides of the aisle waited eagerly last night for Obama to respond. The question on everyone’s mind was whether Obama would stand his ground or let the GOP call the shots—something that he has been apt to do over the past year.

So it might have come as a disappointment, if not a surprise, that the White House chose to reschedule what was supposed to be one of Obama’s most important policy speeches for Thursday, September 8^th. Now, instead of competing for ratings with the GOP presidential debate, the President has to compete with the NFL’s opening game between the Packers and the Saints. Good luck with that.

Today, disenchanted Democrats will whine about Obama’s lack of gumption, and Republicans will revel in what will be perceived as another victory for the GOP. However, both parties will mistakenly invest their emotions into this trifling tug-of-war, because in the end, this public sparring just solidifies the average American’s assumption that nothing can get done in Washington. This was a minor tussle between an unpopular president and an unpopular congress. In the end, no one wins.

Save Every Job But His Own

Wed, 17 Aug 2011 20:23:22 GMT

President Obama is wrapping up his three-day tour across the country in his brand new big black bus. The trip was meant to reassure the American people that the President hasn’t forgotten them and is working to spur job creation. Unfortunately for the Commander-in-Chief, his three-day foray across the nation is only giving the GOP another reason to attack his leadership abilities, pointing out that he should be focused on running the country instead of running for re-election. As RNC chair Reince Priebus wrote Tuesday in an op-ed for Politico, “[Obama’s] bus trip has the trappings of a taxpayer-funded campaign jaunt — not a policy tour.”

Amidst the copious criticisms that President Obama is more worried about saving his job than saving the country, former press secretary and current campaign advisor, Robert Gibbs, appeared on MSNBC on Tuesday to tell the nation that “the president is not focused on keeping his job, most of all. He's focused on creating jobs for the American people."

To that end, on Monday the President announced during a town hall meeting in Decorah, Iowa that when Congress resumes their session in September, he’ll “be putting forward…a very specific plan to boost the economy, to create jobs, and to control our deficit.” After the applause died down, Obama added, “And if they don’t get it done, then we’ll be running against a Congress that’s not doing anything for the American people, and the choice will be very stark and will be very clear.”

While the specifics of his package remain elusive, we know that Obama is squarely focused on addressing job creation and deficit reduction. Like in the past, he is expected to urge Congress to streamline the patent process and call for an infrastructure bank that would help the construction industry. Both of these actions will only yield results in the long run. Obama will also put forth a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan that would dwarf the $1.5 trillion that the Super Committee was tasked with finding by Thanksgiving. He also hopes to revive the “grand bargain” that he and Speaker Boehner came close to agreeing on in July.

It’s doubtful that Obama will make any grand revelations or that much of what he will say in his September speech will come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. Because of this, Obama’s package has already been preemptively attacked by the Republican Party. Most notably, one of Speaker Boehner’s spokesmen, Brendan Buck, tweeted this morning, “We really don't need another speech - just a plan, like, on paper. Seriously, just drop it in the mail. Podium not required. Thanks.”

It would be good for the President’s mental health if Robert Gibbs spoke the truth when he said that Obama is not preoccupied with saving his own job, because so far, he’s not doing very well. On Monday, the President’s approval rating hit an all time low at 39%. With numbers like that, the only way he may be employed come January 20, 2013 is if he can secure employment for others.

It’s 2007 in 2011: RNC Uses Clinton’s Old Campaign Cry

Thu, 04 Aug 2011 17:59:45 GMT

Remember way back in 2007, when George W. Bush was still Commander-in-Chief and most Americans had never heard of the term “debt ceiling”? That year, the competition to win the Democratic national primary between the then-senators from New York and Illinois, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, was just heating up.

No exciting presidential campaign is complete without a little mud-slinging, and that primary was nothing if not exciting. One of Clinton’s favorite mud-pies was Obama’s voting record during his time as state senator. During that tenure, the future President of the United States chose to abstain from casting an “aye” or “nay” vote and instead chose to merely mark himself as “present” almost 130 times. Clinton pounced on this fact as evidence that Obama lacked leadership ability and experience.

Fast forward to 2011, and Hillary Clinton’s words are now being used against her own party. RNC chair Reince Priebus and Pat Brady, Chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, held a press conference yesterday in Chicago, Obama’s home turf where he cast those damning votes. There, Brady channeled Hillary Clinton’s campaign battle cry and told the press, “Anybody who is actually from here and watched Senator Obama in both the state Senate and the United States Senate—he did not have a history of leadership. In fact if you recall, Hillary Clinton raised in one of the debates he voted present 126 times in the Illinois Senate…I think it’s instructive that in Illinois the button that you push when you’re voting present is yellow.”

To be fair to the President, during his 8 years as a state senator, he cast a total of 4,000 “aye” or “nay” votes and 50 of those 126 “present” votes were cast as part of a larger strategy with other democratic state senators. However, 36 other times Obama clearly acted alone and his motives for those votes remain elusive.

Yesterday at the press conference Priebus added fuel to Brady’s fire and said, “After failing to lead during the debt-ceiling debate, I think you can say the fundraiser in chief is back in Chicago doing the one thing that he’s really good at—and that’s raising money to save his job.” Indeed, after canceling 10 scheduled fundraisers due to the debt ceiling crisis, President Obama has restarted his 2012 campaign in earnest. At the same time that Priebus and Brady were talking to the press, the President was also in Chicago to celebrate his 50^th birthday with a huge fundraising effort and kicked off the festivities with a speech, saying “it starts now.”

And now on his 50^th birthday, Obama must again defend himself against the same attacks that threatened to thwart his campaign four years ago. It was unfortunate that the contest between Clinton and Obama was so hotly contended that it almost tore the Democratic Party apart, but now it would be wise if Clinton stepped up to defend her boss to secure her party’s leadership. Because even though she ultimately lost the primary, Hillary Clinton was just a little too good at campaigning, and now she needs to do it again.

My Fellow Americans, Lend Me Your Cell Phones!

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:15:03 GMT

My colleague just got off the phone with his congressman. Like millions of Americans, last night he watched the President’s 15-minute prime-time address during which Obama urged the nation to call or email their members of Congress to encourage them to reach a compromise on the debt ceiling. The nation listened and consequently dozens of Congressional websites crashed due to the increased traffic of frustrated Americans. Today, the phones on Capital Hill are still ringing off the hook.

The majority of Americans feel powerless as the August 2^nd deadline approaches too quickly. The only consolation we, as a people, can take is that our leaders in Washington, D.C. seem to feel just as frustrated. And while it might be heartening to hear that many Americans still care enough about their country to become actively involved in politics, the fact remains that Washington is, as President Obama said, “a town where compromise has become a dirty word.”

Both Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have presented plans deemed unfit by the opposing parties. However, that does not mean that the plans don’t share similarities. Each plan is entitled the “Budget Control Act of 2011,” and both share the same budget numbers for Fiscal Year 2013 and use the same language to propose the creation of a joint committee to continue investigating the debate.

These similarities offer an avenue for compromise, but perhaps in part because of this both Boehner and Reid have not only failed to sell their respective plans to the opposition, but have also failed to sell it to their own parties. Boehner is facing so much opposition from the GOP that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor had to step in and tell House Republicans to stop “grumbling and whining” about their leader’s plan.

While both congressmen have been metaphorically banished from their lunch tables, President Obama’s popularity seems to have been the hardest hit. His approval rating has dropped to 43% in the past week. The New York Times’ David Brooks called the speech Obama gave on Friday “condescending” and said the President personalized the debt ceiling debate “like a spurned prom date.”

Perhaps knowing that the American people feel just as vulnerable as he does, last night Obama offered Americans an outlet to vent their frustrations: “If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.”

It remains to be seen and is, in fact, highly doubtful that any concrete change will come from crashing websites and jamming up phone lines. But we did send that message to our Senators and Representatives and in doing so, we each felt a little less powerless—and maybe, if we feel like it, we can thank the President for offering that small comfort. Now, if you please excuse me, I have to go make a phone call.

Unemployment Won’t Matter to Voters—Unless They’re Unemployed

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 17:18:11 GMT

“People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate,” declared White House Senior Advisor David Plouffe. “They’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’” All yesterday morning, Plouffe confidently predicted that the average voter won’t make decisions based on far-reaching concepts like the GDP or jobless rates when it comes time to head to the polls. This morning, however, Plouffe may have to eat his words.

When President Obama woke up today, he was greeted with the news that the unemployment rate had risen from 9.1% to 9.2% in June, and that the major loss of government jobs in the last month dramatically offset the gains made in the private sector, meaning only 18,000 jobs were created in June.

This news, coupled with the fact that in two days Obama will meet with top Congressional leaders once again to discuss the increasingly desperate attempt to raise the debt ceiling, perhaps excused the President from showing up over half an hour late to his own press conference this morning. Standing in the White House Rose Garden, the increasingly graying President pointed to natural disasters, rising gas prices, state and local budget cuts, Greece’s economy and the uncertainty over the debt ceiling to explain the rise in unemployment. As possible solutions, he offered that investing in infrastructure would create thousands of jobs for unemployed construction workers who were hit hard after the housing boom. He also encouraged Congress to pass bills that would “streamline” the patent process and advance trade agreements that would send more “Made in America” goods to Asia and South America.

Most notably, he emphasized the need to come to an agreement over the debt ceiling so that “we give our businesses the certainty that they will need in order to make additional investments to grow and hire.” On Sunday we are expected to hear whether or not a compromise will be made over raising taxes and cutting into Medicare and Social Security in order to raise the debt limit.

In the meantime, it’s hard not to question Plouffe’s insistence that high unemployment rates won’t play a major role in determining the 2012 election. History has shown that only one incumbent president, Ronald Reagan, has won reelection with an unemployment rate over 6%. When Reagan was reelected in 1984, the jobless rate was at 7.2%—economists are predicting that by 2012 unemployment will hover around 8.2%. Still, says Plouffe, Republican candidates, especially frontrunner Mitt Romney, will only offer voters the same types of policies that created the recession in the first place: “Let Wall Street kind of run amok, cut taxes for the wealthy, starve investment in things like education, research and development.”

Even if Plouffe’s prediction is true—that voters are more concerned with their own welfare than national unemployment rates—if the country is lucky enough to see unemployment drop even more than the predicted 1% in the next 16 months, that still leaves over 25 million Americans unemployed and 25 million people in the voting booths asking themselves, “How do I feel about my own situation?”

Obama’s Counterterrorism Strategy: The New Old-Fashioned Way

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:08:53 GMT

On Wednesday, the Obama Administration released its new counterterrorism strategy for handling al-Qa’ida. However, the “newness” of the strategy depends on whether one regards something two and a half years old as being “new.” While the strategy is a departure from that of former President George W. Bush in terms of its focus, the methods for defending the country against terrorist attacks have been in place since Obama took office.

John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, explained that the differences between Bush’s strategy and that of Obama’s are “pragmatic, not ideological.” Brennan went on to say that “this is the first counterterrorism strategy that focuses on the ability of al-Qa’ida and its network to inspire people in the United States to attack us from within.” He said that the US will fight terrorism with “laser focus” to “deliver precise and overwhelming force against al-Qa’ida.”

While the death of Osama bin Laden last May provides evidence that the Administration’s strategy is capable of delivering results, if Obama and Brennan are actually serious about thwarting terrorism “from within,” the strategy released yesterday will fall short due to its failure to fully recognize al-Qa’ida’s savvy internet skills.

Last year, President Obama unveiled a plan to protect America from cyber-attacks and appointed Howard Schmidt as a new “Cyber Czar,” but Brennan acknowledged yesterday that al-Qa’ida’s ability to recruit terrorists using the internet is also a real threat to the country’s security. He said that “misguided individuals are spurred on [by the] likes of al-Qa’ida’s Adam Gadahn and Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, who speak English and preach violence in slick videos over the Internet.” However, in contrast to Brennan’s words, the document released yesterday only gives a passing nod to the power the internet has to recruit and inspire terrorists.

Not until page ten of nineteen does the report even mention that “mass media and the internet in particular have emerged as enablers for terrorist planning, facilitation, and communication.” The report promises to disrupt and counter al-Qai’da’s ability to project its message and exploit the internet. However, last October the US refused the request of Britain’s former Security Minister, Pauline Neville-Jones, to take down radical terrorist websites whose servers were located in the US. In the interest of gathering information and protecting the right to free speech, the Administration will monitor, but not interfere with, al-Qa’ida websites and message boards.

But that doesn’t mean that al-Qa’ida’s internet forums are safe from cyber-attacks of their own. Just this morning, a well-known jihadist message board was shut down by unknown hackers. While there is speculation that the attack could have come from a government organization, the White House is aware that to hack such a website will only disrupt terrorist communication in the short-term and stifle the US’ ability to gather information. For President Obama to succeed in thwarting terrorist efforts online, he will have to create a strategy that forms a middle ground between shutting down websites and replacing bomb-making instructions with cupcake recipes.

Defense, Oil, and Civil Rights: Just Another Week for POTUS

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:08:51 GMT

Looking at this morning’s headlines, it would be easy to forget that just last night President Barack Obama announced the withdrawal of 10,000 troops from Afghanistan in the next six months and 23,000 more by next summer. Today’s big stories—the Administration’s decision to delve into the nation’s petroleum reserve and the gay marriage debate in New York—have overshadowed the reactions to the announced troop withdrawal, and for Barack Obama, these forays into defense, the oil supply and civil rights have yielded mixed reactions from both the public and political sectors.

The majority of the public supports Obama’s decision to begin troop withdrawal in earnest, but as usual, reactions in DC differ from the rest of the country. While neither party is universally united in opinion, opposition to Obama’s plan is present on both sides of the aisle—albeit for different reasons.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi along with Representative John Lewis (D-GA) expressed frustration at the snail’s pace of troop withdrawal that Obama outlined last night. Pelosi suggested that Congress could act to find an alternative timeline: "It has been the hope of many in Congress and across the country that the full drawdown of U.S. forces would happen sooner than the president laid out—and we will continue to press for a better outcome."

Most Republicans, on the other hand, including 2012 presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, view Obama’s announcement as political lip service. As Santorum stated, “President Obama speaks of winding down our engagement in Afghanistan, but he does not emphasize the need for victory…We must be squarely focused on succeeding in Afghanistan rather than on politically motivated troop withdrawals.”

While Obama’s defense policies took a beating last night, the President turned to the economy and our nation’s oil supply this morning. Hoping to give consumers a break at the pump, the Administration announced that, over the next 30 days, the U.S. and its allies would release 60 million barrels of oil from global reserves (30 of which come from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve) in order to counteract the supply disruptions in the Middle East that have sent gas prices soaring. In fact, oil prices dropped 5% immediately following the announcement this morning.

Again, while this move undoubtedly pleases the American public, many of whom are planning road trips this summer, Republicans are calling the move short-sighted and “pathetic.” Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) explained, “The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is intended for situations when there’s a dramatic supply shut down, not to achieve short-term political gain.” Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) questioned why Obama “would rather tap into our emergency supply than support legislation to produce and develop North American supplies.”

On both defense and the decision to release oil reserves, Obama seems to be gaining some good will from the public and mostly vitriol from D.C., but public support within the LGBT community may waver as the President prepares for a fundraiser in New York City aimed at the gay and lesbian community.

As Obama gears up to ask one of his most influential bases for campaign money, New York is in the midst of deciding for itself whether gay marriage should be legal in the state. In fact, one Republican vote shy of legalizing same sex marriage, it is possible that the outcome could be decided within hours of Obama’s event. It will be nearly impossible for Obama to ignore that debate at hand during the fundraiser, and while many in the LGBT community support Obama for his efforts on DADT and the Defense of Marriage Act, a large portion wince when the President states that his stance on gay marriage is still “evolving.” Journalist Michelangelo Signorile recently criticized Obama’s indecisiveness saying, “When your position on something like this is behind Laura Bush, that is a problem…He has to go all the way.”

While no one is actually expecting the President to “go all the way” tonight and announce his support for New York’s fight to legalize same-sex marriage, Obama must walk a fine line between outright approval and cautious politicking in order to maintain LGBT support and appease the more conservative voters going into 2012.

Just another week for the President of the United States.

It’s the Environment, Stupid!

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 17:45:37 GMT

Last month, the gray wolf lost its protected status under the Endangered Species Act. In less than two years, President Obama might lose the support of voters for his reluctance to protect the gray wolf. At least that’s what former Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, implied yesterday during a visit to the National Press Club.

In the past few months, House Republicans have not only taken the 1,300 surviving gray wolves off the endangered species list, but they also added a rider to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act that prohibits the Interior from funding, administering or enforcing the designation of wilderness areas. Last week, Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar released a memo that said it would follow the new law, meaning that the Interior would not designate Bureau of Land Management lands as “wild lands.” This reversal of Salazar’s previous policy leaves 41 million acres of public land vulnerable to development for oil and natural resource exploration. In contrast, only nine million acres of BLM land are slated for conservation.

The actions by Congress and subsequent inactions by the Obama Administration to protect America’s wilderness prompted Bruce Babbitt, who served as Interior Secretary under President Clinton for eight years, to emerge from private life and accuse Congress, and specifically the House of Representatives, of declaring “war on our land, water and natural resources.” Babbitt claims that Congress has insidiously “chipped away” at environmental laws and “in its assaults on our environment, has embarked on the most radical course in our history.”

Babbitt continued his defense of environmental laws by asking President Obama to stand up for land and water conservation, something that Babbitt accuses him of ignoring. The former Secretary invoked the legacy of the last Democratic president, his old boss, Bill Clinton, who established the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. Babbitt even praised George W. Bush for protecting the marine reefs off of northern Hawaii. He entreated Obama to learn a lesson from his predecessors and veto future anti-environmental riders. Babbitt’s goal was to “remind the President that he has the power, the responsibility and the public support to stand up to those who would destroy our heritage.”

Babbitt’s speech certainly got the Administration’s attention, however Obama remained adamant that he is in no way a “timid” defender of the environment. Interior Department spokeswoman, Kendra Barkof, responded to Babbitt’s speech: “The Obama administration is already building a strong conservation legacy, founded on sensible protections for wilderness lands, wildlife habitat and farms and ranches that are under threat.”

While Babbitt still supports the President, Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, believes that the Administration’s silence on the issue could be damning in the upcoming elections: “Unless there's a change in his policies, he will likely face very damp enthusiasm from young voters and a significant portion of the base that wants him to stand up to polluters. I definitely think there are many progressive donors in general and environmental donors in particular whose enthusiasm won't be what it was in 2008.”

House Republicans, for their part, defend the anti-environmental riders by bringing the issue back to the economy. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) claimed that the designation of “wild lands” would “have harmed the Utah economy, prevented job growth, blocked domestic energy development and resulted in less revenue for our state.” As such, many attribute President Obama’s silence on the environment as a way of avoiding controversy on what has been spun into an economic debate.

Unfortunately for Babbitt and other activists, environmental pressures will not likely have a great impact on Obama’s actions leading up to 2012. Politically, Obama is doing the right thing by staying out of the debate and denying Republicans another opportunity to call him soft on job creation. However, what is politically smart is not necessarily morally correct. During his speech, Babbitt invoked the words of Representative John Lacey (R-IA, 1841-1913), who said, “The immensity of man’s power to destroy imposes a responsibility to preserve.” At least until 2012, it looks like President Obama will skirt those responsibilities.

Is the Debt Ceiling the New Bush-Era Tax Cut Debate?

Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:32:43 GMT

Yesterday, House Republicans and President Obama gathered at the White House and did exactly what everyone expected them to do: nothing. The two parties met to discuss the federal debt ceiling, which if not raised could be catastrophic for the still-fragile economy. After an intense 75-minute debate, no progress was made.

The GOP showed no willingness to compromise and insisted that the debt ceiling should only be raised if it is accompanied by spending cuts that would equal or exceed the ceiling’s increase. The meeting yesterday was peppered by criticisms from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) that the President was playing the role of a demagogue in his opposition to the Representative’s Medicare plan. In fact, the only satisfying item of the day was a report that Obama, in response to Ryan’s claims of demagoguery, shot back by quipping “I'm the death-panel-supporting, socialist, may-not-have-been-born-here president.”

Today, Obama will meet with House Democrats, and while the meeting will surely not be as tense as the one preceding it, how much the President pays attention to his own party on this issue could have great consequences leading up to 2012.

Since the Democrats don’t have control of the House, Obama will most likely listen carefully to their opinions and then summarily disregard them as he strategizes how to get Republicans to agree to raise the debt ceiling as quickly as possible. This mirrors what happened just months ago, when Obama decided to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy Americans in order to extend unemployment benefits for 13 months. Back in December, Democrats such as the now notorious Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) accused Obama of acting like his party had the “weak hand” by settling for a compromise without even putting up a fight.

House Democrats are still licking their wounds from that defeat and would view a compromise on Medicare as one more nail in their political coffin. Ryan’s Medicare plan is largely unpopular with senior citizens and independent voters. Since 2010, Democrats have actually built up an advantage over Republicans by embracing the image as defenders of healthcare and the middle class. If Obama chooses to ignore his party’s plea to defend Medicare, there is little doubt that he will lose the support of key Representatives, as well as key voter demographics, going into 2012.

As the months pass and the presidential election gets ever closer, Obama will have increasingly little wiggle room when it comes to ignoring his party and compromising with Republicans. Whether going into to the next elections Obama is viewed as a strong and loyal leader or as a dithering demagogue will depend partly on how much he is willing to compromise in the coming weeks.

Obama Steps into Syria’s Arab Spring

Thu, 19 May 2011 20:27:51 GMT

President Obama kept his audience, both at the State Department and at home, waiting for more than half an hour before he stepped up to his podium to deliver a much-anticipated speech on Middle East and North African policy today.

After he was introduced by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama wasted no time in praising the governments of Tunisia and Egypt for sparking the Arab Spring and called upon the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to use next week’s G8 meeting to create a plan to stabilize their economies. In that regard, Obama presented the most concrete plan offered during his 45 minute speech: a pledge to give Egypt $2 billion dollars- half allocated for debt relief and the other half for loan guarantees. He also credited both countries’ youths who served as the catalyst for change saying, “It’s not America that put people into the streets of Tunis or Cairo—it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and it’s the people themselves that must ultimately determine their outcome.” While the Obama Administration disappointed many by taking a backseat during the uprising against Egyptian President Mubarak, he made it clear today that the US will support Egypt in its endeavor to become an economically stable nation.

Throughout the speech, President Obama expressed his opinions on each unique situation in Libya, Bahrain, and Syria—not to mention the last ten minutes of his speech which he devoted entirely to Israel and Palestine. Regarding Libya, he condemned Muammar Qaddafi for “launching a war against his own people.” He then went on to reinforce America’s commitment to Bahrain’s security while at the same time chastising them for arresting the Shiite majority en masse. But while Obama offered solid messages to the leaders of those countries, his attitude changed when he addressed the bubbling unrest in Syria: “The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition, or get out of the way.”

While on the surface this message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad seems like a bold choice of words, it reveals that the Obama Administration does not necessarily want Assad to go the way of Mubarak. The President accused Syria of choosing “the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens,” but regarding Assad, the Administration may opt for the “devil you know” strategy. When The Atlantic’s Jeff Goldberg asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier this month if she would be happy to see Assad’s regime go, she responded by saying “It depends upon what replaces it.” Both Clinton and Obama are holding out hope that President Assad will reform, but in that same interview with Goldberg, Clinton admitted that there is no indication Assad is willing to change. Obama knows that too, which is why just yesterday he imposed sanctions on President al-Assad and six of his senior officials in an effort to stop the Syrian government’s brutal suppression of protests which have been ongoing since March.

Obama risked ending up on the wrong side of history when he waited to respond to the uprising in Egypt. That criticism might have had an effect on his decision to start military operations in Libya. Now on the heels of today’s speech, in which he touted individual dignity and human rights, Obama has stepped into Syria’s conflict which the United Nation estimates has already claimed over 850 lives. Whether Obama chooses to demand Assad’s resignation or to engage the Syrian government in a military operation, Obama must take some kind of action or risk embarrassment and charges of hypocrisy. President Assad will likely ignore Obama’s ultimatum, but Obama no longer has the luxury of ignoring the conflict in Syria.

A Photo Will Not Help Us Heal

Thu, 05 May 2011 16:45:25 GMT

On Sunday night, President Obama executed the “gutsiest” decision of his presidential career when he authorized the attack on Osama bin Laden’s compound. A few days later, he made a much more subtle but still bold decision to not release a photo of the bullet-ridden terrorist leader. His decision stemmed from a concern for our national security and sparked both indignation and commendation from the public.

For example, some notable politicians are not satisfied by the knowledge that America’s most wanted person is dead—they need visual proof to satiate their curiosity. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) argued that withholding the photo is counter-intuitive: “The whole purpose of sending our soldiers into the compound...was to obtain indisputable proof of bin Laden's death.” Former Governor Sarah Palin put it less delicately when she took to Twitter to tell Obama to stop “pussyfooting around” and release the image. On the other hand, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) told the press that releasing the picture isn’t necessary since there is “ample proof” that Osama bin Laden is dead.

For some people, the absence of the photo has left a gap of proof that has been filled with conspiracy theories about the true fate of Osama bin Laden. His quick burial at sea and lack of a marked grave only fuel the doubts of those who are now called “deathers.” Conspiracy theories in cases such as these are inevitable—doubts still linger about Hitler’s demise. A picture will not convince these people that bin Laden is in fact dead. Just last week we saw what happened when the birthers were confronted with undeniable proof that President Obama was born in the States.

In the short term, President Obama was wise to keep the image of a dead Osama bin Laden hidden. However, in the years ahead, it is possible that the photo will be released and, as a country, we will be judged by our reactions. Almost ten years ago, Osama bin Laden changed the nation in a way that was previously unfathomable. After September 11, 2001, Americans became understandably paranoid and suspicious. But in some people, that suspicion grew into an ugly prejudice against millions of innocent Muslims and Middle Easterners and damaged our country’s global reputation. Now, a bloody photo of the same man and our reactions to it has the power to change us again, but it will do nothing to make our country better.

In an interview with 60 Minutes, President Obama explained his motivations for withholding the image: “It is important to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool… That’s not who we are. We don't trot out this stuff as trophies.” His concern for national security is a sufficient reason alone to not release the photos, but implicit in his remarks is the assumption that unlike al-Qaeda, who didn’t hesitate to release a video of Daniel Pearl’s execution, Americans are dignified and civil enough to not need a graphic photo to celebrate over. Let’s hope that’s true.

A Compendium of Obama Conspiracies

Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:51:56 GMT

Let’s have a little fun today, shall we? Yesterday, President Obama succumbed to pressure from the political right-wing fringe, led by Donald Trump, and released his long-form birth certificate. This was not the first time that Obama’s birth in Hawaii has been confirmed, but unfortunately this new piece of evidence has failed to quell the Birther conspiracies.

Within minutes of the certificate’s release, Twitter was busy spewing out new conspiracies 140 characters at a time. Let’s look at some of the most outrageous claims:

1) Gary Mathis, a self-described “Conservative, gun-owning scientist with a Ph.D. in Physics” claimed that the birth certificate was signed with a rollerball pen, thus it must be fake since those types of pens were not invented until the 1980’s. He also points out that the certificate is signed “U K L LEE” to which he asserts “U K L Lee = ukulele, get it? What a joke. Obama’s laughing at you.”

2) The “It Has Layers” YouTube video, which since yesterday has been viewed over 155,000 times, claims that the birth certificate is composed of multiple layers of print which proves that it was forged. The layers are revealed when the pdf document is manipulated using Adobe Acrobat. However, Acrobat can do this with all optimized pdf’s, even Donald Trump’s birth certificate.

3) Finally, the “Birther Queen” herself, Orly Taitz, claims that the document is fake because in 1961, Obama’s father’s race would not have been classified at “African,” but would have been “Negro.”

Obama, for his part, has maintained his trademark calm demeanor throughout this debacle. Yesterday, during a press conference devoted entirely to addressing Birthers, President Obama scolded the press for concentrating on this issue when the country is on the cusp of making extremely serious decisions about our fiscal future. He said, “We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We’ve got better stuff to do. I’ve got better stuff to do.” And he was right.

While in the preceding weeks presidential Republican front-runners such as Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney have spoken out against the Birthers’claims, yesterday they and other top Republicans remained relatively silent on the issue. Romney took to Twitter to say, “What President Obama should really be releasing is a jobs plan.” Mike Huckabee stuck to the important issues and tweeted, “The price of gasoline has gone from $1.84 to $3.85 a gallon during the President’s two years in office.” It seems like these 2012 contenders are just as frustrated with the Birther conspiracies as the President is.

It’s likely that Barack Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth” will only be fodder for die-hard conspiracy theorists. In addition to the theories listed above, a new conspiracy has since caught the attention of Donald Trump and Orly Taitz which sets out to paint Obama as an affirmative action case who never should have been allowed in an Ivy League school. Trump is now demanding that Obama show his education records.

Even though the dozens of conspiracy theories circulating the web are sometimes so ridiculous that one can’t help but laugh, in reality, the entire debacle is just really sad. The implied racism that served as the impetus behind the Birther movement has shown the world an America that will not listen to reason, and one that continues to try to defraud its first black President. As time passes, the hindsight afforded by history will reveal the Birther movement as characterizing a shameful period in America. One that will hopefully, but not likely, be over soon.

Obama Friends Zuckerberg, But is it Mutually Beneficial or Mutually Destructive?

Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:08:44 GMT

In 1994, President Bill Clinton attended an MTV town hall meeting and revealed that he preferred briefs over boxers.

In 2011, President Barack Obama attended a Facebook town hall meeting and revealed, well, not much.

Both events were created to engage young voters through the hippest youth-oriented forums of their time. However, unlike the MTV town hall in 1994, President Obama’s meeting at Facebook headquarters in Palo Alto, California last night revealed more about the relationship between the Administration and the tech giant than it did about Obama’s personal life.

In 2008, Facebook, along with other social media sites like YouTube, became a major influencing factor in political elections when the young upstart Senator from Illinois used it to reach out to supporters and mobilize his grassroots campaign. Now, just weeks after formally announcing his bid for reelection, Obama has returned to his not-so-secret weapon to reenergize his base.

Last night, he told an audience full of twenty-somethings that Facebook “allows us to…make sure this isn't just a one-way conversation; makes sure that not only am I speaking to you but you're also speaking back and we're in a conversation, we’re in a dialogue.” Obama continued to praise the social-networking site and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, when he said, “This format and this company I think is an ideal means for us to be able to carry on this conversation.”

Except for its conspicuous location, last night’s town hall seemed like any other that the President has hosted. In fact, last night wasn’t even the first time Obama held a town hall online. But Zuckerberg’s presence, and the obvious fondness the two men have for each other, made the event special. But is their relationship beneficial to each other?

On the surface, Obama’s association with Facebook seems like a win-win situation: he can effectively and inexpensively reach out to young voters through the site, and his connection to the company aligns with his recent emphasis on innovation. However, as Chris Lehane, a Democratic political consultant who worked with Bill Clinton, points out, an elected official’s relationship with a private company can turn sour if the company ever becomes polarizing. Think Enron and Halliburton.

Since its inception, Facebook has dealt with a barrage of bad press over its lax privacy settings for its users. More recently, Zuckerberg’s company came under fire for removing a picture of two men kissing, citing that it violates its terms of use which prohibits content that is “hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” Facebook has since apologized and said the photo “was removed in error.” A worse PR blunder are the comments made by Facebook lobbyist Adam Connor, who said that as the company looks to establish itself in countries with strict censorship laws, such as China, "We are occasionally held in uncomfortable positions because now we're allowing too much, maybe, free speech in countries that haven't experienced it before.” While these incidents are not tantamount to an oil spill or fraud, Facebook’s actions have the ability to alienate its users and independent voters by association.

On the other side of the coin, Facebook has benefited greatly from its presidential endorsement, but Obama is even more polarizing than Zuckerberg in many ways and the company risks losing clout amongst its more conservative users if it fails to hold up a bipartisan image. Many Republicans have already hopped on the social-media bandwagon, but unless Zuckerberg extends the same courtesy and invites the yet-to-be announced GOP front-runner for another town hall, he risks losing some of the validity that Obama’s seal of approval gave him.

For now, neither man seems worried about the long-term consequences of their partnership. At the conclusion of last night’s town hall, Zuckerberg presented Obama with one of his trademarked hoodies with the Facebook logo emblazoned across the chest. Obama said it was beautiful.

How a Policy Speech Turned into a Campaign Cry

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:16:40 GMT

Many Democratic lawmakers are touting the speech President Obama made yesterday on fiscal policy as an answer to their partisan prayers. Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) proclaimed that Obama “set the right spirit and tone in his remarks” and Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) said Obama’s plan would “keep the American dream alive for generations to come.” Left-leaning pundits described the President’s address using words such as “bold” and “attack.” Both Obama’s supporters and opponents are pleased that the President has finally entered the deficit debate.

The 43 minute speech was evenly divided between criticizing the GOP deficit plan put forward by Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) and presenting the Administration’s own proposal for balancing the budget. Obama laid out four steps that would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 12 years: 1) keep annual spending low by cutting domestic programs; 2) find savings in the defense budget; 3) reduce healthcare costs by using Medicare’s leverage to push generic prescriptions and increase efficiency; and 4) reduce spending in the tax code. Obama displayed the most gumption while arguing his last step. He declared that he would not extend the Bush-Era tax cuts again and that he would limit itemized deductions in tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.

In unveiling his fourth step, Obama’s speech went from business-as-usual to campaign mode. Without saying as much, the President announced his 2012 platform: raise taxes on the super-rich to protect the middle class in order to achieve his “vision for America.” This change in tone did not go unnoticed by Obama’s potential 2012 rivals, whom he explicitly called out for “embracing” Ryan’s plan (in reality, the GOP front-runners lauded Ryan for stepping out in front of the deficit debate, but stopped at fully endorsing his plan

Mitt Romney was the first Republican contender to respond to Obama’s speech: “With over 20 million people who are unemployed or who have stopped looking for work, the last thing we should be doing is raising taxes on job-creators, entrepreneurs, and small business owners across America.” With those words, Romney unveiled the GOP’s presidential platform and its main point of contention with Obama’s plan.

It is highly doubtful that the steps Obama presented in his speech yesterday will be fully realized by November of next year. Obama admitted that even he doesn’t expect the end result to look much like his original design. But anyone who expected a concrete change to result from this speech missed the point. The President’s address went a long way in reenergizing his base and reshaping his image as a leader—something he desperately needs to accomplish before the presidential race heats up. In this dress rehearsal for the upcoming elections, the main arguments we will hear for the next year and a half have already been made. But while speaking to the crowd assembled at George Washington University, his supporters caught glimmers of that passionate politician who hasn’t really shown his face since 2008, and they liked it.

Obama’s Ready for 2012, But is He the Only One?

Mon, 04 Apr 2011 16:56:18 GMT

It’s official! Today, President Obama kicked off his reelection campaign in a decidedly Obama-esque way: through an email blast and a web video.

Obama’s reelection team, headed by former Deputy Chief of Staff-turned-campaign manager, Jim Messina, created a 2-minute video to accompany Obama’s 2012 announcement in the hopes of stirring the excitement that characterized his 2008 campaign. The video starts with a montage of farm houses, churches and American flags. Everyday Americans are interviewed about their hopes for the Obama campaign. The video hints at the progress the President has made when one woman, Katherine from Colorado, says “I think [the campaign] needs to reflect changes we’ve seen in the last two and a half years.” It also taps into the youth demographic, with Mike, a fresh-faced 20-something New Yorker, declaring that “even though I couldn’t exactly vote at the time, I knew that someday I would be able to help reelect him. And that’s what I plan on doing.”

The clip also recognizes that Obama has not been a perfect President. Ed, an older white male from North Carolina admits that he doesn’t “agree with Obama on everything. But I respect him and I trust him.” The video goes on to explain that the energy going into 2012 will be different from that of his 2008 campaign. Alice from Michigan clarifies: “Unfortunately, President Obama is one person…plus he’s got a job. We’re paying him to do a job so we can’t say, ‘Hey, could you just take some time off and come and get us all energized?’ So we better figure it out!” This point is driven home by the notable absence of Obama appearances in the video.

The presentation concludes with a simple written message: “It begins with us.” Obama’s team states that the reason the President launched his campaign so early in the game, when only one Republican has officially declared a presidential bid, is that the grassroots nature of his support structure needs time to germinate and build. However, there is another reason for Obama’s early campaign launch: Money. Obama has already attended numerous fundraising events for the DNC, but now he can officially start raising money for his reelection campaign. The success of his fundraising efforts relies on Jim Messina’s plan to get 400 major donors to raise at least $350,000 each in 2011. In 2008, Obama raised $750 million, but this time there is speculation that he will be the first candidate to ever raise $1 billion.

Securing a head-start in fundraising efforts makes sense in a purely strategic vacuum, but the timing of Obama’s announcement has opened a floodgate of criticism from the GOP that could cost him some political capital. While most of the top potential Republican contenders have remained somewhat silent, Tim Pawlenty, who became the first major Republican to file a presidential bid in late March, released an online video of his own that asks: “How can America win the future when we’re losing the present?” The rest of the GOP has let the RNC do the talking for them. Chairman Reince Priebus was the first to question the timing of Obama’s announcement, saying, “Despite a looming government shutdown, a new military operation in Libya and Tax Day around the corner, President Obama made the decision to focus on kicking off his billion-dollar campaign.” The RNC also created a video to accompany a new website, HopeIsntHiring.com, that focuses on Obama’s inability to create jobs. The site hopes to raise $270,000 in the next three days—that’s “$1,000 for every electoral vote required to elect the next Republican president.”

Today, many people are busy questioning Obama’s timing in announcing his reelection campaign, but the biggest question has nothing to do with Obama’s actions and everything to do with Republicans’ inactions. Except for Pawlenty’s video and Romney passive-aggressive tweet this morning, Huckabee, Gingrich, Barbour, and the rest have not only remained mute about Obama’s announcement, but they have been surprisingly quiet about their real presidential intentions. In choosing to announce his campaign so early, Obama has sped up the game and raised the stakes. Now the only real surprise will be how long it takes his potential contenders to announce their own bids. Obama’s grassroots campaign may “begin with us,” but let’s not forget that the real race begins with them.

Obama & Sarkozy: Conflict Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:56:12 GMT

You’ll be pressed to find two people more different than Barack Obama, President of the United States, and Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France. In addition to their outward appearance—President Obama stands tall at 6’1”, while it is a favorite joke among the French that Sarkozy, at 5’5”, is one inch shorter than the famously diminutive Napoleon—the two men’s contrasting leadership styles are analogous to the fable of the tortoise and the hare. However, the increasingly volatile conflict in Libya is bridging the gap between the two leaders, whose relationship was tainted early on by misunderstandings and political slights.

President Obama has often been criticized for his stoic style and his hesitation to act quickly when faced with crises. Across the pond, President Sarkozy is known for his brash actions in the face of danger, like in 1993 when preschool students in a small Parisian suburb in which Sarkozy was mayor were taken hostage by a man with explosives strapped to his body. The future-President entered the school grounds alone and within 30 minutes convinced the “Human Bomb” to release the children. The story became legendary and the small-town mayor, an overnight hero.

Given his history of throwing caution to the wind, it wasn’t a surprise that Sarkozy was the first world leader to recognize the political validity of the Libyan rebels and call on the rest of the European Union to follow suit. In fact, France, followed closely by the UK, has taken the lead in military intervention in Libya, and so far has been somewhat successful: on Thursday, French warplanes reportedly struck a Libyan air force base and there are reports that Sarkozy’s forces have already destroyed 10 of Gaddafi’s armored vehicles. The French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppe, told the press this morning that the military intervention will takes weeks, but not months.

France and the rest of Europe’s proximity to Libya is enough reason for the EU to take a vested interest in the country’s stability. As Steven Walt of Foreign Policy points out, President Obama could have easily stepped aside in this instance and let Europe “handle this one.” However, Obama took a different route and announced a military intervention shortly after the UN declared its support for a no-fly zone in Libya.

Obama announced his decision while on a tour of South America and has been adamant that US military operations in Libya will be handed over to other nations in a matter of days, and that was five days ago. His executive action drew attacks from Congress, especially House Speaker John Boehner, who wrote a letter to the President yesterday asking him, “Why would the US commit American resources to enforcing a UN resolution that is inconsistent with our stated policy goals and national interests?”

The President has yet to respond to Boehner’s query, but instead he has focused on downplaying US’s involvement in Libya. On Tuesday, he announced his plans for an exit strategy that bizarrely still involves “supplying jamming, intelligence and other assets unique to us” to European nations and our Arab allies. The fact that this plan looks like an exit strategy without a clear exit may speak to the trend that Obama is increasingly looking to Sarkozy for guidance. For example, when it came time for Obama to confer with our European allies about implementing a no-fly zone in Libya, Obama chose to call Sarkozy first, leaving British Prime Minister David Cameron waiting by the phone for his turn with Obama.

It’s possible that Obama’s growing relationship with Sarkozy has manifested in a slight change of leadership style. Obama’s relatively quick decision for military action in Libya indicates his willingness to support his biggest European fan. However, the presidents’ friendship will rely heavily on just how fast Obama hands over full control of US military operations to France and the EU. Sarkozy thrives in crises and Obama has too many of his own to juggle. If the President doesn’t allow Sarkozy the time to shine during the military intervention in Libya, this odd couple may soon at odds with each other.

Obama Tries to Embrace Second Amendment Using Common Sense

Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:57:40 GMT

In the nine weeks since Jared Lee Loughner opened fire at Representative Gabriel Gifford’s meet-and-greet in Tucson, Arizona, killing 6 and injuring 12 others, over 2,405 more people have been killed from gun shot wounds. Gun control is one of America’s most polarizing issues, but it is not a partisan one. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle can be found on either end of the issue.

Immediately following the Tucson attack, Democrats and Republicans pushed for stricter gun control laws. Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) separately crafted legislation that would limit high-capacity ammunition clips. As Lautenberg put it, “The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly.” Republican Representative Peter King from New York also introduced a law that would prohibit civilians from carrying guns within 1,000 feet of members of Congress. Speaker of the House John Boehner was quick to announce his opposition to King’s legislation, but Rep. McCarthy’s bill is slowing gaining support in the House.

Despite the efforts of gun control advocates, there has been little traction gained within the Republican-controlled House of Representatives on the issue. The National Rifle Association has for a long time been one of the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill and has the support of lawmakers from both parties. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), who has a record of supporting Second Amendment rights, would rather leave the issue alone than risk upsetting the NRA.

With Congress divided, President Obama put his executive might behind the issue last Sunday in a letter to the Arizona Daily Star. Obama tried to embrace both sides of the debate by reminding those who fear that gun control is tantamount to a gun ban that his Administration expanded the rights of gun owners last year by allowing them to carry guns in national parks. However, he called on these constituents to use common sense saying, “I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few…from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.”

In order to ensure that the “wrong people” are not allowed to purchase guns, President Obama suggested that we build upon the laws already in the books and better enforce them. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System was designed to prevent people like Jared Loughner from purchasing firearms, but the database is poorly maintained and improperly used. As a first step towards fixing problems such as this, the Justice Department sent out an invitation to law enforcement officials, gun retailers and manufacturers, and the NRA to meet at the White House to discuss possible solutions.

The NRA’s Executive Vice President, Wayne LaPierre, publicly declined the invitation saying, “Why should I or the NRA go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?” The NRA also wrote a letter to President Obama in response to his opinion piece in the Arizona Daily Star, asking him to focus on arresting “bad people—not harass[ing] law-abiding gun owners and retailers.”

Obama is walking a fine line. It’s clear that he wants to make background checks for purchasing firearms stronger, but in doing so he sparks outrage from the NRA for making it harder for retailers and law-abiding gun enthusiasts to sell or buy guns. He also feels the pressure from gun control advocates. As he pointed out in his editorial piece, “Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns.” Obama is once again trying to rise above the heated rhetoric but his calls for Americans to do the same haven’t yielded any results.

Regardless, the President doesn’t need the approval of the NRA or Congress to beef up background checks and expand on existing gun laws thanks to the power of executive orders. If he chooses to use that option, the restrictions he can make will be limited, but they will go a long way to prevent fugitives, the mentally ill and criminals from purchasing guns. If Obama can prevent one more dangerous person from buying a gun, then all the outrage from the NRA and potential animosity from law-abiding gun enthusiasts will be worth it.

Obama’s Guantanamo Turnaround

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:12:12 GMT

“I don't want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our Constitution.”

President Obama said these words just weeks before his inauguration in 2009. Over two years have passed and instead of getting closer to his goal, on Monday he announced a complete reversal of his campaign promise. His new Executive Order spells out a policy under which new trials can commence for the 172 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and in doing so, he implicitly admitted failure.

Obama’s order mandates periodic reviews for the 47 detainees at the facility who have never been tried but are deemed too dangerous to release from the prison. This review process is similar to former President George W. Bush’s policy except that instead of military personnel, Obama’s review panel will consist of officials from the departments of Defense, State and Justice. Each of the 47 detainees will undergo the new review process within one year and will finally be allowed to see some of the unclassified evidence held against them. They will be allowed the right to private counsel, but the government will not pay for it, and they can also call witnesses who are “reasonably available.” After the first live review process, the detainees will receive a paper review every six months and another live review every three years. The order ends a two-year freeze Obama placed on new charges for Guantanamo detainees.

Obama is adamant that he remains committed to one day closing Guantanamo, but in the meantime, the Administration’s argument goes, it is important to implement policies that will make Guantanamo Bay tribunals more constitutional. However, these arguments do little to appease many of his left-wing constituents who view his reversal as a sign that the President is giving up and giving in. The ACLU was quick to accuse Obama of choosing “to institutionalize unlawful indefinite detention - creating a troubling 'new normal’—and to revive the illegitimate Guantanamo military commissions.”

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans praised and criticized the Executive Order in equal measure. Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, Representative Peter King (R-NY), called Obama’s decision an affirmation of President Bush’s national security policies and Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) proclaimed that Obama “had finally seen the light.” However, many Republicans are concerned that Obama’s order gives detainees too many rights. House Armed Services Committee Chairman, Representative Buck McKeon (R-CA), announced new legislation Tuesday that specifically targets the new review process for Guantanamo prisoners.

In announcing his plans for Guantanamo, Obama not only failed to live up to one of the biggest promises he made during his campaign, but he also disappointed the left and validated some on the right. There are few silver linings for the President on this issue, but given that he won’t have to face a Democratic challenger in 2012, Obama can rest assured that his reversal won’t have a great impact on the popular vote. The hard truth is that when asked which issues the President and Congress should work on this year, Americans ranked the economy and unemployment first. Terrorism, and therefore Guantanamo Bay, came in seventh. There’s nothing ambiguous about that.

Obama Takes a Quiet Stand for Patients’ Rights

Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:40:57 GMT

On the same day that House Republicans voted to defund Planned Parenthood based on moral convictions against abortion, the Obama Administration took its own moral action…but no one noticed.

Last week, hidden in the pages of the Federal Register, President Obama and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the reversal of a Bush-era rule signaling a victory for pro-choice activists and LGBT and women’s rights groups.

Since the 1970’s, the Department of Health and Human Services has enforced the conscience protection clause that states that clinical treatment centers that receive federal funds cannot force their employees to perform abortions or sterilizations if such a procedure goes against his or her “religious beliefs and moral convictions.”

In the last days of his presidency, George W. Bush expanded upon that clause and included, among other things, the statement: “Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience."

Bush’s critics contested that such vague language in his new ruling permitted a broad interpretation of the rule which would allow anyone in the health care field, from pharmacists to receptionists, to refuse service if they disagreed with a patient’s lifestyle. The clause permitted health care workers to refuse to treat gay patients with HIV, single women seeking contraception, lesbians wanting fertility treatments and patients specifying end-of-life care. The rule took effect on January 20, 2009, the same day that President Barack Obama was sworn in.

Before Obama moved into the White House, he promised to reverse his predecessor’s conscience protection clause, and a little more than two years later, he fulfilled that promise. After reviewing over 300,000 public comments, HHS ruled that Bush’s clause “caused confusion and could be taken as overly broad” and new rules were implemented.

The new ruling, which will become official in less than one month, still protects health care providers from performing abortions or sterilizations if those procedures are contrary to their moral or religious beliefs. It also states that institutions that do not comply with this ruling will not receive federal funding. However, the rewritten clause does more to protect the patient in such cases by stating that a health care employee cannot refuse service based on objections to a person’s lifestyle. Therefore, a pharmacist cannot refuse to give contraception medication to a single woman and a doctor cannot refuse to give infertility treatment to a lesbian couple because they disapprove of their behavior.

The political controversy that surrounded the House’s ruling against Planned Parenthood did not translate to Obama’s new conscience protection clause. On the day that the rule was ordered, most major news outlets picked up the story and many major religious groups showed a healthy dose of outrage. But the most vocal critics of Obama’s last social decision, Speaker Boehner and House Republicans, remained relatively mute on the subject. However, that does not mean that the opposition has remained inactive.

The ineloquently coined “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”, or H.R. 3, sponsored by Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) will go before the House floor today. If passed, the act would expand upon the Hyde Amendment that bans taxpayer dollars to be used to fund abortions by restricting private insurance companies from covering abortion through taxation. In an op-ed piece featured in The Hill, Candace Straight, the co-chair for the Republican Majority for Choice, states that the bill “would disadvantage an entire spectrum of women and families” and “obstruct access to reproductive health clinics that provide preventative services, screenings, prenatal care, flu shots.”

While Obama’s new protection clause was a small victory for women’s rights, if HR 3 somehow manages to become law, there is little that the new wording can do to protect women seeking abortions. The timing of Obama’s ruling may have been strategically planned to dodge a storm of criticisms from the conservative right, but if Obama is really committed to protecting patients’ rights, discreet legislative acts hidden in the pages of the Federal Register won’t be enough.

A Heightened Standard of Scrutiny

Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:02:21 GMT

The list of things over which President Obama has no control is growing longer by the day: The looming prospect of a government shutdown, the collective bargaining protests in Wisconsin, the influx of swing states leading up to 2012, and the revolutions in the Middle East, to name a few. Obama’s hands are tied on most of these issues, and while the President has shown discipline this week by sticking to his message of innovation and job creation, two pending federal cases in New York and Connecticut have stolen his attention and let him exercise a little executive power.

Just yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder, with the explicit approval of President Obama, dropped a bombshell on Speaker of the House John Boehner in a letter that stated, in no uncertain terms, that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in jurisdictions that have no precedent defending the act. This includes the pending cases Windsor v. United States in New York and Pedersen v. OPM in Connecticut.

DOMA, enacted by President Clinton in 1996, defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman (Section 3). If a same sex couple gets married in a state where gay marriages are legal, Section 2 of DOMA states that even then, other states can ignore that union and its inherent rights.

In his letter, Holder makes the case that “classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny” by the courts. This basically means that, upon further inspection of the law, it’s clear that the type of discrimination against homosexuals that DOMA protects violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional. Holder makes a comparison between the fight for women’s rights and Obama’s decision to no longer defend DOMA in the courts; however he clearly states that Obama will continue to enforce DOMA in the executive capacity and he recognizes that the judiciary will be the final arbiter of the law.

Obama’s decision seemed to come out of nowhere and many Republicans question the timing of Holder’s letter. Boehner’s spokesman, Michael Steel, summed up the GOP’s frustrations: “While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation." Even though the same question can be asked about House Republicans’ targeted attack on abortion and Planned Parenthood funding earlier this month, it didn’t stop House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) from calling Obama’s decision “the real politicization of the Justice Department – when the personal views of the President override the government’s duty to defend the law of the land.”

The flaw with Smith’s claim is that both the President and his team are quick to point out that, at least personally, Obama still believes marriage should be between one man and one woman. The President likes to say that his stance on gay marriage is evolving, but for a long time he has toed the line between trying to please social conservatives with his personal beliefs and appeasing social liberals with progressive legislation. In December, Obama took a big step for gay rights by repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and he went even further yesterday. The Administration is adamant that Obama’s decision to apply a heightened standard of scrutiny to DOMA was strictly arrived at through a “rational basis review” conducted in the absence of personal bias. It’s a flawed but acceptable way for the President to pander to both sides of the debate, but soon his personal views on the issue won’t matter.

Holder’s letter spells out why defining marriage between one man and one woman is unconstitutional. Based on his argument, it’s not a stretch to conclude that the Administration believes that gay marriage should be constitutional. Whether meaning to or not, that letter positioned Obama as an advocate of gay marriage. So, if the President still has moral scruples about broadening the traditional definition of marriage, then he should apply a heightened standard of scrutiny to his own conscience and reconcile his personal and political beliefs before he becomes a reluctant icon for gay rights.

Fight to “Win the Future” Starts With Saving Pell Grants

Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:13:47 GMT

Sometimes it’s not what the President says, but where he says it that makes the most impact. On Monday, President Obama unveiled his plans for the 2012 budget at the Parkville Middle School and Center for Technology in Baltimore, Maryland. While many of Obama’s budget provisions will get torn apart on its way to the Senate floor in the coming months, the classroom setting in which Obama chose to reveal his budget held a simple and symbolic message: Don’t touch education.

Obama’s 2012 budget increases education spending by 11%, making the department the biggest winner in a plan that could potentially cut the deficit by more than $400 billion in the next decade and that leaves other departments and agencies, such as the Interior and the EPA, struggling for cash. The Department of Education’s budget bump includes $900 million to his controversial Race to the Top education program that encourages districts to compete with each other for funding. However, much of the money is committed to keeping Pell grants for college students at $5,500 per year.

But what does 2011 have in store for education funding? Before the battle for the 2012 budget starts in earnest, lawmakers still need to pass the budget for FY 2011, and they only have until March 4^th to do it. House Republicans presented their own bill last week that would, among many other things, cut $4.9 billion dollars of education funding and lower Pell grants for college students to $4,705. While an $800 per year decrease in Pell grants for college students doesn’t seem like much, consider this: The average cost of one year’s tuition at a private nonprofit university is over $27,000 and rising. Six million students applied for the grant in 2008. By 2012, that number is expected to rise to nine million. In order to maintain the same level of funding that students in 2008 enjoyed, for the 2012 budget Obama had to cut Pell grant awards for summer semester students and limit students to only one Pell grant a year (in past years, low-income students were allowed two). Even though Obama manages to save Pell grants in his 2012 budget, cuts still had to be made to maintain the status quo.

When President Obama unveiled his 2012 budget he set a goal for the country: “By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.” If Obama wants to “win the future” by 2020, he cannot allow education funding to be a victim of budget cuts. So far, he is standing his ground. In response to the budget proposal Republicans rolled out last week, Obama flexed his presidential muscle and threatened to veto any bill whose cuts would “undermine our ability to out-educate, out-build, and out-innovate the rest of the world.” As March 4^th approaches and a government shutdown becomes a real possibility, we’ll see how well Obama can protect low-income students and the Pell grants that will help them succeed.

Who is Frank Wisner?

Thu, 03 Feb 2011 19:41:33 GMT

As the anti-government demonstrations against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak escalated into violence over the past week, one American, Frank G. Wisner, was sent to the country where he once spent 5 years as an ambassador to convey a “gentle” message to the long-time US ally.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the first to suggest that Wisner, a veritable legend within the State Department, should be sent to talk with Mubarak and other key Egyptian officials. On February 1^st, Wisner landed in Cairo with a message from President Obama to President Mubarak on the tip of his tongue: Neither you, nor your son, should run for president in the next elections.

Within hours after talking with Wisner face-to-face, Mubarak made a public announcement that he would not run for office in the upcoming September elections—but he didn’t mention anything about his son, Gamal. Instead, Mubarak vowed to form a new government and stay in office until September.

With only half of his mission complete, Wisner remained in Cairo to continue conversations with Egyptian officials as Obama’s message to Mubarak transformed from “don’t run for president again” to “start transitioning out of power now.” Wisner abruptly returned to DC yesterday as public demonstrations turned violent. Early this morning, newly appointed Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman announced that Mubarak’s son would also refrain from running for office in the fall, although many in Egypt see these announcements as a calculated deception.

While Wisner, 72, may be making headlines this week, he is known for shying away from the limelight, unlike his recently deceased counterpart and long-time friend, Richard Holbrooke. He has been married twice and his current wife, Christine de Ganay, is the ex-wife of Pal Sarkozy, the father of Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France. The New York Times reports that the two are currently separated. Since 1979, Wisner has served as US Ambassador to Zambia, Egypt, the Philippines, and India. He advised former President George W. Bush on Iran, Iraq and Kosovo. R. Nicholas Burns, former Under Secretary for Political Affairs at the State Department, said of Wisner, “He’s one of the supreme American diplomats of the last 30 to 40 years.” He currently works in New York City as an International Affairs Advisor for Patton Boggs.

When Obama sent the retired envoy to Egypt many academics and politicos with ties to Egypt were concerned that his long-standing relationship with Mubarak would hinder his ability to send a strong but delicate message to the Egyptian president. One Washington insider declared that Wisner was “the exact wrong person to send. He is an apologist for Mubarak.” However, it seems like the close ties between the two men only helped Wisner to effectively deliver Obama’s directive.

Given his reputation as an “inside man,” Wisner might be tempted to return to his relatively low-key lifestyle. However, there has been chatter that Obama might tap Wisner to fill the position left vacant by Richard Holbrooke, as Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan. While Wisner is undoubtedly qualified for the job, the domino effect that started with the uprising in Tunisia, then moved to Egypt and now Yemen, might signal to the President that Wisner’s talents might be of use elsewhere. His experience in the Middle East and the composure with which he handled his meeting with Mubarak prove that Wisner is one of the most influential Americans in the Middle East, and a man who should not be limited by a job title.

Obama to Deliver Change in the Form of an Organizational Chart

Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:14:29 GMT

The economy, education and immigration…

China, South Korea, and the Sudan…

Of all the things that President Obama spoke of at last night’s State of the Union, the one issue that few expected to hear about was plans for a reorganization and consolidation of federal government agencies. More than halfway through the speech, Obama dropped this on us:

In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America. I will submit that proposal to Congress for a vote—and we will push to get it passed.

While the President was correct in saying that there are many government agencies that deal with exports, and while Vice President Joe Biden enjoyed a great chuckle about how the Interior Department deals with fresh water salmon while the Commerce Department deals with their saltwater counterparts, an undertaking such as this will be tedious, complicated and bogged down with red tape.

A major government overhaul hasn’t been tackled since the Hoover Commissions of the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations. As one White House aide said, “This is long overdue. And nobody’s done anything about it.” It comes as no surprise that the task of eliminating government redundancies has not been tackled in more than 50 years. Considering that the country is slowly and painfully recovering from a recession and that American troops are still stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, initiating a major government reorganization seems to have understandably fallen to the wayside during the first two years of the Obama Administration. But a government makeover has always been a part of the President’s agenda, and there’s no better way to deliver palpable change than to merge or eliminate federal agencies.

In a highly divided political environment, Obama will have few easy wins, but an inevitably messy and most likely confusing government reorganization just might be one of them. In one of the Republican responses to the State of the Union, Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said that “Identifying, reforming and eliminating the redundancy and waste in government is an area in which there should and will be common-ground.” In theory, even the Tea Party should stand behind a proposal that results in a smaller government. Compared to the omnipresent vitriol that characterizes the health care and immigration debates, a structural consolidation is starting to look like fun.

Maintaining Obama’s Momentum Depends on Actions More Than Words

Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:48:55 GMT

The President has once again hit his stride. His approval rating has risen to a very respectable 52%. He presided over a very active lame duck session and received almost universal praise for this speech in Tucson on January 12^th. This Wednesday, he hosted his third State Dinner for Chinese President Hu Jintao, and despite the protests from human rights activists in front of the White House, the dinner seems to have been a success. Obama might even have allowed himself a little pampering this week (nice hair!), but next week poses a whole new set of challenges.

On Tuesday, Obama is scheduled to address the nation during his State of the Union speech. According to Gallup, State of the Union addresses do little to affect presidential approval ratings, and many presidents have seen their numbers drop after those speeches. While there is a laundry list of topics (including gun control, gay rights, partisan rhetoric and health care) that many want the President to address, many Americans just want the speech to be as short as possible so they can continue watching their regularly-scheduled television shows.

This year, the economy will get top billing in both the President’s and the opposition’s addresses. The Republicans’ response to the State of the Union will be delivered by Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, who is Chairman of the House Budget Committee. Ryan will give his speech in the Committee’s hearing room—a symbolic move that emphasizes the GOP’s commitment to “cut spending, reform government, and restore the foundations for growth and job creation.”

These two speeches will present to America opposite sides of the same coin. But while the addresses may kick off plans to improve the unemployment rate and boost the economy, it’s what happens in the months following the speeches that will determine if Obama can maintain the momentum built in the past month. In 2010, Obama’s speech concentrated on the economy, but he spent the better part of the year working on health care reform. In 2011, the public isn’t as interested in hearing the President talk about the economy, as much as they want to see him do something about it.

A Tough Lesson to Learn

Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:54:12 GMT

The general consensus among pundits, bloggers and politicians from both sides of the aisle is that Obama’s memorial speech given last night in Tucson, Arizona to commemorate the victims of Jared Lee Loughner was exactly what this country needed. Obama’s speech focused on the victims, paying tribute to them and trying to learn lessons from them. He did not shy away from addressing the extremely bipartisan, and at times violent, rhetoric that dominated the news cycle since long before the shootings on Saturday. Rolling Stone magazine called the speech the most powerful of his presidency and Glenn Beck even thanked him for “becoming the president of the United States of America”—although in the same breath he criticized Obama for not making those comments earlier. Besides that, the only real criticism the event received was the confusing atmosphere the crowd created by cheering and applauding during what was billed as a somber memorial service (the official text of the speech cites 53 breaks for applause during Obama’s 45 minutes on stage).

The main takeaway from Obama’s speech came twenty minutes in, when the President reminded us that, “at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized—at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do—it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.”

While the President has received many virtual pats on the back for his powerful words, we have not yet learned to heed them. Politico led the blogosphere yesterday in chastising the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, for refusing Obama’s invitation to travel to Tucson together, According to Politico, Boehner stayed behind in Washington so that he could attend a fundraiser for Maria Cino, who is seeking to run for chair of the Republican National Committee. However, Talking Points Memo tried to set the record straight this morning by pointing out that he chose to stay in DC to attend a bipartisan vigil for the victims of Saturday’s shooting on the House floor. Boehner presided over the six-hour event that Nancy Pelosi could not attend, since she was in Tucson. Boehner’s press secretary Michael Steel told reporters that “the Speaker felt his place was here in the House.” Later that night, the Speaker spoke for three minutes at Ms. Cino’s fundraiser, and left early enough to catch the President’s speech on television.

Despite the accusation that Boehner’s decision to stay in Washington was disrespectful, the Speaker’s actions were based entirely upon logistics, and anyone who has ever seen the Speaker in action cannot deny his capacity for empathy. The public’s knee-jerk reaction to Boehner’s absence in Tucson only proves that we are far from healing the wounds that partisan discourse has given us.

Revolving Door Roundup

Fri, 07 Jan 2011 20:12:54 GMT

The West Wing has become a revolving door, and right now it seems to be turning at a record pace. Hours ago, President Obama announced that Treasury counselor, Gene Sperling, will take over as director of the National Economic Council, a position that was held most recently by Larry Summers. But, just as someone is moving closer to the West Wing, another person is leaving it: Zeke Emanuel, brother of Rahm, spent his last day as special advisor for health policy at the Office of Management and Budget earlier this week.

When Rahm Emanuel left his position as White House chief of staff in early October, he made room for long-time Washington insider, Pete Rouse, to step in temporarily. Rouse, who had reportedly hoped to leave politics as many as six years ago, made it known from the beginning that he had no desire to stay on permanently as chief of staff. Just yesterday, President Obama announced that William Daley, a JPMorgan Chase executive and brother of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, will relieve Rouse of his duties, but Obama still gets to hold on to his old friend, who will remain in Washington as the President’s counselor.

While this transition will no doubt shake things up at the White House, President Obama will soon be without his trusted envoy to convey to the public exactly how things will change at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced on Wednesday that after two years as Obama’s official public messenger and almost seven years on his staff, he will leave the White House, along with his “modest salary,” in early February. In the running to replace Gibbs are deputy press secretaries Bill Burton and Josh Earnest, and Vice President Biden's communication director, James “Jay” Carney. However, this will be new Chief of Staff Daley’s first personnel assignment and the rumor around DC is that he is looking for a woman to fill the vacancy.

Last but not least, let’s examine David Axelrod’s replacement as senior advisor to the President. Axelrod announced back in November that he would leave the White House in early 2011, and as that time is upon us, Obama’s former campaign manager, David Plouffe, is expected to replace Axelrod as early as next week.

While it may seem at first that the most trusted and loyal of Obama’s staff are abandoning him, in reality the President’s men are just gearing up for 2012. Axelrod plans to head back to Chicago to prepare for Obama’s reelection soon after he steps down, fueling speculations that the President has picked his home town for his 2012 campaign headquarters. Joining Axelrod shortly after will most likely be Jim Messina, who is currently Obama’s deputy chief of staff for operations, and Robert Gibbs, who by then should be well-rested and ready to work again for his old boss.

Recess Appointment Riles Republicans

Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:25:02 GMT

President Obama is on vacation with his family in Hawaii, but that does not mean he isn’t working. Last night, Obama bypassed the Senate confirmation process and announced six recess appointments. While this is not the first time that the President has exercised this power, this set of appointments has proven to be the most contentious of his presidency.

Obama recess appointed William Boarman to be Public Printer; Matthew Bryza to be Ambassador to Azerbaijan; Norman Eisen to be Ambassador to the Czech Republic; Robert Ford to be Ambassador to the Syrian Arab Republic; Francis Ricciardone to be Ambassador to Turkey and, most controversial of all, James M. Cole to be Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice.

The dispute surrounding Cole’s appointment stems from his involvement as an independent monitor of AIG from 2005-2009 and the subsequent realization that he decided not to oversee AIG’s Financial Products Division as it was spiraling out of control. However, the most inflammatory objections to his appointment revolve around the 2002 op-ed piece Cole wrote for the Blog of Legal Times, in which he advocated for the suspects involved in the September 11^th attacks to be tried in civilian courts instead of military tribunals. In making his case, Cole compared the suspected terrorists to Timothy McVeigh, and said, “The acts of Sept. 11 were horrible, but so are…other things” such as drug trafficking, child abuse and murder. These comments offended many September 11^th survivors and led Representative Peter King (R-NY) to call him a “left-wing ideologue who places terrorists in the same categories as drug peddlers.” To add insult to injury Cole also represented Saudi Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud when September 11 survivors sued the Prince and others for financing terrorism.

Obama picked Cole to be the Justice Department’s Number 2 man because, like his appointee, Obama believes that terrorist suspects should be tried in civilian courts and that Republican opposition to criminal trials for the accused is nothing more than “rank politics.” However, Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay prison in 2010, and, as a final nail in the coffin, the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act prohibits the Pentagon from transferring any Guantanamo detainee to the United States for a trial. In this light, Cole’s recess appointment seems like a last ditch effort by the Obama Administration to gain some ground in securing civilian trials for terrorist suspects.

Cole’s recess appointment technically secures his position until the end of the next congressional session, but in protest, Republican Senators have the option to refuse to confirm any more nominations until the President agrees to not make any other recess appointees in the future. Whether the GOP takes this route and how much Cole will be able to accomplish during his brief time as Deputy Attorney General remains to be seen. However, it is almost certain that, once his recess appointment expires, Cole has little chance for confirmation with more Republicans in the Senate.

Obama Polls Better Than Most People, Including Himself, Expected

Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:46:28 GMT

President Obama fears for his presidency. At least that’s what Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR) would have you believe. Talking to CNN’s Eliot Spitzer, DeFazio said, “The White House is putting on tremendous pressure…the president is making phone calls saying this is the end of his presidency if he doesn't get this bad deal.” The bad deal he is referring to is the compromise that Obama offered Republicans over the Bush tax cuts, which are set to expire in a matter of weeks.

The White House vehemently denies that the President has said anything along those lines, but it’s not a stretch to imagine that the Democratic opposition to the tax cut deal has put pressure on the President to rally his base. While DeFazio believes that passing a bill that extends tax cuts for the wealthy will hurt Obama, the President has made it clear that extending the cuts for the middle class is worth granting concessions to the GOP. Either way, the President and the Democrats that support him and shun him seem to feel that 2012 will be a tough year for their party.

But perhaps not. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that was released yesterday matched Obama up with three potential GOP challengers that have been testing the presidential waters: former governor-turned-reality TV star Sarah Palin, former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA), and Senator John Thune (R-SD). In all three races, Obama came out on top. Notably, Obama garnered 22% more votes that Sarah Palin, but only 7% more than Mitt Romney. While the poll shows that Obama has a fighting chance when pitted against these three Republicans, there is more room for error when he was matched up against a one-size-fits-all Republican candidate. In that instance, Obama only has a 3% lead over the GOP. When those polled were asked the same question about President George W. Bush in 2002, our former President had a 14% lead over a generic Democratic candidate.

Gallup also released a poll earlier today that showed, for the first time in his presidency, Obama’s support amongst liberals dropped below 80% to 79%. This small dip was attributed to his compromise with Republicans over the Bush tax cuts and the resulting feeling that Obama will not stand up to the GOP. However, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll should offer some comfort to the President: Obama still hovers around a 45% approval rating despite the complaints coming from both sides of the aisle. In addition, 63% of Democrats believe that Obama and other Democratic leaders should try to work with the other side. In contrast, 47% of Republicans believe that their party leaders should hold their ground when presented with a Democratic compromise.

Based on these numbers, if DeFazio’s claim is true that Obama believes the tax cut deal could make or break his chances for a second term, perhaps it is a sign that our President has become a little paranoid. However, the road to 2012 will not be a smooth one. Obama is only leading by 3% against a generic Republican candidate, and Mitt Romney’s chances of making it through the GOP primaries have only grown stronger because of this poll. Regardless, Obama cannot ignore the fact this his support has quantifiably dropped within his base, so perhaps it’s good that the President seems a little paranoid about his chances for a second term. It can only make him try harder.

Obama Embraces New Strategy and is Left Standing Alone

Tue, 07 Dec 2010 17:42:43 GMT

Last night, President Obama announced the framework for a bipartisan agreement on the Bush-era tax cuts that extends the cuts for middle class Americans for two years and extends unemployment benefits for 13 months, but also concedes to Republican demands to extend the cuts for the wealthy and prolong the estate tax exemption. This morning, Republicans woke up happy, Democrats woke up angry, and the President woke up with a new election strategy.

In 2008, Obama campaigned to change Washington. Two years later, Obama is looking to rise above it. The tax cut compromise, and Obama’s willingness to express his displeasure of it, conveys the sense that the President is a flexible post-partisan problem-solver, instead of a stubborn, self-involved politician.

Democrats have long believed Obama to be too soft on Republicans, and too eager to compromise with the opposition. Despite these complaints, it seems like Obama is no longer interested in cultivating support within his base. The White House has even gone so far as to blame Congressional Democrats for not coming up with their own compromise and forcing the President to step in to save the middle class.

This part of his new strategy will not sit well with his original supporters. For Obama to convey the image of someone who is above the fray of Washington politics, he will not only have to compromise his party’s ideals to appease Republicans, he will also have to turn against his party to embody the image of a bipartisan leader.

The goal of his new plan is to recruit independent voters to his side, while relying on the Democratic constituency to vote for the lesser of two evils to keep him in office. While this scheme may end up convincing some independents that he is an effective problem-solver, Obama risks alienating those that came out in droves to support him in 2008.

If Obama insists on casting himself as a bipartisan governor over the next two years, we can expect many more compromises like the one he proposed last night. In yesterday’s remarks to the press, President Obama admitted that he has “no doubt that everyone will find something in this compromise that they don’t like.” Well, that statement can also apply to his new strategy.

Bush Tax Cut Compromise Could Make or Break Obama

Fri, 03 Dec 2010 19:06:53 GMT

Days after the midterm elections, when President Obama came face to face with a new Congressional majority and the GOP was still celebrating its victories, Obama acknowledged that one of the reasons that his party lost so badly was due to his inability to convey his message to the public. Now, with the fight over the Bush tax cuts reaching a fever pitch, he has the opportunity to show America exactly what he stands for; the question is, will he?

The Bush-era tax cuts that gave the rich an average of $46,000 in extra play money and the middle class about 227 extra bucks with which to buy food and other necessities is set to expire in 28 days. While both Republicans and Democrats wish to extend those cuts for the middle class, the GOP is adamant that the extension should be applied to the rich as well. Obama campaigned on a promise to cut taxes for middle class families and have the wealthiest 2% of Americans return a portion of the generous tax cuts that they received during the George W. Bush Administration to the government. But now that the entire Republican caucus has refused to work on any legislation until the tax cut extension is resolved, and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has declared that any legislation that excludes tax cuts for the wealthy would die on the Senate floor, Obama must decide how much his message is worth.

The Democrats in the House and Senate have done their part to try to secure cuts for the middle class. The House voted yesterday to pass a bill that excluded cuts for the rich. Senator Max Baucas (D-MT) drafted similar legislation that also extends unemployment benefits for another year. Despite these well-intentioned, largely symbolic, and most likely doomed feats, the President has done nothing to inspire hope or foster encouragement within his base.

Yesterday, Press Secretary Gibbs had the unenviable task of announcing that, despite Obama’s campaign promises, the President has ordered Treasury Secretary Geithner and OMB Director Lew to work out a compromise with Republicans in order to move on with other legislation.

That compromise will most likely come in the form of a two-year extension of tax cuts for the wealthy, which will effectively delay a real fight over taxes until 2012. Funny how that happens to be the same year as the next presidential election. If Obama consents to this compromise, which basically gives the Republicans everything they want, Mitch McConnell’s dream of making Obama a one-term president just might come true.

Obama has already lost a lot of support from his own base, evidenced by the fact that 33 Congressional Democrats voted against the House bill that excluded tax cuts for the wealthy. McConnell is also quick to point out that Senate Democrats have become divided due to Obama’s low approval ratings. But the main casualty of such a compromise will be his public support. If Obama compromises with the Republicans on the Bush tax cuts, he will undeniably demonstrate to voters that he is incapable of keeping his campaign promises.

However, all is not lost for Obama’s 2012 campaign. The chaos surrounding the tax cut extension and the Republicans’ savvy strategies seem to have made the nation, and the President himself, forget that when January arrives, Democrats will still have a majority in the Senate and the White House will still be blue. Nevertheless, the decisions that President Obama makes in the next 28 days will greatly affect how he fares in 2012.

Obama Eyes Independents, But Needs to Focus on Democrats

Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:29:20 GMT

While President Obama has been traveling around the world, the few presidential aides left in Washington, D.C. have spent their days sequestered in the White House, coming up with a strategy on how to navigate the next two years and ensure that the 2012 elections look nothing like those of 2010.

One plan of action conjured up by Obama’s staff is that the President must make a play to win back independent voters who helped him get into office in 2008, but have deserted him in droves during this year’s midterm elections. To accomplish this feat, they argue, Obama would have to make a real effort to compromise with the new Republican majority in the House.

While the phrase “reach across the aisle” makes bipartisanship seem like a low-impact activity, finding common ground with the newly-elected Republicans will be much harder for Obama now that it ever was before. The newly-elected Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH), has already stated that he will move quickly to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the passing of which Obama regards as one of his highest achievements.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) also has it out for Obama; but instead of going after individual policies, McConnell has set a prodigious goal for his party: to make Barack Obama a one-term president. It seems that if Obama wants to work with the GOP, he’ll have to sidestep two of the most influential people in the party, and reach out to more moderate Republicans.

Striving to strike a bipartisan tone in the following years may be a way to win over some independents, but it is also a recipe for resentment among Obama’s base. During a meeting with the President on Thursday, Senate Democrats were not shy about hiding their dissatisfaction with Obama, blaming his inability to convey his message to the public for their midterm defeat in the House.

Despite what his aides might think, President Obama has to tend to his own house before he can think about achieving harmony with the GOP. There is a stark lack of unity among the Democrats right now, evidenced by their palpable hesitation to elect Nancy Pelosi as House Minority Leader and their inability to reach a consensus on the possible extension of the Bush tax cuts. The only way Obama can even think about gaining support from independent voters is if he is able to ensure approval within his own party. If Obama succeeds in unifying and supporting his party over the next two years, independents will follow him to the polls in 2012.

Obama’s Hesitation to Compromise Compromised His Party’s Victory

Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:49:46 GMT

President Obama returns from his tour of Asia next Wednesday, and while the President has been mainly focused on foreign relations in the wake of the GOP’s midterm victory, another member of his Administration has been concentrating on one of the key domestic issues that Republicans have held close to their hearts: the Bush tax cuts that are scheduled to expire at the end of the year.

White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod sat down with Huffington Post reporter Howard Fineman last Thursday to discuss the possible continuation of the Bush policy, which not only cut taxes drastically for the middle-class, but also for the 2% of Americans who are lucky enough to call themselves millionaires and billionaires.

Just two months ago, Obama announced that he was unequivocally against extending the tax cuts for the wealthy, while at the same time insisting that the tax cuts for middle-class Americans should become permanent. This stance frustrated conservative Democrats because even though they supported tax-cuts for the rich, Obama’s announcement gave Republicans ammunition to lure conservative Democratic constituents to the GOP.

Therefore, when Axelrod hinted that a compromise on tax cuts for the wealthy might be the only way to ensure protection for the middle-class, the news seemed to fly in the face of everything Obama had said thus far.

However, that is not the case. Days before the Axelrod interview was published, Obama announced during his weekly address that “the last thing we should do is raise taxes on middle-class families… So something’s got to be done. And I believe there’s room for us to compromise and get it done together.”

So it seems that a give-and-take—extending tax cuts for the wealthy for one more year in order to secure tax cuts for the middle class—is on the table, which is both good and bad. For one, middle class tax cuts are one step closer to being extended; but on the other hand, Obama’s announcement came about two months too late to help Democrats who were struggling to hold onto their seats.

While Democrats may be upset about this missed opportunity, Republicans view this concession as an opportunity to make tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. As Washington Post’s Greg Sargent points out, there is little chance that the GOP will allow middle class tax cuts to be made permanent, while tax cuts for the wealthy are merely extended. Republicans, fresh and emboldened from their midterm success, are ready to fight for their agenda.

With respect to the Bush tax cuts, Obama did little to help his party during midterm elections. For a President who is often criticized of compromising too much with the right, this was one opportunity when his decision to make a stance was ill-advised and ill-timed. When Obama returns to DC next week and is greeted by a soon-to-be GOP-controlled House and a frustrated base, he’ll have to learn quickly which fights to pick and when a compromise might be the best thing for his party.

Obama’s Waiver on Child Soldiers Hides Behind Midterm Chaos

Fri, 05 Nov 2010 14:45:05 GMT

For the past two weeks, every national media outlet has been focused on last Tuesday’s midterm elections. It has been impossible to turn on the TV or open a newspaper without another story about Boehner, Reid or Obama jumping out at you. However, there has been one story that, while largely ignored by large media outlets, has caused massive outrage within the NGO community and on Capital Hill.

On Monday, October 25^th, President Obama signed a memorandum addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waiving sections of a 2008 law that was meant to discourage the recruitment of child soldiers in African countries by withholding American military aid. The Obama Administration deferred this prohibition by one year so that the United States could more easily work with four nations that have abysmal human rights records.

Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, and Yemen will now receive American aid despite the Child Service Prevention Act, which prohibited military assistance (including education and training) to countries that recruit children under 18 to serve in the army. Restrictions are still in effect in Burma and Somalia.

Both President Obama and Vice President Biden signed this bill as senators. Now, two years later, they seem to have changed their minds. The Administration’s reasons to waive these restrictions (by urging from the State department) are as follows:

1) The bill’s prohibition would “harm the cooperative relationship we currently hold with Chad in combating terrorism,” and working from within the nation, instead of applying external pressure, would help to “encourage Sudanese rebel movements to commit to peace talks.”

2) Prohibition in the Congo would jeopardize America’s “opportunity to positively influence negative behavior patterns” exhibited by the Democratic Republic of Congo’s Armed Forces.

3) The Government of Southern Sudan’s army has already made a commitment to preventing the recruitment of child soldiers and demobilizing those already within its ranks (as of December, 2009, there were approximately 1,200 Sudanese boys and girls from the ages of 12-17 serving in the army.) Sudan is in the process of launching a Child Protection Unit to oversee these operations, and withholding aid now, especially military education and training, could endanger these already vulnerable efforts.

4) Yemen has become a breeding ground for al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups. Prohibition now would harm our countries’ cooperative relationship “at a pivotial point in the fight against terrorism” and cause further instability within the country.

While there are compelling arguments to be made for both withholding aid and for working “from inside the tent,” one thing is for sure: The Obama Administration did not want this story to make the news.

Foreign Policy’s blog, The Cable, has been the only news outlet to cover this story extensively. President Obama signed the memo without fanfare or even a press release, and the timing—right before an important mid-term election—allowed the story to go unnoticed by most.

On Friday afternoon, the White House held a one hour conference call during which Samantha Power, the National Security Council’s senior director for multilateral affairs, fielded questions from upset advocacy directors and Hill staffers over a decision that seemed to come out of nowhere. While Powers maintained that the Administration is still committed to ending the recruitment of child soldiers in those countries, it was decided that in the interest of national security, shaming these countries on the international stage while working with them to promote stability is more effective in the long run. Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Yemen now have one more year of guaranteed aid and then, according to Power, they will not “get so lucky next time if we don't see some progress.”

The strategy of branding, naming, and shaming these countries will probably not work within the short time allotted. In addition, proponents of the bill insist that the justifications given by the White House for waiving the prohibitions are insufficient to legitimize such an affront to human rights. The fact that President Obama tried to sneak this decision under the radar may mean that, like the countries he is trying to help, he should feel a little shame right now.

In Obama v. Caprio, Chafee is the Winner

Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:54:56 GMT

President Obama surprised everyone this week by refusing to endorse the Democratic gubernatorial candidate for Rhode Island, Frank Caprio. Caprio, in turn, announced on the radio that Obama can “take his endorsement and really shove it.”

Caprio is in a tight three-way race with Republican candidate John Robitaille and Independent Lincoln Chafee, who in 2008, while still a member of the Republican Party, endorsed Obama for President. At the time, Caprio threw his weight behind presidential-hopeful Hillary Clinton. Obama’s decision to skip any kind of endorsement in the governor’s race was out of respect and friendship for Chafee (in addition to Chafee’s bold endorsement of Obama, the two became close during their time together in the Senate).

Just a few days before making the now infamous comment, Caprio was ready to welcome Obama to his state with open arms. However, upon realizing that a presidential endorsement was out of his reach, Caprio made the tactical decision to turn on his Commander-In-Chief in order to drum up support from more moderate conservatives, especially as the gap between him and his Republican challenger is getting smaller. Whether his comments and subsequent distance from Obama have convinced any conservative voters to give Caprio a second look remains to be seen. However, his overall numbers fell 12 points right after the national media picked up the story.

While the race for Rhode Island is still close, Chafee is leading with about 35% of the vote, which is basically evidence that Obama’s refusal to endorse Caprio has been viewed as a full-out endorsement of Chafee. Even with Bill Clinton’s endorsement of Caprio coming in the eleventh hour, it seems like the Democratic candidate has dug himself into a hole.

Obama, for his part, has been targeted by the Democratic Governors Association for his disloyalty to the party. Association Chairman Nathan Daschle called Obama’s decision “disappointing,” and added that “Frank Caprio has spent his career fighting for the values of the Democratic Party…He deserves the full support of our party and its leaders.” RNC Chairman Michael Steele joined the conversation by telling reporters that the Obama snub was “insulting” to Caprio.

Even though Obama’s refusal to endorse a member of his own party may seem unfaithful to some, his decision to stay neutral might actually help him out in the long run. Chafee is viewed as more liberal than Caprio, and if he wins the seat, Obama’s old friend is more likely to support the President than Caprio would, especially now that Obama has made an enemy out of his fellow Democrat. The people of Rhode Island will probably agree with Obama, considering that the President won the state’s vote with 63% in 2008. By November 3^rd, Chafee will most likely be basking in the afterglow of victory, and Caprio will be left licking his wounds.

Shovel-Ready Projects Dig Obama into a Hole

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:31:49 GMT

President Obama is a great orator, but neither he nor his Administration communicate effectively. In the most recent edition of The New York Times Magazine, columnist Peter Baker explores this irony. Apparently, in the White House, “it’s a communication problem” has become something of a mantra. Public and political opposition to health care, the stimulus, and any other policy Obama has put forth all boils down to a lack of communication, which Baker sums up as “If only I explained what I was doing better, the people would be more supportive…If only you people paid attention, you wouldn’t be kicking me upside the head.”

Obama’s most recent example of poor communication comes straight from Baker’s article. When asked what went wrong during the first two years of his presidency, Obama admitted that he erroneously portrayed the image of “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat,” but more importantly, he realized that after promising jobs to the American people, there is in fact “no such thing as shovel-ready projects.”

Shovel-ready projects. While not as ubiquitous a phrase as “Yes, We Can!” the term has been used often by Obama and other Democrats in the last two years. The description refers to federal and local projects that, for all intents and purposes, would be ready to break ground at a moment’s notice, quickly offering countless jobs, mainly in construction, to the unemployed. In 2008, then President-Elect Obama assured Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press that state governors had these projects lined up and ready to go, if only he could find a way to get “the money out the door.”

Well, he got the money—in the form of a stimulus package—but unemployment is still at 9.6%. So, his most recent admission that “shovel-ready projects” are non-existent has caused the Republican Party to jump on that unfortunate quote and use it as evidence that the stimulus failed. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was the first to respond to the story, with a news release that reads: “As the trillion-dollar stimulus fails to fulfill promises, President Obama is separating himself from his own sales pitch on shovel-ready projects.”

Obama basically supplied his opponents with ammunition just weeks before the mid-term elections; and the fact is that Obama had control over what went into the article insomuch as he had control over what he said. Upon reading that quote, it’s easy to picture the average Obama supporter planting a facepalm and exclaiming, “Why did he say that?” to their computer screen. The only thing Obama could have gained from that admission is the noble feeling that comes when a human owns up to his mistakes—but in Washington D.C., that feeling is not worth the political risks.

The President has never hidden his aversion for Washington politics or the fickle, 24 hour news cycle. Baker recounts anecdotes of Obama shaking his head while watching CNN, Fox News and MSNBC pick apart his every move. But his supporters and aides recognize the need to get in front of the news. Governor Ed Rendell explains that the Administration “lost the communications battle on both major initiatives, and they lost it early. We didn’t use the president in either stimulus or health care until we had lost the spin battle.”

In order to get the support of Americans, Obama needs to step out in front of the spin that he so unabashedly detests. He says that the last two years have taught him some “tactical lessons,” but with quotes like the ones in Baker’s article, it’s difficult to surmise how much he has learned about communicating with the public. What he says in response to McConnell’s claims will be a major indicator of just how well he can control the spin.

The Virtues of Biden

Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:10:45 GMT

Two weeks ago, no one in Washington, DC could stop talking about Bob Woodward’s newest book, “Obama’s Wars.” Just as the hype around the seasoned journalist’s most recent publication started to die down, Woodward once again grabbed headlines by reigniting the old rumor of an Obama-Clinton 2012 ticket, saying the possibility of a VP switch was “on the table” during a Tuesday night interview with CNN. Despite subsequent denials from both the White House and Clinton’s personal aides, news outlets are having a hard time letting this “story” go. But while bloggers, newspapers, and cable TV pundits are highlighting the potential benefits of a Clinton Vice Presidency, few have focused on just how good a job the actual Vice President is doing.

Joe Biden is one of the Obama Administration’s most ardent defenders, and in the last few months, he has been one of the President’s and the Party’s most active supporters. In the last three weeks alone, Biden has stumped for 18 Democratic candidates in 23 cities in 16 states. He is expected to appear in at least 18 more campaign events in the few weeks before the midterm elections. Biden goes places that, due to logistics, the President cannot, and unlike Obama’s recent appearances that revolve around big fundraising events for the Democratic Party, Biden stumps for the individual candidates.

The Vice President is famous for speaking his mind, passionately and sometimes heedlessly. Most recently, Biden came under fire for saying, “If I hear one more Republican tell me about balancing the budget, I am going to strangle them.” Despite his verbal blunders, and perhaps in part because of them, Joe Biden has gained the reputation as a “Regular Joe,” someone the voters can connect to and count on to understand their struggles. Unlike Obama, Biden has a relatable economic backstory—growing up in Scranton, Pennsylvania, the Biden family had to relocate to Delaware when his father could not find work in the state. The future Vice President, the first of four children, was only 11 years old at the time. He likes to tell this story on the campaign trail, saying that “people are angry” because of the economy, “and I’m angry too.”

Biden has become the other side of the Obama coin. While the President has been criticized for his stoic attitude and perceived elitism, Biden is the guy you’d love to see at your family reunions, manning the barbeque and joking with uncles. Back in 2008, when Obama was just a presidential hopeful, Biden infamously told a crowd of supporters that “Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America…[she] might have been a better pick than me.” It’s doubtless that some people still think that, but one thing is for sure, Obama is lucky to have Joe in his corner.

Rahmbo’s Out, Reason’s In

Fri, 01 Oct 2010 19:34:52 GMT

At 11:05 this morning, President Obama stood before the podium in the White House’s East Room with the past and future representatives of his administration standing on either side. To the President’s left stood Rahm Emanuel, a man whose tenure as Chief of Staff was characterized by his energy, temper, and colorful vocabulary. Standing with his chest out, hands clasped behind his back, Rahm playfully winked at members of the audience as he soaked up the compliments pouring from Obama’s lips. In contrast, to the President’s right, Pete Rouse stood faithfully by, stomach out, hands clasped protectively in front of him. Older and quieter, Rouse seems to be the antithesis of “Rahmbo”—instead of an attack dog, Rouse is the good dog.

Emanuel’s departure from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue marks the end of the first chapter of Obama’s presidency. In 2009, the young President led a troop of equally young and optimistic staffers to Washington with the dream of changing how the country is governed. Now, heading into 2011, the members of Obama’s tight inner circle have grown tired, and their departures from the White House leave the Commander in Chief with the unenviable task of replacing his most important aides.

Obama has chosen well by picking Pete Rouse, who, as Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor, is known around the office as “the fixer.” The President said during his announcement today that "There is a saying around the White House: “Let's let Pete fix it…and he does." With nearly 30 years of experience and a history of working with the President, Rouse offers Obama a sense of familiarity and trustworthiness that he would not have gotten if he had chosen someone from outside his administration. Even though Rouse is only tapped to be the interim Chief of Staff, and has expressed his reluctance to take on the position permanently, he is at the top of a very short list to become the full-time Chief of Staff.

If he stays on in that position, the reign of Pete Rouse would be much different from that of Emanuel, and would mark the beginning of the second chapter of the Obama Administration—one that is calmer, more deliberate, and more comfortable working within Washington’s confines. If the Rouse-era proves successful, he could potentially help usher in what Obama hopes will be the third chapter of his presidency, one that would start on January 20, 2013.

“Obama’s Wars” Will Be Our Children’s

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:41:48 GMT

Bob Woodward, a veritable institution in political media coverage, dominated headlines this week with news that he will release a new book on Monday, entitled “Obama’s Wars,” an examination of the President’s decision to send a surge of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan and place a July, 2011 deadline for troop withdrawal. The book, Woodward’s 16^th, also offers insight into Obama’s war at home—the one brewing within his national security team.

The book details President Obama’s plea to his advisors to devise an exit plan for a conflict that is approaching its ten year anniversary. He is quoted as saying that he only has “two years with the public on this” until the people’s support runs dry, and that, without a timetable for troop withdrawal, he risks losing the “whole Democratic party.” Insisting that he has no desire for “long-term nation building,” Obama made his own exit strategy in the form of a six-page “terms sheet” that outlined reasons for a short-term troop escalation followed by a swift withdrawal. The book relates that most of Obama’s national security team, including Vice President Biden and Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, don’t think that the President’s strategy is viable, but cannot agree on the best course of action.

“Obama’s Wars” has managed to captivate the country, as every newspaper and cable show on TV is feasting on the juicy bits of information relating the infighting and name-calling between Obama’s top military advisors. The White House, for its part, is actually happy with the way Obama is portrayed in Woodward’s book: Says one Administration official, “The President comes across…as a Commander in Chief who is analytical, strategic, and decisive, with a broad view of history, national security, and his role.” But amid all the excitement and noise surrounding Woodward’s book, there is a depressing and disheartening message: The conflict in Afghanistan might become this generation’s Vietnam.

Buried in the 441 pages of Woodward’s book, a discussion between the Vice President and the Commander-In-Chief is revealed in which Biden warns Obama that a large-scale escalation in Afghanistan could mean the US would be “locked into Vietnam” all over again, and America could find itself fighting a seemingly endless and unpopular war with a small chance of success at its conclusion. As General David Petraeus, Commander of the US Forces in Afghanistan, says, “You have to recognize also that I don't think you win this war. I think you keep fighting. It's a little bit like Iraq, actually. . . . Yes, there has been enormous progress in Iraq. But there are still horrific attacks in Iraq, and you have to stay vigilant. You have to stay after it. This is the kind of fight we're in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids' lives.”

Elizabeth Warren: Director? Advisor? Czar?

Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:12:31 GMT

Earlier this week the POTUS Post predicted that Elizabeth Warren, longtime friend of President Obama and original visionary of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, would be nominated as director of the Bureau and then, come October, slip into office as a recess appointee.

Apparently, that is not going to happen. Shortly after the media began speculating on Warren’s potential appointment to be director of the Bureau, news surfaced that the Harvard professor had no interest in serving for the full five year term allotted to the director. Now, Obama is expected to announce later today that Warren will serve his Administration in a dual role as Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to Treasury Secretary Geithner on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Warren has already accepted the position in a letter posted on the White House blog earlier today.

Warren will start work on the Bureau immediately; however, just because she will be reporting to Secretary Geithner does not mean that Warren won’t have autonomy. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) said, “Anybody who thinks that she's going to be taking orders from Tim Geithner is nuts. Tim isn't planning to give her orders, and she's not planning to take them." Frank, who co-wrote the financial reform bill that established the Bureau, is “very pleased” that the White House has found a way to circumvent the Senate via presidential appointment. In contrast, Frank’s co-author of the bill, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), is disappointed that the White House has not yet named a nominee to be the Bureau’s director. He said, “Advisers are advisers. You still have to have a director. You’ve got to have someone who has earned the respect and the support of the Senate.”

President Obama is expected to make his announcement to the press this afternoon at 1:30pm in the Rose Garden.

The Warren Dilemma: Play Fair or Play to Win?

Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:20:47 GMT

For most people following the development of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP), it is basically a given that Elizabeth Warren, the “architect of the idea that became the bureau,” will be chosen to become the office’s director. However, the method Obama will use to secure her position remains a matter of speculation.

Elizabeth Warren is an old friend of the President. She met with Obama and his advisors twice since speculation about her new position arose, most recently last Tuesday. In addition, she abruptly dropped her contract law class at Harvard University that was scheduled for the fall semester. In fact, most of her actions since the passing of the financial reform bill that established the BCFP point towards her moving to Washington, D.C. However, Warren is not as beloved on the other side of the aisle as she is within Obama’s ranks. A Senate confirmation hearing for someone with a history of going after credit card companies and banks would surely be rife with Republican opposition.

Fortunately, President Obama might have a solution to that problem. Rather than formally declaring his intention to nominate Warren to the Bureau, a process which would most likely take months and delay the nascent office’s development; or waiting until October when Congress is out of session to recess appoint her; Obama has the option of naming her Interim Director of the Bureau—a shortcut that would sidestep a messy confirmation process and let Warren get to work immediately. Treasury Secretary Geithner has the authority under the financial reform bill to appoint a temporary regulator, which might be how Warren could get into office.

However, outgoing Senator, Chair of the Senate Banking Committee, and coauthor of the financial reform bill, Chris Dodd (D-CT), has been very vocal about his opposition to this plan. He sent a warning on Tuesday that sidestepping the Senate confirmation process could “jeopardize the existence” of the entire Bureau. According to Dodd, “You've got to build the support for that institutionally, or the next Congress…could gut this before it even gets off the ground…They can change the funding source and kill it. That can change with an amendment."

The White House, for its part, has denied any plans to dodge a potentially long and divisive confirmation process by appointing Warren as interim director. In fact, the Administration has remained pretty silent about the whole thing, only offering sound bytes about the friendship between Warren and the President when prompted by the media. For his part, Obama stated that he expects to make an “official announcement” soon.

Most likely the President will take Dodd’s advice and play it safe. In the coming days or weeks, expect to hear Obama formally nominate Elizabeth Warren as Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Then, when Congress is out of session in October and midterm elections are on the forefront of everyone’s minds, Obama will recess appoint his old friend, allowing her to direct the office without any interference for one year. That move may not allow Warren to stay in office for the full five years the BCFP Director should get, but it might just be enough to get the organization moving.

Obama v. Boehner, or is it Bush?

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 22:14:03 GMT

“The man who thinks he’s going to be Speaker” finally got called out by name. During a speech about the economy on Wednesday afternoon in Parma, Ohio, President Obama posited House Minority Leader, John Boehner (R-OH), as the face of the Republican Party and the enemy of the middle class. Officially shedding his once firmly-held commitment to bipartisanship, Obama pulled no punches as he explained to the audience that the GOP is a party of old ideas, pet projects, and opposition.

Talking about a speech Boehner gave in Ohio last month, Obama stated: “There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner. There were no new ideas. There was just the same philosophy that we had already tried during the decade that they were in power—the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place.”

Obama has become used to relying upon George W. Bush to play the villain—a shining example of how destructive the Republican Party can be and a reason to keep Democrats in office. However, this strategy is failing due to the fact that 65% of Americans don’t see a vote for the GOP as a vote for Bush. But now, the President has found a new adversary in the form of John Boehner.

The House Minority Leader burst onto national headlines during his speech in Ohio last month where he called on Obama to fire the entire White House economic team, including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, in order to give the country “a fresh start.” Since then, Obama and his administration have cast Boehner almost as a new George W. Bush—someone who will lead the country using the same policies that failed so spectacularly during the last administration.

Obama devoted a large part of his speech to comparing his economic agenda to Boehner’s, mainly focusing on the Republican’s support for Bush-era policies, specifically tax breaks for the wealthy. In contrast, Obama proposed permanent tax cuts for the middle class and a six-year infrastructure plan that would create jobs and rehabilitate our crumbling highways and transportation systems. According to Obama, “Mr. Boehner and the Republicans in Congress said no to these projects. Fought them tooth and nail. Though I should say it didn’t stop a lot of them from showing up at the ribbon-cuttings.”

While the Obama Administration has found an easy target in Boehner, the object of contempt is in fact delighted that he has been pushed into the limelight. Indeed, the GOP is actually working to brand Boehner the face of their party, and Obama is helping them do just that. However, a White House official asserted that, “I think what we’re doing is raising his profile, but using him to illustrate the choice between the policies that he would promise as Speaker of the House to take us back and the policies the president wants to put in place to move us forward.”

This strategy might work if Obama and the Democrats can manage to maintain control of Boehner’s image as an out-of-touch G.W.Bush super-fan. The largest challenge they face for the upcoming elections is to convince the 65% of Americans that don’t equate Republicans with Bush that the two are inextricably linked. Unless Obama can persuade Americans that a vote for Boehner’s party is a vote for Bush, the House Minority Leader will become the Speaker of the House and Obama’s attacks against Boehner on Wednesday will have only served as a preview for the next two years.

Obama: President or Commander-In-Chief?

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:56:50 GMT

For the second time in his presidential career, Barack Obama sat behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office and addressed the nation. Almost 18 minutes later, Operation Iraqi Freedom was over, and the President, as well as the rest of the nation, had moved on.

At least that was the impression he seemed to give during his speech.

In theory, the announcement should have been a joyous moment for Americans. The seven-year war in Iraq divided the country, drained our resources, and sacrificed thousands of lives. But there’s been no national closure since victory or defeat is so hard to define with Iraq. Instead, our Commander-In-Chief seemed to just pick a random date out of a hat and, right on schedule, declared that the war was over. Almost 100,000 soldiers crossed the border to Kuwait two weeks ago, but approximately 50,000 are still in Iraq. Those troops will remain until January, 2012, to train, assist and advise Iraqi security forces with the purpose of forming a self-sustaining, self-protecting government. However, for all intents and purposes, those troops will still be in combat situations. They will be left in an active war zone, in a foreign, unstable country.

In fact, Iraq is barely more stable now than it was when President Bush sent in the first troops in 2003. Saddam Hussein is long gone, but democracy has not been fully realized. In March of this year, Iraq held a national parliamentary election, and six months after the fact, Iraqis are still scrambling to form their new government.

Regardless, Obama’s speech seemed undeservedly optimistic about the future of the war-torn country. He talked about Iraq having the “opportunity to embrace a new destiny” despite the challenges that remain. Then, he quickly guided the narrative to the problems our nation faces, mainly the economy and the need for “jobs, jobs, jobs.”

Obama told Americans that “at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home…Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work.” He called this duty his “central responsibility as President,” and indeed, he wishes that it was.

As President, Obama would prefer to focus on domestic, economic issues, but he cannot escape his role as Commander-In-Chief. He has taken full ownership of the war in Afghanistan, implementing a surge of 30,000 troops in December, 2009, and calling for a drawdown in July, 2011. But he was never as supportive of the war in Iraq as he was of the war in Afghanistan. As a Senator, Obama made it clear that he opposed the war and promised that if he became president he would work to end it quickly. And he has. But just because he uttered the phrase, “Operation Iraqi Freedom is over” does not mean that he gets to walk away from a country that is struggling to return to normal after seven years of American occupation. In his speech, he conceded that America’s commitment to Iraq has not ended, but with a down economy and upcoming midterm elections, the temptation for Obama to move on is almost irresistible.

Many Americans have found it too easy to forget about a war-torn country on the other side of the globe. President Obama’s Tuesday night address will make it even easier for them to ignore a conflict that has compromised our economy and our global credibility. But Obama must remember it for us. Whether by increasing humanitarian aid, providing assistance in developing infrastructure, or even keeping those 50,000 troops in Iraq past the January, 2012 deadline if necessary, Obama’s commitment to Iraq is just beginning.

Islam: The New Black?

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:57:14 GMT

When Barack Obama was elected president 2 years ago, a small but quixotic portion of American society hailed his victory as the end of the “race problem” in our country. Unfortunately, just because an African-American was elected President did not mean that the Aryan Nation dissolved or that racial tensions across the country dissipated. But perhaps the race problem in America did take a little vacation, if only to push religious prejudice to the forefront of the nation’s discourse.

Today—when the thought of building a Muslim community center in lower Manhattan or Tennessee generates the type of anger and outrage that should be more appropriately reserved for crimes against humanity; when a New York City cab driver’s throat is slit for answering positively to the question, “are you Muslim?”; and when one in five Americans erroneously believes that President Obama is a Muslim and that number correlates to those who say he is a bad president—it seems like followers of Islam are enduring prejudice and civil rights violations in much the same way that the black community has for most of American history.

When the Gallup poll was released stating that the number of Americans who wrongly thought that Obama was Muslim had nearly doubled in two years, the controversy over the Cordoba House, a Muslim community center, was coming to a head. In the cloud of religious and ethnic prejudice, President Obama simply stated, via deputy press secretary Bill Burton, that he is a Christian who prays often, but has no interest in “making sure Americans know what a devout Christian he is.”

This response was a refreshing departure from the religious zealotry imbued in the current national narrative. In fact, Obama’s reluctance to candidly share his views on faith (most likely the result of the controversy surrounding his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright) lends him a sense of credibility with non-Christian Americans, as opposed to his predecessor whose political ideologies and public image were inextricably linked to God and Christianity.

While Obama’s insistence on staying above the fray is commendable, simply shrugging off misperceptions about Islam and his own religion is not. As President, and more importantly as a black president with familial ties to Islam, Obama has a responsibility to redress the delusion that all Muslims are terrorists. While there is no need to overcompensate for his perceived lack of Christian faith, there is a need to educate all American citizens about the true nature of the Muslim religion and, dare I say, “preach” tolerance of all faiths as the admirable and quintessentially American thing to do. If President Obama allows the misguided hate and violence against the Muslim community to continue, then a second civil rights movement will be in order, and this time, the Muslims will have to march.

“Ground Zero Mosque” is a Misnomer but Obama’s Words are Clear

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:22:24 GMT

First things first: The “Ground Zero Mosque” is not a mosque. The proposed Cordoba House is an Islamic community center that will have a basketball court and host cooking classes. It will also devote the two top floors of the building as a prayer space. Second, the Cordoba House is not at Ground Zero. The building, located at 45 Park Place (in a lot that once housed a Burlington Coat Factory), would be two blocks from where the World Trade towers once stood. Also within a two block radius of Ground Zero is an Irish pub, a McDonald’s, an Off-Track Betting parlor, and a “gentlemen’s club” called New York Dolls. The location of the Cordoba House, also referred to as Park 51, is not exactly on a block that most New Yorkers would call “sacred.”

President Obama addressed the “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy at the annual White House Iftar Dinner held during the Islamic month of Ramadan. He stated, “I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.” News outlets and politicians erroneously jumped on this quote, which is really just a statement of facts, as an all-out endorsement of the Cordoba House. So the next day, when the President was asked to clarify his statement, the leader of the free word had this to say: "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.” This statement was heard by many as Obama backtracking on his previous comments that were misinterpreted the day before.

By simply stating that all Americans have a constitutional right to freedom of religion, and refusing to give a personal opinion on the matter, the President was simultaneously punished and praised from both sides of the aisle for his comments on the Cordoba House. Today, his team made it clear that President Obama just wants to drop the subject and move on. That shouldn’t be hard to do, considering the fickle nature of the 24-hour news cycle and the numerous opinions that the controversy surrounding the Cordoba House will not play a big role in the upcoming midterm elections.

However, just because next week everyone will be talking about another controversy or political scandal does not mean that the issues that the “Ground Zero Mosque” raises should be ignored by the Administration. Sure, the Cordoba House itself is a local issue, and there is no further need for the President to comment on it specifically. However, the fear, tension, anger and prejudice directed against a large portion of Americans is a national issue, and should be addressed without restraint.

So who should the 44^th president look to for guidance in navigating this important and polarizing issue? How about our 43^rd president, George W. Bush? Just nine days after the Twin Towers fell, President Bush stood before the country and preached tolerance and respect toward Muslim-Americans by saying, “We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful...The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.” Despite Obama’s quest to be everything that George W. Bush was not, on this issue our current President might want to try emulating his predecessor and continue to stand up for the rights of Muslim-Americans even in the face of political turmoil.

White House Press Secretary Talks Too Much, but Says What We Need to Hear

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:18:23 GMT

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs is sick. He missed work on Tuesday because, as his deputy Bill Burton explained to the press, “drug makers haven't found a Sudafed strong enough for Robert Gibbs.” But besides the sniffles, which will go away on their own, Gibbs has bigger things to worry about, namely the health of his career.

Earlier this week Gibbs sat down with a reporter from The Hill and vented his frustration toward the “professional left” for lambasting Obama for cutting deals with the right at the expense of pushing a more liberal agenda. Gibbs, who was mainly referring to left-leaning cable news pundits, said that Obama’s liberal critics will only “be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon.” He added that anyone who compares President Obama to George W. Bush “ought to be drug tested.” With these few words, Gibbs effectively insulted and alienated the President’s biggest base of support.

When Gibbs returned to the podium on Wednesday, he apologized for his heated comments, yet stood by his words saying that the President doesn’t get enough credit from the left for the things that he has accomplished. While many people, including Representative Alan Grayson (D-FL), have called on Gibbs to resign, the press secretary made it clear that he has no plans to step down from his post.

This isn’t the first time that Robert Gibbs’ comments have irked liberal politicians and pundits alike. Just over a month ago Gibbs appeared on “Meet the Press” and said that “there's no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control” of the House during mid-term elections. This simple admittance of a mathematical fact ignited a firestorm of Democratic infighting, culminating in a very public feud between Gibbs and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Because of this, many see the comments Gibbs made earlier this week as his second strike. Combined with the fact that most White House press secretaries burn out before their second anniversary, it seems like Gibbs, who joined Team Obama in January, 2009, might be ready to step down soon anyway. But that does not mean he should.

Gibbs, as the official voice of the Administration, brings a sense of humor and more than a bit of passion to a presidency that many have characterized as stoic and unemotional. From mocking Sarah Palin by writing his grocery list on his hand, to his most recent display of anger at the “professional left,” Gibbs’ playfulness and candor is part of his charm. In addition, the impending mass exodus of talent from the Obama White House makes it even more important that Gibbs stay put, if only to provide a façade of consistency and stability to an Administration in transition during mid-term elections.

Gibbs argues that he has said nothing that hasn’t been said before, and despite the problems he may cause, Obama should count his press secretary amongst his assets. Furthermore, his Democratic colleagues should do as Gibbs says: stop going after your own, and focus on why the truths that he speaks so candidly are troubling in the first place.

Out of the Closet—Proposition 8 Verdict Forces Obama to Take Action on Gay Rights

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:20:29 GMT

Cheers were heard outside the San Francisco District Court yesterday afternoon as Judge Vaughn Walker declared that Proposition 8, which legally bans same-sex marriage in California, was unconstitutional and overturned. Gay marriage supporters from Hollywood to Hyannis celebrated, and among their ranks a certain President of the United States was blowing out his 49 birthday candles and celebrating with them.

President Obama has always been clear on his opinion of Prop 8, calling it “unnecessary” and declaring on the campaign trail that “when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them.” Obama has stated that same-sex marriage should be a local and state government issue, but he asserted that as a President, his job would be to protect and ensure that law-abiding citizens enjoy equal rights. However, the then presidential candidate also asserted that, as a Christian with traditional family values, he believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

The contradictory relationship between his political stance on gay rights and his personally-held beliefs has meant that, in the past, Obama has been able to appease the LGBT community while indulging his supporters who believe in traditional family values. However, with the recent ruling on Prop 8 and the increasing pressure to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, President Obama will soon have to choose a side and stick up for it—something that, as President, he has been reluctant to do on many social issues.

As a senator, Obama supported full civil unions that would give same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples. He also supported equal adoption rights for gays and lesbians, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and the expansion of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and federal hate crime legislation to include issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. However, as a president, Obama has been criticized for being too soft on pushing for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. His seeming inaction on gay rights issues has frustrated and disenchanted many of his most ardent supporters.

So now, as same-sex marriage is making headlines, President Obama must make a firm decision on whether he will lead the fight for equal rights for gays and lesbians, or if he will take a more passive approach by simply encouraging Congress to take on these issues.

2012 will be upon us sooner than we think, and how Obama responds to Prop 8 legislation in the next few months could greatly affect the outcome of that election. President Obama has already infuriated the religious right, been the inspiration of more conspiracy theories than the Internet can seemingly contain, and, most recently, seen his approval ratings drop to below 50%. If Obama continues to take a back seat approach to gay rights, he will risk losing a large portion of his base without gaining much traction with his more conservative fans who are more concerned about the economy than gay rights. However, if the President throws his full support behind legalizing gay marriage and repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, then he will be able to harness the enthusiasm, gratitude, and mobility of the gay and lesbian community to help keep him in office. Obviously, it would be a very risky move for Obama, but some things—like equal rights and four more years in office—should be worth the risk.

One President, Two Different Views

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:14:51 GMT

Today, millions watched as the 44^th President of the United States sat down for a chat with the highly opinionated and animated women of ABC’s hit daytime talk show, “The View.” President Obama, Barbara Walters, Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, Sherri Shepard and Elisabeth Hasselbeck sat around on comfy yellow couches and talked about everything from the economy, race, and war, to Chelsea Clinton’s wedding, Mel Gibson, and what songs the President has on his iPod.

Earlier in the week, the Administration explained to the throngs of journalists, politicians, and citizens who were baffled by Obama’s decision to appear on an entertainment-oriented daytime show, that the President wanted to go to where the people were. Accusations were thrown that Obama’s appearance on “The View” is beneath the dignity of the office, and that the program itself is the female equivalent of “Jerry Springer.” However, the show’s main demographic is constituted of swing-voters and soccer moms, the former being a group of people from which Obama and his party desperately need support; the latter being a group that has traditionally stood behind the President, but lately has become disillusioned. The President’s motives are crystal clear in this case, and it’s hard to deny that this was a smart move that will help his image more than it can hurt it.

Despite Obama’s appearance on "The View” becoming one of the bigger news stories of the week, no one should be surprised by the President’s decision. After all, Obama has appeared twice before on “The View,” once as a Senator to promote his book, and the second time as a presidential candidate. As President, he has appeared on a slew of late night talk shows: The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, The Late Show with David Letterman, and he even made a cameo for a George Lopez promo. Obama has shared his thoughts on LeBron James and filled out an NCAA Tournament bracket for ESPN. He is a President who enjoys portraying a “regular guy” persona. He embraces the fact that some voters are more comfortable with the accessible, down-to-earth “Barry” Obama, as opposed to the worldly, highly-educated “Barack.”

Obama has been balancing these two sides of his image ever since he entered politics. For example, just hours after he taped “The View,” where he pandered to the populous, he dined with New York’s elite at Anna Wintour’s posh Manhattan townhouse. The price tag for one ticket to that event? $30,000.

Obama has been somewhat quietly attending such fundraisers to boost donations for the Democratic Party for the upcoming mid-term elections. However, his involvement in campaigning for the elections has been lacking. Democratic House members have criticized Obama’s laissez-faire attitude toward getting them re-elected. With midterm elections just a few months away, Obama has only stumped for Senators Harry Reid and Robin Carnahan. In the entire hour he was on “The View,” Obama neglected to mention the importance of midterm elections even once. The President might have given his image a boost today by connecting with those swing-voters and soccer moms who watched the show, but he missed a great opportunity to have “Barry” speak to them about his Party.

In the Race Against Race, Obama Can’t Win

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:03:23 GMT

It’s been four days since Andrew Breitbart of BigGovernment.com uploaded a video clip of Shirley Sherrod, an African-American USDA employee, recounting a story of how she once withheld aid to a white farmer in an act of “reverse racism.” The incident was the result of a blame game that started when the NAACP accused the Tea Party of having racist elements, exemplified by derogatory and ubiquitous protest signs at their various rallies. While many Tea Party activists denied the charge, Breitbart flung back the accusation and claimed that racism prevailed within the NAACP’s own ranks. As proof, he posted the video of Sherrod, which was taken out of context to depict her as racist.

Since then it has pretty much been established that everyone, including cable news shows, the NAACP, USDA and the White House reacted disgracefully and impetuously to the story. Sherrod was vindicated within 24 hours, after the full video of her speech proved that she was sharing an anecdote of how she overcame her own racial prejudices; and most everyone has recanted their ill-informed accusations and issued an apology, heartfelt or otherwise. She was offered another job at USDA, and had the privilege of a seven-minute phone conversation with the President, during which he urged her to accept the new position, which would focus on civil rights within the agency.

This incident is a reminder that for some Americans, Obama’s campaign promise of bringing change to the White House included a change in how racism and diversity is viewed in America. As the nation’s first African-American president, Obama is in a special position to take charge of the discussion on race, but after testing the water at last July’s “beer summit,” the President made the active decision to, at least initially, distance himself from the Sherrod “scandal.” In fact, it seems that the last thing Obama wants is for race to define his presidency. After all, he did not campaign as the black candidate, but as the best candidate. Unfortunately for the country as a whole, national discourse has been driven by social conservatives who have questioned his legitimacy as president based on his race and origins. On the other side of the coin, many conservatives argue that liberals unfairly use the race card against them when conservatives question the president’s policies or ideology.

Sherrod, for her part, never intended to be a symbol of racial tension or political hypersensitivity. However, as a woman who has been part of the civil rights movement since 1965, she has her own views on Obama’s relation with race:

"The president, if he could actually look at this in the way that he should, he could help bring this front-and-center and do a lot to help at least [to] start the process….He could facilitate some major discussions with mixed groups. He could use it more rather than run away from it. And I think what happened to me was an attempt to run away from it.”

It’s clear that no matter how fast Obama runs, he will never be able to escape the race issue. On Wednesday, the President signed into law a historic and sweeping financial reform bill that will drastically change the economic landscape. That same day, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs held a news conference and fielded almost 100 questions about Shirley Sherrod and race, but only 20 questions about the landmark legislation that has been two years in the making. Last night, Vice President Biden announced that after passing the stimulus package, the health care bill, and the financial reform act, that the President’s legislative “heavy lifting is over” and the Administration can now “makes [its] case” for its accomplishments. However, it seems that the only way the President can stay on message is if he includes race as a part of it.

Regardless, he cannot be blamed for wanting to separate himself from the polarizing, sensitive, and tricky issue of race and discrimination in America. Even Shirley Sherrod admits that she might not take that job offered to her by USDA Secretary Vilsack because, “I would not want to be the one person at USDA that’s responsible for issues of discrimination.” Well, now she knows how Obama feels.

The Midterm Elections Are Almost—But Not Really—Here!

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:37:45 GMT

How Obama and his party can turn their panic into progress.

On Sunday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs appeared on Meet the Press and admitted that enough seats were up for grabs that Republicans could take control of the House in November. On Tuesday, a Washington Post-ABC poll was released indicating that Americans’ confidence in Obama has reached a new low. Wednesday night there were reports of infighting in the Democratic party, mainly between Gibbs and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Thursday’s story is all about Democratic members of the House accusing the White House of undermining their chances of maintaining majority control during the midterm elections by ignoring their campaigns. Based on this week’s news cycle, it seems that a Democratic defeat in November is inevitable, and Barack Obama is most likely to blame.

First of all, everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath. Mid-term elections are not until November; that’s four months from now. Months on Capital Hill can be measured in much the same way years are measured in a dog’s life. So much can happen between now and then, and there are more than a few “ifs” that could turn the tables.

For instance, if BP can manage to plug the hole spewing millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico before November, that would be a huge victory for the White House and, subsequently, for Democrats in the Senate and the House. Any Democratic candidate would be able hitch a ride on the resulting wave of positive press to ensure robust support from American voters come November. Unfortunately, there is not much Obama can do to stop the well personally; the future of the Gulf is irrevocably in the hands of British Petroleum.

Polls have shown that the economy is the biggest concern among voters and the largest source of frustration directed toward the President and Washington, DC in general. In a CBS poll, 56% of people believe that the stimulus package had no impact on the economy, and 18% believe that we are worse off because of it. People also think that Obama has spent too much time on health care to the detriment of economic reform. If President Obama can convince the voters that his economic recovery act has helped the economy, the Democrats will have a real fighting chance in November. If unemployment rates start to drop and the stock market starts to rise, independents, who now favor Republicans to Democrats 50% to 29%, are more likely to switch sides.

Even though many of the “ifs” involved in the midterm elections are left up to fate, there is a lot that Obama and the Democrats can do to help themselves come November. Most importantly, the infighting needs to stop. The Pelosi-Gibbs feud and accusations against the White House by members of the President’s own party basically announce to the world that the Democrats are petty, panicked, and disorganized. In addition, the President needs roll up his sleeves and start mobilizing Democratic voters. Twenty percent more Republicans than Democrats think that the midterm elections are exceptionally important; and 80% of Republicans are likely to vote in November, while only 65% of Democrats are planning to show up at the polls. Whether Democrats view the elections as only another four months away, or still another four months away, depends on how efficiently they can create a unified front and foster enthusiasm and confidence in the voters.

In Arizona, History Repeats Itself but Little is Learned

Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:48:56 GMT

Before S.B. 1070, the controversial immigration law that Arizona Governor Janice Brewer signed in late April, there was Proposition 187 in 1994. Before that, there was Plyer v. Doe in 1982. And 100 years before that, there was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Despite our nation’s history of fighting for amnesty or exclusion of illegal immigrants in federal courts, little has been done to develop a comprehensive immigration reform policy; and unfortunately, the federal lawsuit against Arizona will not go far in providing a solution to the polarizing issue.

The United States of America v. the State of Arizona is not going to be the dramatic battle between federal and state government that many are expecting it to become. The case brought against S.B. 1070 should be as simple as figuring out whether this state law interferes with existing federal policy. Grand statements may be made by the plaintiff and defendant, screams of protest may be heard outside of courthouses and on the news, but the argument made by the Justice Department and backed by President Obama is clear: the Arizona law is in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

Therefore, if and when U.S.A. v. Arizona makes it to the Supreme Court, Arizona will lose. S.B. 1070 will be deemed unconstitutional, because, in short, it is. The Arizona law undermines and interferes with the supreme law of the land by redirecting the focus of national law enforcement, jeopardizing America’s foreign relations, and infringing on civil rights protected by the Consitution.

According to the lawsuit, SB 1070’s focus on “attrition through enforcement” will drain federal resources by chasing after immigrants who for all intents and purposes are peaceful, thereby undermining the federal government’s objective of first and foremost going after illegal aliens who pose a threat to national or public security. In addition, the suit claims that because of the controversy caused by Arizona’s law, foreign relations with Mexico and other countries are now strained. Foreign affairs is strictly a federal government matter and through S.B. 1070 Arizona has interfered and endangered international relationships. Lastly, the lawsuit contends that the enforcement of Arizona’s law will result in the harassment of immigrants who are in the country legally. This will directly interfere with the federally protected civil rights of aliens who are granted asylum by the federal government. It is interesting to note that despite President Obama’s public denouncement that S.B. 1070 has the potential to be used to discriminate against Hispanics, the possible infringement of civil rights is the lawsuit’s weakest argument.

Short of any sweeping judicial activism, the Arizona immigration law will be deemed unconstitutional. However, S.B 1070 was written in such a way that parts of it might survive the judicial process, including permitting state law enforcement to carry out federal law. Regardless, Obama will be able to look at the win as a victory; albeit a very small one. Already, Utah, Oklahoma, South Carolina and even Virginia are looking to draw up their own immigration laws. It is clear that Arizona’s law is only a symptom of a much bigger problem and that the issue will not be put to rest until we find a middle ground between amnesty and “attrition through enforcement.” Until then, the Justice Department better get a jump on writing up more lawsuits.

No Promises, Little Progress on Immigration

Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:48:15 GMT

President Obama has a habit of making promises in the form of arbitrary deadlines and then not delivering. Case in point: Guantanamo was supposed to be shut down in January, 2010 and its detainees were to be moved to Illinois. Seven months later we learn that not only is it unlikely that the prison will close before the end of Obama’s first term in 2013, but that the whole project has been relegated to the bottom of the Administration’s To Do list. Then, never one to be discouraged, President Obama made another promise to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan by July 2011, something that many argue is counter-productive to a counterinsurgency strategy. While the President’s lofty goals may not be achieved by their assigned deadlines, Obama succeeds in conveying a sense of urgency that makes lawmakers pay attention.

However, the President steered clear of any mention of a timeline during his speech on immigration reform this morning. The issue has been a hot topic throughout his presidency and has recently been forced into the limelight after Arizona passed a controversial law that enables police to pull over anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant. In retaliation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called for a lawsuit against Arizona in the Administration’s name, which the Department of Justice is expected to file sometime next week.

While Obama may have presented his speech as proof of his proactive commitment to immigration reform, nothing was said to imply immediate executive action. Obama made no mention of the Justice Department’s imminent lawsuit against Arizona, and he didn’t announce a new immigration policy. Instead, the President spent his time in front of the cameras at American University urging Republicans in the Senate to pass a comprehensive immigration law, something that would be mathematically impossible without their support.

It’s clear that President Obama is well aware that the nation’s current immigration laws are flawed, and that because of federal inaction, states have taken it upon themselves to impose their own laws. Just today, Arizona distributed a training program to its police force on how to implement their new immigration policy. But while the President does not support mass deportation of all illegal immigrants, he doesn’t approve of granting blanket amnesty to over 11 million illegals either. He is looking for a middle ground, which, regardless of what Arizona Governor Jan Brewer believes, will involve more action than placing warning signs 80 miles from Arizona’s southern border.

Obama pronounced that in the past, lawmakers have “kick[ed] the can down the road” because people think “tackling such an emotional and thorny issue is inherently bad politics.” The President would like us to believe that he doesn’t think confronting an issue head-on is bad politics, or if it is, he doesn’t care. However, if that were truly the case, he would have presented an immigration policy this morning and risked losing the Hispanic votes his party needs for the upcoming midterm elections.

Despite a lack of new legislation, our President has improved immigration enforcement by tripling the number of intelligence analysts at the border, imposing mandatory screening for all southbound rail shipments, and placing more personnel at the southern border than at any other time in history. Maybe next he should announce a deadline for immigration reform. He won’t be able to make it, but it could make lawmakers move a little bit faster.

Winning the Battle, But Still Losing the War

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:16:42 GMT

All it took was a six page spread in a glossy entertainment magazine and a 20 minute conversation with the Commander-in-Chief to effectively end General Stanley McChrystal’s 34-year military career. It ended not with a bang, but with a few bad jokes at the expense of the President’s national security team. McChrystal’s decision to put his faith in the hands of Rolling Stone magazine defies common sense and betrays the general’s public reputation as a serious, calculating commander who relies on strategy and could give a damn about his image.

We might never know McChrystal’s true motives for agreeing to the in-depth interview with Michael Hastings, a freelance reporter who covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for Newsweek from 2005-2007. However, Hastings, and most likely McChrystal and his team, never thought that the article would lead to a resignation. For the general, the reaction to the piece that will hit newsstands on Friday has played out in the worst possible way. The article itself portrays the decorated commander as arrogant, uncivilized, and even immature. The quotes in question were incendiary enough to push the BP oil spill from the headlines, and “insubordination” was the word on the tip of everyone’s tongue.

Perhaps taking a cue from the 24 hour news cycle, President Obama wasted little time summoning McChrystal to the White House for what had to be a very awkward conversation. Before people could begin speculating in earnest over McChrystal’s possible replacements, President Obama was standing before the podium in the Rose Garden, announcing that he was regretfully accepting General McChrystal’s resignation, and nominating as his replacement General David Petraeus, architect of the Iraq surge and current commander of U.S. Central Command.

Obama has received praise from Americans and Afghans alike, hailing his swift, decisive action and his choice of Petraeus as the best possible replacement for McChrystal. But while the President may be patting himself on the back for a job well done, he should take the time to reassess his policy on the war, not just its leadership. In choosing Petraeus as the new leader, Obama reaffirmed his commitment to a counterinsurgency strategy at a time when many are questioning its chance of success.

The most damaging aspect of the Rolling Stone article was not that a member of McChrystal’s team referred to Vice President Biden as “Bite Me,” but rather the ultimate message that the current strategy is not working and that our troops overseas know it. At one point in the article, Staff Sergeant Kenneth Hicks sheepishly tells McChrystal that, “Sir, some of the guys here, sir, think we're losing, sir." Even McChrystal’s chief of operations, Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville admits that at the end of the war, “It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win…This is going to end in an argument." Part of that argument will be over whether Obama decides to stand firm behind the July 2011 deadline to start withdrawing troops from the region, something that Petraeus heavily supports.

It seems like only in America could a magazine like Rolling Stone drastically alter the careers of two decorated Army Generals and effectively turn the war effort upside down. But there is one indisputably good thing that came from Hasting’s article: it catapulted the realities of Afghanistan back into the nation’s collective consciousness. Now, for the first time in a long time, Americans and our media will have to reassess their feelings about a war that has been too easy to ignore.

The Speech That Couldn’t

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:11:31 GMT

On Tuesday night, Jon Favreau let his boss down. The speech that he and the rest of the presidential writing staff concocted was dry, dispassionate and ultimately depressing. President Obama delivered it the best he could, sitting at his desk in the Oval Office, surrounded by pictures of his family and gesticulating at all the right moments. But that didn’t matter to his critics or his usual supporters because the next day they all took their turns lambasting his address from both sides of the aisle.

During the 18 minute speech, given in a room reserved for only the most momentous of public addresses, President Obama sat before the nation and tried his hardest to assure the American people that his Administration will succeed in stopping the oil leak, cleaning up our coastline, and restoring the Gulf to its former glory. President Obama declared, “Even if we don’t yet know precisely how we’re going to get there. We know we’ll get there.” And that is as far as he went in explaining his plan to fix the BP oil spill disaster.

The defining characteristic of the speech—and one of the most glaring criticisms of it—was its lack of detail. Obama announced a new director of the Minerals Management Service, and talked about another commission, but mostly he focused on the big picture, arguing that if we can land a person on the moon we can surely stop this catastrophe—it’s just a matter of harnessing our resources. At the end of his address, he even channeled the hand of God (apparently, one of our many resources) to lead us to a “brighter day.” The effect was not the least bit inspiring, but rather, slightly pathetic. The address did nothing to allay the public’s concerns and instead just showcased our impotence in the face of the largest environmental crisis in our country’s history.

No one expects President Obama to single-handedly stop the leak, but the only way that his speech on Tuesday night could have pleased his critics was if he was able to announce just that. In reality, his speech came 57 days too late, or 1 day too early. If Obama and his team had waited until they extracted $20 billion from BP on Wednesday, then his address could have been supported by a solid success. What our president needs to do now is continue to monitor the Gulf, meet with experts, supervise BP and limit his public addresses to news conferences during normal business hours. Hopefully, one day Obama will get a second chance to address the public during prime time in the hallowed Oval Office—but that day will have to wait until the leak is stopped.

Emotions Runneth Over—Obama Responds to Critique of Stoic Style

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:29:06 GMT

For the past few weeks it seems like every news outlet has run stories criticizing the president—not about his financial reform policies or his stance on U.S.-Israeli relations—but on his lack of emotion. Throughout the BP oil spill crisis the president has displayed the calm, cool and collected demeanor that he has maintained over the last year and a half. But according to the mainstream media, the American people want to see their Commander-In-Chief stop thinking and start feeling. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd even went so far as to call Obama “President Spock,” and it seems like others in her profession won’t be placated until they get their hands on footage of Obama cradling an oil-soaked pelican in his arms.

Journalists have been on the hunt for a symbolic image of the president’s involvement in the crisis. News anchors have reminisced about President Bush’s picture-perfect moment standing among the rubble of Ground Zero with a bullhorn in one hand and the other resting on a fireman’s shoulder. They ask aloud, “Where is President Obama’s Ground Zero moment?”

So on Monday morning when President Obama sat down with Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today Show to discuss his response to the spill, it didn’t take long for the conversation to be steered towards critiques about his presidential style. Lauer pointed out that now may not be the time to meet with “experts and advisors” but rather to “kick some butt.” In direct response to that prompt, Obama told Lauer that he meets with so many experts in order to find out “whose ass to kick.” And just like that, journalists across the country and the world got the sound byte that they had been waiting for. The President may not have shed a tear or started yelling, but he was captured using angry words to express passion and frustration, and for now that will be enough to satisfy their hunger for an emotional leader.

Truthfully however, those three words were uttered by the President in the most even-handed way possible and did nothing but directly answer the question—albeit using a harsher word. The only time he really showed some emotion was seconds later when, after getting caught in a stutter, he proclaimed that his job is not about theatrics and he “[doesn’t] always have time to perform for the benefit of the cable shows.” Ironically, the President showed the most emotion while arguing that the emotion-based critique is irrelevant. Even back in the newsroom, Lauer and co-anchor Meredith Vieira commented on how strongly Obama reacted to the criticism about his stoic style.

As a result, the interview was a success for the President. He pandered to the pundits with a three-letter word while simultaneously scolding them for harping on such an insignificant issue during a time of crisis. By doing so, he redirected the rhetoric to focus on his ability to understand the issue and to act in the interest of the people. He showed that a leader doesn’t need to wear his heart on his sleeve. That’s what Joe Biden is for.

I is for Illegal—Brewer Counts States’ Rights and Puppets Amongst Her Assets

Wed, 02 Jun 2010 19:28:07 GMT

President Obama is set to meet with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on Thursday to discuss her state’s controversial immigration law. Since Brewer signed Senate Bill 1070 in late April, citizens have been in constant debate over the new clauses that define illegal immigration as trespassing and allow police officers to pull over a driver for violating any civil traffic law and demand documentation if they suspect the driver is in the country illegally.

Opponents to this law believe that the clause encourages racial profiling and could lead to civil rights violations. Proponents respond by saying that critics of the law don’t actually understand it. To prove that point, SecureTheBorder.org teamed up with Governor Brewer to release a YouTube video asking Democratic lawmakers if they have actually read the law. In the video, a cheap imitation of Kermit the Frog joyfully shames Attorney General Eric Holder and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano—in sing-a-long format—for not having read the 16-page bill. The frog—and Brewer’s supporters—argue that since so many critics have not read the bill, they don’t know what they are talking about.

Well Mr. Kermit-Imposter, this blogger has read the bill, and has come to the conclusion that despite having skimped on the grunt work, Holder and Napolitano are still justified in their opposition. One needs to read no further than the fourth page to come across the most controversial wording of the bill:

Notwithstanding any other law, a peace officer may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law and this section. S. 1070-49, 2^nd Reg. Session (Ariz. 2010)

The section referred to in the above passage specifically deals with smuggling immigrants over the border and to and from work within Arizona. In addition, if anyone solicits work from an illegal immigrant by pulling over to the side of the road or impeding the flow of traffic in any way, police officers have the right to demand proof of identity (really, proof of immigration status). If the person is unable to provide documents the police officer may transfer them into federal custody. Keep in mind that the new bill defines “solicit” as simply “verbal or nonverbal communication by a gesture or a nod.” As long as there is “reasonable suspicion”—a term not defined in the bill—an officer can stop anyone for doing nothing more than parking their car or waving hello.

President Obama and the Department of Justice have already asked the Supreme Court to review the clause that allows Arizona to penalize employers of illegal immigrants to a harsher extent than the federal law does. The Administration’s filing effectively sends the message to state governments that the federal government wants exclusive control over immigration laws. On Thursday Obama will have to grapple not only with Governor Brewer, but the rights of the fifty states. You don’t need a frog to tell you that it’s going to get ugly.

BP is NOT Obama’s Katrina…Yet

Thu, 27 May 2010 19:26:34 GMT

James Carville is on a rampage, and when that happens, you better get out of his way. The native Louisianan and former Bill Clinton campaign advisor has recently been making the rounds on cable news networks lambasting the Obama Administration’s response to the BP oil spill that has contaminated the Gulf of Mexico. On Wednesday, he appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America and passionately proclaimed all the things that President Obama should do as part of his response to the oil spill- including getting involved with the families of the eleven workers who died in the explosion and sending the Coast Guard en masse to the Gulf. While some may find it difficult to listen to the ramblings of Carville’s vexatious voice for more than one minute, the man makes a valid point.

Until as recently as this week, the White House’s response to the devastation in the Gulf has been to follow standard operating procedure under the 1990 Oil Spill Act created as a response to the Exxon-Valdez oil spill. This has placed almost all of the clean-up responsibility on BP and has led the President’s critics to refer to the disaster as “Obama’s Katrina.”

This is an easy analogy for the media to grab hold of considering that Katrina and the oil spill both took place in the same geographical region, both were ecological catastrophes, and both disasters have an easy target to blame in the form of a government agency (in hurricane Katrina’s case, FEMA got most of the heat for it’s lack of response, while the Minerals Management Service is coming under fire for not doing more to regulate the oil industry beforehand). However, this is not Obama’s Katrina, at least not yet.

Katrina was the perfect storm of local, state, and federal government neglect after the catastrophe; the oil spill is a perfect example of corporate neglect culminating in an avoidable accident. So while the public can blame the government for the disastrous response to Katrina, the blame for the oil spill and its final outcome, can be placed squarely on BP, Halliburton and Transocean.

Governor Bill Nelson (D-FL), among others, has called for a direct intervention from Obama in the form of sending the military to the Gulf if BP cannot stop the spill. While this call to action conjures up the adequate amount of drama and urgency, National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen can’t help but point out that the government does not have the tools to replace BP with their own clean-up effort. In effect, his argument, and Obama’s, has been that the government’s hands are tied and other than initiating future legislative changes, there is little the White House can do to directly stop the spill.

Yet, the only way that the President can stop the spill from becoming his administration’s Katrina is to become proactive in other ways. This is finally what he is starting to do. Today he will hold a press conference outlining tougher regulations on the oil drilling industry and put a freeze on exploratory drilling in the Artic at least until next year. On Friday he will take a trip out to the Gulf to survey the damage. Regardless of the fact that he has established a commission to safeguard against future spills, and the Minerals Management Service is already starting to clean out their ranks, the President needs to show the public, even through symbolic gestures, that he is actively involved in recovery.

In times of crisis, the President’s approval rating is expected to rise, but Obama’s has remained stagnant and is in danger of falling. If he is able harnesses the chaos and catastrophe of the moment and really show the public that he is a hands-on Commander-in-Chief, then, as James Carville pointed out, the oil spill could be a great success for the President.

A Reprieve for the President

Wed, 19 May 2010 19:23:09 GMT

It looks like President Obama is off to a pretty good start this week. Early Monday morning he signed the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act which requires that the State Department include in its Human Rights Report the countries that violate press freedom. When reporters attending the signing ceremony started to drill Obama with questions regarding the BP oil spill, the Commander-in-Chief cheekily replied that the gathering wasn’t a press conference, and while they were free to ask questions, he was equally free to ignore them.

That same afternoon, Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, who is 57 years old and originates from Kenya, was granted asylum, which she first applied for in 2002. Although the President and his aunt are not close (he claims to have not known she was even in the United States), the verdict still garners positive press for Team Obama. However, the most important win of the week, and perhaps even the term, is the speculation that Obama’s financial reform bill will pass easily through the Senate in a matter of days.

The 1,400-page document would be the president’s second major legislative victory; the first being his landmark health care bill that was signed into law only two months ago. However, unlike the health care bill, the financial reform bill amendments have remained mostly unaltered from the original proposals set forth by the Administration.

But don’t celebrate just yet, Mr. President. Even with Republican support, there are still three major issues that need to be settled: regulation of over-the-counter derivatives, risky bank trading, and states’ financial regulation powers. If the bill encounters any trouble in negotiating these issues, its passage through the Senate could be postponed into the summer. After that, the House and Senate still need to merge their finance bills. If Obama gets extremely lucky, he could put pen to paper and sign the bill into law before fall.

Regardless of whether the Senate passes the bill in two days or two months, there’s little doubt that Obama will secure the legislation. The same Republicans who made the passing of the health care bill a veritable nightmare for the President are much more reluctant to go up against the finance bill for fear of being cast as Wall Street sympathizers. Keeping up appearances may not oblige a right-winger to cast an approving vote, but it will prevent nay-sayers from putting up a strong fight. For instance, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) has claimed that the bill unnecessarily expands federal government power, yet he accepts that the bill will pass without his vote, and without a filibuster.

Enjoy the glow of victory while you can, Mr. President. Next week you’ll be back to more mundane matters: two wars, a still struggling economy, mid-term elections, and the biggest oil spill in history.

5,113 Ways to Rule the World

Fri, 07 May 2010 16:35:52 GMT

On Monday, the Obama White House made what some might call an historic decision and disclosed the size of America’s nuclear arsenal for the first time since the Cold War. The magic number? 5,113 nuclear warheads. This is a drastic reduction from the 31,255 nuclear arms that the United States possessed in 1967.

While the release of this information may seem like an extraordinary revelation by the Obama Administration, the actual figure isn’t much of a surprise for arms control groups whose official estimates hovered around 5,000 weapons. In fact, the disclosure of the nation’s nuclear armory leaves many questions unanswered. Yes, we know the exact number of nuclear weapons, but we don’t know how many are long- or short-range missiles, how many are ready to fire at the push of a button, or how many will be disarmed in the coming years.

So the announcement was more symbolic than informative. At the nuclear conference hosted by the United Nations in New York, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that “We think it is in our national security interest to be as transparent as we can about the nuclear program of the United States…We think that builds confidence." Hopefully she’s right. The main goal of sharing this state secret was to show a sincere effort on the part of the States to reduce the size of the country’s nuclear arsenal and establish a quid pro quo with the 184 non-nuclear countries party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The United States conceded this tasty bit of information hoping to gain the trust of non-nuclear countries and persuade them to forego any ambitions of building their own nuclear weapons.

The main obstacle to this goal is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The only head of state to attend the conference, Ahmadinejad took to the podium hours before Clinton spoke, and accused Americans of being “the most hated individuals in human history” due to the fact that, as a people, Americans are citizens of the first country to drop the atomic bomb. He also accused the US of employing a double standard by imposing sanctions on Iran—a country without nuclear weapons but with a large supply of uranium—while tacitly supporting Israel—a country that has not signed the NPT and is home to the “worst-kept secret in the world:” a supply of about 200 nuclear weapons.

As Ahmadinejad continued flinging what Clinton referred to as predictable, but still wild accusations about the United States, it became time for another symbolic move in the form of a walk-out by the delegations of the U.S., Great Britain, and France—three of the five nuclear weapon states party to the NPT. So who stayed seated to enjoy Ahmadinejad’s radical but Saturday Night Live-inspiring rant? China, Russia, and the 184 other non-nuclear countries, that’s who.

It seems that if the Obama Administration, which has placed the NPT at the center of its nuclear security policy, wants to get any traction out of the nuclear conference, it will have do a bit more than release information that any well-informed, Internet-equipped person could find out for themselves. For instance, Obama and Clinton might want to look into Point 31 of a document that Egyptian delegates are circulating around the conference: a pledge to forbid the transfer of any nuclear information, equipment or materials to Israel.

Although Obama supports a 1995 NPT resolution calling for a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East, Israel was not mentioned in the resolution and even a pro-Israeli organization claims that U.S. support of this resolution has few practical consequences. Instead the White House is focusing on the progress it has made with Russia in signing a nuclear arms control treaty last month and reviving a nuclear cooperation agreement with Moscow that was dropped by George W. Bush after Russian troops invaded Georgia in 2008.

It is politically safer for President Obama to tackle issues with our former Cold War enemy, Russia, than to take on our modern-day ally, Israel. The fact that the White House joined the United Nations in implementing the resolution for a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East is just another symbolic move on their part. In fact, it seems like every action taken on the part of the Administration is just glorified lip-service, because even the White House admits that the month-long NPT conference won’t produce solid results as every decision is made by consensus and thus can be blocked by Iran. The only hope the U.S. has of dodging an inevitable block by Iran is to build a supermajority of nations that would support U.S.-led efforts to place economic sanctions on Iran.

So while Ahmadinejad might receive some cautious yet sincere support from some non-nuclear NPT countries, the White House might have to drastically change its plan of action to garner support from countries like Egypt. One solid step in the right direction would be releasing a different number next year, one that shows progress and a commitment to NPT—perhaps one that is significantly smaller than 5,113.

The Press Corps: Obama’s Forgotten Children

Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:32:29 GMT

President Obama set off on a two-day “White House to Main Street” tour through the Midwest this week, visiting Iowa, Missouri and Illinois in an effort to reconnect with his constituents and boost the Democratic Party’s standing before mid-term elections. In effect, the tour allowed Obama to relive his glory days on the campaign trail, when good feelings and public support prevailed and he was the golden boy of the reporters who followed him.

But ever since he became our President-elect, Obama has fallen out of favor with his press pool—a group of journalists who are charged with following the President everywhere he goes. Just last year at the annual White House Correspondents Dinner, the President addressed his press corps by joking “Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me.” Those days and that friendship are long gone, and just as Obama is trying to win back the confidence and support of America’s heartland since his job approval rating dropped to 50%, he is now trying to get back in the good graces of his press pool.

Every president since JFK has agreed to be followed by a band of traveling journalists whose schedule is coordinated by the White House Press Office. In fact, it was the journalists of the White House press corps who were on the scene and witnessed first hand the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963—what would have otherwise been a normal day on the job. Because of that incident, the press corps’ beat is now referred to as the “deathwatch”—a nickname that implies the importance of a traveling press pool—because you just don’t know what will happen.

That is why the media became so upset when the President ditched his press corps one recent Saturday morning to attend his daughter’s soccer game. The press became mildly obsessed with this slight, while the President just shrugged his shoulders and blamed the whole incident on miscommunication. That outing may have proved that he is a hands-on dad to Sasha and Malia, but it also provides evidence that in his relationship with his press corps, he has become more like an absentee father.

In the glory days of his presidential campaign, Obama and his press pool could not have been closer. The favorable coverage by those journalists, combined with the campaign’s use of social networking sites, went a long way in helping him secure the highest seat in the country. Now, however, the press pool is actively competing with Obama’s online presence, fighting Press Secretary Robert Gibbs every time he announces something on Twitter rather than in the Rose Garden.

So on Wednesday, heading home from his Main Street tour of the Midwest, President Obama offered an olive branch to his press corps, who were at the time squeezed in the back of Air Force One eating their in-flight meal. Forks were dropped and chicken parmesan forgotten mid-chew as Obama gave the group of eager reporters nine minutes to ask questions about financial regulation reform, Goldman Sachs, immigration, and Supreme Court Justice nominees.

Those nine minutes might have seemed like a big concession to the President, but in reality it only underlines the fact that since taking office, Obama has barely had any day-to-day interaction with his press pool, who eagerly, almost desperately, cling to any bit of face-time that he or Robert Gibbs give to them. For a President who touts transparency and publicly denounces the previous administration for their secretive ways, President Obama is doing a poor job of opening himself up to the press and making them his allies.

On his tour the President spoke at a biorefining plant in Macon, Missouri, encouraging investment in alternative fuel sources. He told the crowd, “I may be president, but I was the senator from Illinois. This is not the first ethanol plant I’ve visited.” Obama is keen to show America that he remembers where he came from. Now he needs to show his press corps that he remembers who helped him get where he is today.

“Yes We Can” Be Patient

Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:16:37 GMT

President Obama flew to California on Monday to host three fund-raisers for Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer’s re-election race. He warned his fellow democrats that if they did not actively support Boxer’s campaign, she might lose what currently seems like a sure win. President Obama is not taking anything for granted after the loss of Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat to Republican Scott Brown, and he is counting on fellow Democrats to make a strong showing during the mid-term elections.

One thing President Obama wasn’t counting on during Monday’s fundraisers was spirited heckling from one of his most supportive demographics. A demonstrator from GetEqual—a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer civil rights group—shouted “Repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’!” during Obama’s second speech of the day. Always a smooth operator, the President responded to the heckler by simply saying, “We are going to do that,” before continuing. Unappeased, another heckler interrupted by yelling, “It’s time for equality for all Americans.” Both interruptions were immediately following by chants of “Yes we can” and “Be quiet!” from Obama’s more adamant supporters.

Despite the fact that heckling and interrupting the President, or anyone for that matter, is downright disrespectful, these protesters did accomplish something on Monday. GetEqual and the fight to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell received national attention at a time when political news is focused on financial reform. Unfortunately, the organizers at GetEqual don’t seem to realize that the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a legislative matter, and one that both President Obama and Senator Boxer already support. Therefore the $500/head tickets that the civil rights group paid to get into the fundraiser might have been better spent lobbying Senator John McCain and Democratic Representative Ike Skelton.

This breach in etiquette is representative of a broader trend that has arisen during the Obama Administration. After promising “change we can believe in” during his presidential campaign, many of Obama’s most passionate supporters have become disenchanted with the President’s slow and cautious pace in delivering his promises. Yes, Obama passed a health care bill. Yes, Obama has urged Congress to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And yes, after much vetting, President Obama even bought Malia and Sasha that puppy. But he didn’t do any of these things using the finesse and poetic oratory with which he conducted his campaign. Instead he has patiently bided his time, prioritized his campaign promises, and fought tooth and nail against some of the most vicious partisan politics that the nation has seen in quite some time. All of this leaves the majority of his supporters wondering what happened to the charismatic, idealistic, not-a-gray-hair-on-his-head Barack Obama of ’08. Well, just as the President urged his fellow Democrats on Monday not to abandon the party during the mid-term elections, Obama’s former groupies should not abandon him during this tough time. The old Obama will return, but we just might have to wait until 2012 to see him again.