Obama gets Nobel Prize for war, too

Just weeks after it stunned the world by giving President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for setting a "new tone" in international relations after only 10 months (or two weeks) in office, the Nobel Prize Committee in Oslo honored him once again by giving him yet a new one for the even stronger new tone in his domestic agenda - the Nobel Prize for War.

In an effort to adjust to the sad fact that force has its uses, the committee has decided to honor the cases in which it is justified: While the first prize is given for those who end or avoid existing contentions, the new one is given to those who escalate simmering spats into all-out, no holds barred battles, or better still, create mayhem in places where little ill feeling was known to exist.

And while Obama's pacific approach has yet to yield much in the way of results from Iran, North Korea, or Russia, there is no doubt his novel approach to domestic contention has achieved new levels of head-banging rancor at home.

In foreign affairs, Obama's MO is to deploy the fact or the threat of ferocity in inverse proportion to the entity's goodwill towards himself and his country, or to the threat it presents to the country or world.

His compliant "new tone" is for the unfriendly parts of the universe. He gives his hand to the "clenched fists" of Iran and Korea, and the back of his hand to our friends. He insulted the British, watered-off the French, and terrified the Poles, Czechs, and Israelis with his perceived disregard for their imperiled existence.

In domestic affairs, this reversal is amplified: He treats differences with barbarous tyrants as misunderstandings that can resolved peacefully, while normal domestic political quarrels require the equivalent of armed intervention. He may not want "victory" when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, but wants his foot on the necks of domestic opponents, who need to be vanquished, never to rise up again.

Unilaterally, disproportionately, before trying diplomacy, and without consulting the French, he has unleashed bombing runs upon his own people, accused physicians of cutting feet off for profit, harassed a policeman for doing his duty, tried to carpet bomb the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for minor dissentions on health care provisions, and called Fox News an "illegitimate" news-gathering body, for gathering news that he didn't want known.

Like Colin Powell, he wants to "cut it off and then kill it," but he means domestic dissent, and not Saddam's army. He wants to cut Fox News off from its source of supply, and then watch it perish. Instead of the mullahs, he gets tough with Glenn Beck, and his three million viewers. Saddam he was willing to leave in his place.

George W. Bush, who hailed from Texas, was accused of cowboy diplomacy, as in the Colt 45, "High Noon," and the shoot'em-up westerns, while Obama practices Urban Cowboy diplomacy, as in the machine gun and massacre in the garage in Chicago that opens the movie "Some Like it Hot."

Americans like to see him showing some fight, but seem less than enthralled by his choices in targets. They would rather see him bring a gun to a knife fight with Korea, Iran, and/or Russia, than a bat to a spat with professional talkers.

The threat is people with bombs who oppress and kill other people, not domestic opponents who ding his poll ratings. Obama's emotions seem roused by the latter. He may be pushed by events to make certain foreign commitments, but his visceral rage is for critics at home.

The War Prize Committee thinks this is cool. It perfectly fits with its sense of subjective morality: in making the choice between "peace", and people in pieces, it depends on which people whose pieces those are.

In the spirit of Peace Prize laureate Jimmy Carter, who tried to undermine Presidents Bush, Bush, and Clinton while consorting with tyrants, the people in Oslo endorse his priorities.

With Iran, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela, peace is in order. If it's Fox News, cops, and doctors, then bring on la guerre.

Examiner columnist Noemie Emery is contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and author of "Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families."

Obama: Homosexual Relationships ‘Just as Real and Admirable’ as Heterosexual Marriage

President Obama delivered an unprecedented message to the Human Rights Campaign Saturday night. Sounding more like a homosexual activist than a sitting president, Obama went well beyond his expected message of “I’m here with you” on the homosexual agenda.

“My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians -- whether in the office or on the battlefield,” Obama told an estimated audience of 3,000. “You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.”

Even Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese was stunned at the breadth of Obama's statement, calling it “something quite remarkable.”

"This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States,” Solmonese said in a post-speech statement. “It’s simply unprecedented."

But Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, called the president's remarks “appalling.”

“Barack Obama is basically declaring that these relationships are basically equal to the real thing,” LaBarbera told CNSNews.com. “I think this is the ultimate Obama audacity play – for him, just declaring it seems to make it so.”

The president pointedly used the pronoun “we” – not “you” – throughout much of his speech.

“Do not doubt the direction we are headed and the destination we will reach,” Obama said at one point.

"For despite the real gains that we've made, there's (sic) still laws to change and there's (sic) still hearts to open,” the president said at another juncture.

Obama also talked about homosexual “families” – two men and children or two women and children.

“If we are honest with ourselves we'll admit that there are too many who do not yet know in their lives or feel in their hearts the urgency of this struggle. That's why I continue to speak about the importance of equality for LGBT (lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered) families -- and not just in front of gay audiences,” Obama said.

The president said he and his wife Michelle had made a point of inviting homosexual “families” to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll – “because we want to send a message.”

Obama noted that his administration had extended benefits to the domestic partners of homosexual federal workers and that he had appointed an open homosexual, John Berry, to serve as director of the federal Office of Personnel Management.

As expected, he also mentioned his support for a laundry list of homosexual activist issues, including bringing an end to the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexuals serving in the military and overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being between one man and more woman.

“I will end ‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell.’ That’s my commitment to you,” he said.
But the president also characterized those who oppose the homosexual agenda in terminology reminiscent of last year’s presidential campaign, when then-candidate Obama, campaigning in Pennsylvania, referred to “bitter” residents of small-town America who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them.”

Obama told Saturday's event that there are still people "who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted."

He ended by telling the story of a young man struggling with homosexuality -- "wrestling alone with a secret he’s held as long as he can remember.

“I believe the future is bright for that young person,” Obama added. "For while there will be setbacks and bumps along the road, the truth is that our common ideals are a force far stronger than any division that some might sow.”

LaBarbera said Obama's comments went far beyond using the presidency as a bully pulpit.

“The condescension is glaring," LaBarbera said. "He’s really putting down millions and millions of faithful, moral-minded citizens and dismissing traditional beliefs with such arrogance, it is almost indescribable. It really is amazing.”

“It's just hateful rhetoric,” LaBarbera added. “It’s a different kind of hate, to be sure, but it is hate – he hates our Judeo-Christian tradition.”

Clinton: Nobel Peace Prize Recognizes Obama's World Vision

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she thinks President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize because of his view of America's role in the world.

In an interview broadcast Monday on NBC's Today Show, Secretary Clinton said the president was recognized for his willingness to challenge everyone, which she said has restored the image and appreciation of America.

Critics have said Mr. Obama has not done enough yet to earn the prestigious prize.

Clinton said she does not think winning the award will have any influence on the president's tough decisions, including his deliberations concerning the war in Afghanistan.

In the interview, Clinton also called accusations that she is keeping a low profile "absurd." She said her goal is to implement the kind of changes that are in the best interest of the country, but she also believes in delegating power.

When asked if she would ever consider running again for president, Clinton answered "no" with a smile. She said she has a great job now and is looking forward to retirement at some point.

Clinton, 61, lost her bid for the Democratic Party presidential nomination last year in a tough fight with Mr. Obama.



Some information for this report was provided by AP.

Obama Approves 13,000 Support Troops to Afghanistan

A major U.S. newspaper says President Barack Obama has authorized the deployment of at least 13,000 additional support troops to Afghanistan.

he Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Pentagon is deploying the 13,000 new troops in addition to the 21,000 extra combat soldiers approved by Mr. Obama in March. Officials stress that the latest deployment is made up of support troops, such as engineers, medical personnel and intelligence experts, rather than combat troops.

Pentagon officials say the increase of support troops in Afghanistan should not come as a surprise. U.S. presidential administrations have not routinely publicized large deployments of support troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.

For example, former President George W. Bush spoke only of 20,000 combat troops when announcing the Iraq surge and did not mention the 8,000 support troops that would also travel to Iraq.

On Sunday, a key Democratic U.S. lawmaker said he does not support sending more troops into Afghanistan - a request made by the top U.S. commander there.

Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Senator Carl Levin added that forming a better strategy in Afghanistan is more important than increasing the number of U.S. troops in that country.

But other members of Levin's party, as well as a majority of Republicans, say Afghan security and governance cannot be improved without more troops on the ground.

General Stanley McChrystal has warned that the United States could lose the fight against Taliban insurgents unless more U.S. forces are deployed, a decision that falls on President Barack Obama.

President Obama has been meeting with senior political and military advisers at the White House for a series of strategy sessions to discuss the way forward in the eight-year-old conflict.

U.S. casualties in Afghanistan have risen sharply in recent months, amid more aggressive operations against the Taliban and other militant groups. Opinion polls show the war is steadily losing support among the American public.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP.

Russian Minister Rejects Iran Sanctions

MOSCOW — Threatening Iran with harsh new sanctions to advance negotiations over its nuclear program would be “counterproductive,” Russia’s foreign minister said Tuesday, throwing cold water on the Obama administration’s hopes that Russia had been persuaded to cooperate with its effort to intensify the global pressure on Tehran.

The minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, said after meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton here that diplomacy should be given a chance to work, particularly after a meeting in Geneva earlier this month in which the Iranian government said it would allow United Nations inspectors to visit a clandestine nuclear enrichment facility near the holy city of Qum.

“At the current stage, all forces should be thrown at supporting the negotiating process,” he said. “Threats, sanctions, and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.”

While Mr. Lavrov’s skepticism about sanctions is not new, his comments came just three weeksafter President Obama canceled an antimissile defense system in Eastern Europe that Russia had strongly objected to, raising hopes of cooperation on Iran. Two weeks ago, President Dmitri A. Medvedev told President Obama that “in some cases, sanctions are inevitable.” Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, who was in China on a trade mission Tuesday and missed Mrs. Clinton, has spoken out against using punitive measures against Tehran.

At a minimum, the Russian government does not seem ready to contemplate additional sanctions as long as the Iran and the West are still in active negotiations over its nuclear program.

The next milestone in that process is Oct. 18, when Iran and officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency are to meet to discuss the details of a plan to ship a majority of Iran’s stockpile of lightly-enriched out of the country to be enriched in Russia to a higher grade.

Though Mrs. Clinton stressed the importance of diplomacy, too, she reiterated the administration’s view that it must be backed up by a credible threat of sanctions to keep the Iranians from dragging their feet.

“In the absence of any significant progress, we will be seeking to rally international opinion behind additional sanctions,” she said at a joint news conference with Mr. Lavrov.

Mrs. Clinton insisted the United States did not make any specific requests of Russia at the meeting. But a day earlier, a senior official traveling with her said the United States would be looking for “specific forms of pressure” that Russia would be prepared to back.

After the meeting, a senior State Department official said, “They said they were not ready in this context to talk specifically about what steps they were ready to take,” preferring to do so at the United Nations.

Fox News Is 'A Wing Of The Republican Party'

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn slammed Fox News in an interview on CNN with Howie Kurtz this morning, saying that Fox News "is more a wing of the Republican Party" than an objective news organization.

"The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," Dunn said.

This follows up on Dunn's comment to Time earlier this week that Fox News is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." And as we've reported before, the White House and Fox News don't have the warmest relationship to start with.

But this morning, Dunn seems to have taken the White House's criticism of Fox News to the next level. For instance, she said that when President Obama talks to Fox News, he approaches it differently than other cable networks.

"Let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is," Dunn said.

And this: "They're widely viewed as part of the Republican Party. Take their talking points, put 'em on the air."

As an example, Dunn pointed to last fall, when the United States was grappling with a financial crisis, two wars and a historic election.

"If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest stories and the biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN."

We'll be watching for Fox News' response.

Obama's Auto Odd Couple Tries to Save Detroit

A few weeks after Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner tapped Wall Street financier Steven Rattner to try and save the U.S. auto industry, Rattner sat down for coffee at a nondescript café in Washington with the man he wanted to be his deputy, Ron Bloom. Both men had spent much of their careers in the universe of high finance, but they came from different planets. Thanks to the success of his dealmaking firm, Quadrangle, Rattner, 56, lives atop New York society in an apartment overlooking Central Park and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Bloom, who turns 54 today, lived until recently in Pittsburgh and trained as an investment banker so he could help unions negotiate complicated deals, which he has done for the past 15 years as an assistant to the president of the United Steelworkers union.

So there was some understandable tension when the two men sized each other up in January over coffee at their first face-to-face meeting. When Rattner outlined the draconian marching orders Geithner had given him to try to save General Motors and Chrysler, Bloom paused and laid down a marker. He saw the job as a potential capstone in a career spent championing labor interests during years of industrial restructuring. He understood that the situation called for tough medicine for autoworkers. But I also want you to know, Bloom said, that I've dedicated my life to preserving as many American jobs as possible. Rattner, the titan of investment banking, said he wanted the same thing. (See 25 people to blame for the financial crisis.)

America has always debated the primary source of its wealth: capital or labor. And in a way that happens more frequently in literature than in life, Rattner and Bloom are neatly drawn avatars for the opposing sides of that argument. As such, they make a complementary team to resuscitate the moribund automakers. Out of money and out of options, GM and Chrysler can be saved from complete dissolution only by a government effort to reconcile management, workers and creditors to a much-diminished future. If Rattner and Bloom can find common ground, perhaps those dueling interests can too.

Bloom's objectives in undertaking this assignment are fairly easy to see. "He's a true believer, philosophically, with workers," says Gary Hubbard, spokesman for United Steelworkers. "That's a very fundamental part of his own makeup." When Bloom started working for unions after college during the financial downturn of the early 1980s, he concluded that they were not equipped to do the deals they needed to save their jobs. So after Harvard Business School, he set up a shop at the investment bank Lazard Frères that focused on counseling unions in leveraging their collective bargaining power to maximum effect. He pioneered the deals that took retirement and health benefits off company books and protected those benefits for workers.

Rattner's aims are less clear. He started as a reporter at the New York Times in the 1970s and left to begin a successful career as a media-business dealmaker on Wall Street. His lifestyle is the envy of many who have watched his career, which also got its start at Lazard Frères — he has the fancy cars, the Fifth Avenue apartment and homes in Westchester and on Martha's Vineyard. A major Democratic donor, Rattner's brains and ambition have propelled him to the top, but he has made enemies along the way. In a now famous New York magazine profile, his onetime Lazard Frères mentor, Felix Rohatyn (Bill Clinton's ambassador to France), accused Rattner of being a social climber averse to public service and cultural pursuits. Rattner now sits on the board of a variety of charities as well as the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Whatever their goals, the two men are well positioned to restructure the auto industry. Rattner can tell management and bondholders what they have to live with. Over the course of the past three months, he has come to believe that the bondholders, who have thus far balked at taking GM stock for much of their debt, made a bad investment and should lose all their money, says one person familiar with the President's auto task force. Rattner also took the point in ousting GM chief Rick Wagoner over the weekend. Bloom, for his part, has taken day-to-day leadership in talks between Chrysler and Italian automaker Fiat. His union bona fides have made him the point man with the United Auto Workers union and its chief, Ron Gettelfinger. (See the 50 worst cars of all time.)

Although analysts credit the odd couple for playing tough with all sides, Rattner and Bloom's initial efforts are meeting with only moderate success. The stock market reacted negatively to the government's plan on Monday, with the S&P 500 dropping nearly 3.5% on fears that bankruptcy was inevitable for GM and Chrysler — a fear that the Administration did little to calm. President Obama, in his speech announcing the deal on Monday, tried to put a good face on things, laying out measures to save the companies, soften the blow to autoworkers and encourage auto sales with guaranteed warranties and car-buying tax incentives. But, he said, "these efforts, as essential as they are, are not going to make everything better overnight. There are jobs that won't be saved. There are plants that may not reopen."

The real test of Rattner and Bloom's collaboration is upcoming. Obama, in putting new conditions on any more billions being handed to Detroit, gave Chrysler 30 days to strike a partnership with Fiat and GM 60 days to avoid bankruptcy court. Rattner will have to browbeat intransigent bondholders. Bloom will have to force major benefit cuts on the unions. And both will have to sell management on a radical reordering of their companies, one in which both capital and labor take a serious hit in order to keep the machine running.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article

Obama in Europe: Facing Four Big Challenges

A European vacation it is not. Over the next week, President Barack Obama will board his plane anew nearly every day so that he can attend individual meetings with at least 17 political leaders from 11 nations and appear at summits and forums in five countries to discuss international economic recovery, national security, cyberthreats and global warming. He will have tea with a Queen (England) and a private chat with a King (Saudi Arabia) and will convene a roundtable with students (Turkey).

At each stage of the trip, whether in a castle or palace, diplomatic opportunity and danger lurk. The White House has prepared for months to ensure that the dozens of events come off without a gaffe, hitch or flub. But even years of planning could not make such events fail-safe. The world is in far too much turmoil, with widespread concern about the economic collapse, unruly voting publics and continued regional instabilities, which are sure to burst into public view. At the same time, Obama's central policy proposals, which include a significant expansion of the military effort in Afghanistan and major new deficit spending by wealthy countries, have encountered resistance from his counterparts around the world. Here is a look at four of the biggest challenges facing Obama as he heads overseas on his first major foreign trip, and how he plans to handle them. (Read "The G-20 Summit: Can This Group Save the World Economy?")

Stimulus Spending
As an economic theory, the concept is widely accepted: When consumer and corporate spending collapses, government should increase its spending to prevent a downward economic spiral. The real controversy comes with the next questions: Which government, and by how much? Economists at the International Monetary Fund have recommended globally coordinated stimulus spending of about 2% of GDP to counteract the recession. But so far, that challenge has only been accepted to varying degrees. As a group, European countries, including members of the G-20 like France and Germany, have proposed lower rates of stimulus spending, both this year and next, raising concerns at the White House.

In recent weeks, Obama and his advisers have made clear that much of the rest of the world will have to step up to the plate, especially in 2010, if the economic downturn continues. "We don't want a situation in which some countries are making extraordinary efforts and other countries aren't, with the hope that somehow the countries that are making those important steps lift everybody up," Obama said last week, in a prime-time press conference. But so far, European leaders have resisted the call for more stimulus. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said she does not want to be bogged down by "artificial discussions" of fiscal stimulus, and like many of her peers would prefer to focus on fashioning a new regulatory structure to make sure the excesses and abuses that precipitated the crisis don't threaten the global financial system again. Other European leaders have also voiced skepticism over new discretionary-spending plans, arguing in part that the social safety net in Europe will automatically increase spending to handle much of the downturn.

Rather than confront this conflict head-on, both the Obama Administration and European leaders have agreed to effectively dodge the issue for now by adopting language, in a draft communiqué, that pledges all nations to take "whatever action is necessary until growth is restored." At the same time, White House aides have been arguing in recent weeks that the glass is half full, and that the real test will come only if a second round of stimulus efforts is needed. "There's been an unprecedented coming together around stimulating the global economy," says Michael Froman, one of Obama's top international economic advisers. In other words, the battle over the size of economic stimulus will be mostly fought later, when economists have a better handle on the state of the economy and how much additional stimulus is needed.

Help for the Afghanistan Surge
Obama's new plan for winning the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is sweeping and resource-intensive, and it cannot be accomplished by the U.S. alone. "As America does more, we will ask others to join us in doing their part," Obama announced last week. "From our partners and NATO allies, we will seek not simply troops but rather clearly defined capabilities: supporting the Afghan elections, training Afghan security forces, a greater civilian commitment to the Afghan people."

The details of the commitments sought by Obama have not yet been announced publicly, though Obama's team has been working closely with many allies, both in Europe and beyond, to request specific aid. "We are making very specific asks," said Michelle Flournoy, an Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, who has been working on the Afghanistan plan. Obama plans to make a public pitch for international aid both at the NATO summit in Strasbourg on Friday and at the European Union summit in Prague on Saturday.

Perhaps to head off any potential confrontations, the White House has not said that it expects any firm commitments in the coming week. On Saturday, Denis McDonough, one of Obama's national-security advisers, acknowledged the issue directly. "The challenge that we face is working closely with our friends and allies to underscore where we think we have shared challenges and where we address shared threats," he said. "And so that's obviously going to be an issue we discuss with our NATO allies."

Getting the Small Things Right
Sometimes in diplomacy, the small things matter the most. In early March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton handed her Russian counterpart a "reset" button intended to symbolize the U.S. desire to "reset our relationship." Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov looked at the gift and smiled. "You got it wrong," he said in perfect English. On the button was "peregruzka," which means overcharge or overload. Oops. Just days earlier, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had visited the White House bearing rarefied gifts: a first-edition biography of Winston Churchill and a penholder carved from the timbers of the H.M.S. Gannet. Obama responded by giving Brown a set of Hollywood-movie DVDs, sparking outrage in the British press, which took the mass-produced gift as evidence that Obama "dislikes Britain." (Only later did Brown discover that the DVDs did not even work on British formatted DVD players, yielding another round of public recriminations in England.)

Two times is a coincidence, but three times makes a trend, so Obama will have to be careful about his gift-giving in Europe. On Saturday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs declined a British reporter's request to disclose the gift the President will give to Queen Elizabeth II. "We don't want to give away all of our good news," said Gibbs, raising the stakes even higher. Indeed gifts are not the only petty detail that can soil an international relationship. The British press has also harped on the fact that Obama once referred to the "special partnership" between Britain and the U.S., instead of the traditional evocation of the "special relationship." Such granular details manage to exhaust some on Obama's staff. "I continue to be mystified about the difference between the two words," says Gibbs.

The Star Factor
At the moment, the world is roiled, leaders are nervous, and everyone wants a piece of the media magnet that is Barack Obama. That means the White House is expecting all kinds of posturing in and around the meetings with Obama for domestic consumption in various nations. Will Russian leader Dmitri Medvedev use the meeting to highlight the U.S. role in the financial collapse? Will Chinese President Hu Jintao bring up the proposal for a new international currency to supplant the U.S. dollar? Will Mirek Topolanek, the recently displaced Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, renew his rhetoric about the "road to hell" that Obama's economic policies present when they meet in Prague?

Several European leaders who will host Obama are likely to use their meetings with the U.S. President to smooth the political waters at home. In Britain, amid rising unemployment, Brown faces daunting approval ratings and new elections in just over a year. In Germany, Angela Merkel's governing coalition is coming under increasing strain, with elections just six months away. And then there are the street protesters who will be vying for the spotlight. Large protests — against everything from capitalism to the structure of bank bailouts — are planned for both London and Strasbourg.

Although Obama can't control all the people who will be riding his public profile, his team has planned a series of events at which the President can deliver his message directly to the world public. In Strasbourg on Friday, he will host a town hall, "taking some questions from students from throughout Europe and discussing the transatlantic alliance," according to an aide. In Turkey, Obama will host a "new media" roundtable discussion with young people from Europe and Southeast Asia. The hope of the Administration is that despite the various distractions, Obama will be able to maintain message control, something he showed a talent for during last year's presidential campaign.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article

America's 10 Unhealthiest Presidents

Presidential fitness hasn't always been characteristic of the nation's commander-in-chief. Here, a retrospective of some of the least healthy presidents in American history.

President Barack Obama knows a thing or two about fitness. His well-documented gym habits and disciplined diet, has the media heralding Obama as the new face of presidential health. Of course, he isn't perfect -- the guy has been a longtime smoker (although he has resolved to quit, and has often been seen chewing Nicorette), and occasionally chows down on cheeseburgers. Still, his longtime physician issued a statement in 2008 that Obama is in "excellent health," citing his lean body mass, and normal cholesterol, blood pressure, and EKG levels.

But not all American presidents have been model specimens of health. Some of them far from it, in fact. Disease, injury, and destructive habits have run rampant in the 43 commanders-in-chief -- but while we can't totally fault George Washington for contracting malaria or smallpox (it was the 1700s, after all), we also can't really condone John Adams' habit of having bread and beer for breakfast at age 15.

Here, the 10 least healthy presidents in American history.

That's a lot of balloons

As the recession continues to wreak havoc on the U.S. economy and inauguration celebrations ramp up, a lot of people are asking: "How much will this shindig cost?"

The short answer? Likely more than $150 million — and yep, that would be the most expensive ever. (By comparison, George W. Bush's 2005 inauguration cost $42.3 million. Bill Clinton managed with $33 million in 1993.)

The long answer involves a lot of beefed-up security. For the first time, President Bush has declared an emergency in Washington, D.C. to supplement the $15 million Congress has already allotted for security measures. It's no surprise that security costs are sky-high — Barack Obama received Secret Service protection very early in his presidential run and record crowds (likely anywhere from 1.5 to 3 million people) are expected for the events. In fact, the Secret Service will be in charge of security not just for inauguration day, but for four days, starting Saturday with Obama's train ride from Philadelphia. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the AP:

"It will be the most security, as far as I'm aware, that any inauguration's had."

Obama's much-discussed (and very cool-looking) custom Cadillac limo certainly couldn't come cheap, though we'll never really know how much it cost. Cadillac spokesman David Caldwell said the car's exact specifications are a big secret, including the safety features and production cost.

But Forbes reports it's not all flak jackets and armored cars:

To manage an event of this scale, the District of Columbia will spend a mammoth $47 million. It is not enough.... Much of the $45 million will go toward creating a dynamic Inauguration experience for the everyday visitor, not just funding exclusive events. "We don't even consider these events to be extravagant," says Linda Douglas, a spokeswoman from the Presidential Inauguration Committee. "With crowds of this size, most of our attention is being devoted to opening up as many events to the public."

The good news for taxpayers: Inaugural celebrations are paid for by the inaugural committee — and Obama has, once again, been a very successful fundraiser — at least $35 million by recent counts. Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, told the New York Daily News:

"We're always very budget conscious. But we're sending a message to the entire world about our peaceful transition of power, and you don't want it to look like a schlock affair. It needs to be appropriate to the magnitude of events that it is."

And if you're eager to whoop it up in the same sassy fashion as our government, Washington hotels have come up with tons of ways for you to spend your money. The Washingtonian has made a list of some of the best ... and worst.

"Most unusual item in a hotel package: Round-trip airfare and hotel for four in St. Petersburg, Russia, part of the Omni Shoreham’s Live Like a President package—the trip is aimed at gaining “foreign-policy experience.” The $440,000 package also includes an in-suite dinner with entertainer Mark Russell.

Most controversial item: A puppy—in honor of Obama’s promise to get his daughters a dog — was originally part of the package deal at the Omni Shoreham but was dropped when the hotel caught heat from animal lovers. Instead, the hotel will make a donation to the Washington Humane Society."

Obama refuses to surrender Blackberry

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Despite legal and security hurdles, president-elect Barack Obama says he has a plan to retain his beloved Blackberry once he moves into the White House next week.

Interviewed by CNN Friday, Obama said the smartphone was among the tools that he would use to stay in touch with real Americans and avoid becoming trapped inside the presidential "bubble."

"I think we're going to be able to hang on to one of these. My working assumption, and this is not new, is that anything I write on an email could end up being on CNN," he said.

"So I make sure to think before I press 'send'," he said of his Blackberry, which was an ever-present fixture on his belt or in his hand on the campaign trail.

Obama did not divulge just how he will overcome legal constraints, given the requirement of the post-Watergate Presidential Records Act of 1978 to keep a record of every White House communication.

Nor did he say how he would persuade his Secret Service protectors that the Blackberry does not pose a security risk, for instance if it is hacked over the air.

But Obama, who succeeds the unpopular George W. Bush on Tuesday, said the phone was a valuable part of a wider strategy to escape the White House fishbowl.

"It's just one tool among a number of tools that I'm trying to use, to break out of the bubble, to make sure that people can still reach me," he said.

"If I'm doing something stupid, somebody in Chicago can send me an email and say, 'What are you doing?'

"I want to be able to have voices, other than the people who are immediately working for me, be able to reach out and send me a message about what's happening in America."

The mobile device dilemma may have inadvertently been solved on Friday, as Obama's Blackberry tumbled from his belt as he got out of his limousine and onto his plane in Washington.

A Secret Service agent hurried to pick up the pieces, gathering the Blackberry and battery off the frigid tarmac.

Obama to name Sunstein his regulatory czar

President-elect Barack Obama has tapped legal scholar Cass Sunstein as his administration's regulatory czar, a Democratic source said Friday.

Obama hired the Harvard law professor to run the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the administration's central approver of rules that has say over environmental policy, workplace safety issues and federal health care policies. All major agencies' rules will pass across Sunstein's desk, giving him great influence in the new administration.

His appointment was disclosed by a Democratic source who spoke on the condition of anonymnity to discuss personnel decisions.

Sunstein's office would be the main place Obama's new administration would look to reverse executive orders issued by President George W. Bush, who leaves office Tuesday. Obama aides and advisers have their eyes on Bush's policies on stem cell research and reproductive rights, but advisers have combed Bush's record and found more than 200 rules they would like to see reversed.

Independent and advocacy groups have been lobbying Obama aides aggressively to move quickly on the policies, perhaps as early as his first full day in office, Jan. 21.

Sunstein could be the face of that effort. He's a much-quoted expert on regulation and has testified about Supreme Court nominees; Harvard touted him as the most cited law professor in the country when officials hired him last year.

Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan — who is set to become Obama's solicitor general — called him the "pre-eminent legal scholar of our time" and an "individual superstar" in her February 2008 announcement that he would join the faculty. Aside from a short stint at the Justice Department, he has never worked in government.

Sunstein previously taught at the University of Chicago, where Obama also taught law part time.

He is married to Samantha Power, a Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign policy adviser who was forced to resign from the campaign when she called Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was then an Obama rival, "a monster." Power has since rejoined Obama's circle, helping his transition team assess the State Department that Clinton would lead as secretary.

Sunstein earned two degrees from Harvard and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. He also advised constitution writers in Poland, South Africa and Russia.

Obama praises US Airways pilot

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama is joining those heaping praise on the pilot of US Airways Flight 1549, the craft that landed in New York City's Hudson River yet didn't lose a single passenger.

Obama called Capt. Chesley Sullenberger on Friday to tell him how proud everyone is for a heroic and graceful job in landing the damaged aircraft.

Obama's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, says that the president-elect spoke with Sullenberger for about five minutes. Obama also thanked the plane's crew and those on the scene in New York who helped ensure the safety of all 155 people aboard.

President George W. Bush also has called Sullenberger with congratulations.

The plane crashed Thursday after colliding with a flock of birds.

Obama’s Actions May Pose Biggest Risk to Presidential Honeymoon

Bill Clinton said his presidential honeymoon lasted 35 seconds. Dwight Eisenhower’s never really ended. Gerald Ford’s monthlong glow vanished overnight with his “full, free and absolute” pardon of Richard Nixon.

All new presidents enjoy that fickle grace period marked by relative harmony and low-decibel partisanship.

For Barack Obama, the question is how long his honeymoon will endure and how much of his ambitious agenda he can achieve before it ends, perhaps -- if history is a guide -- as a result of his own actions.

“New presidents abort their own honeymoons,” said political analyst Charlie Cook. “There’s a residual goodwill that comes into office with them, and it stays with them until they end it by making mistakes.”

Presidential honeymoons provide Americans a first in-depth look at their newly elected leader while granting him a chance to set a tone and style that is likely to carry long-term consequences for the country and his presidency.

“First impressions tend to be lasting ones,” said Thomas Mann, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution, a research organization in Washington. “Mistakes made early can certainly weaken a president -- not necessarily destroy his presidency but slow him down.”

War, Economy

There are emerging hairline cracks that foreshadow turbulence. These include questions about back taxes owed by Treasury Secretary-designee Timothy Geithner and a rift between Obama and congressional Democrats over his economic stimulus package. The new president has already been forced to flip-flop over the status of Roland Burris, his Senate successor, whose appointment he initially opposed.

In addition, Obama, 47, inherits two wars and what is billed as the worst economic climate since the Great Depression. Still, he is poised to enjoy a sweeter honeymoon than most of his predecessors.

“Obama has the chance to have the biggest honeymoon we’ve seen in decades,” said David Gergen, a professor of government at Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Harvard University who worked for Presidents Nixon, Ford, Ronald Reagan and Clinton.

High Ratings

Post-election polls consistently show high approval ratings for Obama. In a survey released yesterday by the Washington- based Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 79 percent of Americans, including 59 percent of Republicans, said they have a favorable impression of the president-elect. Bush’s personal favorability just before he took office in 2001 was 60 percent, and Clinton’s was 69 percent shortly before he was inaugurated in 1993, said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center.

When a new president takes office, “Congress, at least the opposing party, is usually a bit reticent at first to take him on,” said George C. Edwards, a historian at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas.

There also is “an afterglow from the election, so the public is generally likely to be more supportive.”

Thus, in the face of the twin challenges of war and fixing the economy, most Americans -- including the president he will replace -- are rooting for Obama to succeed.

“We wish the president-elect and his team all the best,” President George W. Bush told reporters at the end of his final Cabinet meeting Jan. 13. “It is our genuine wish that they do well.”

2 Phases

While every presidency is unique, the first year tends to have two phases, Gergen said.

The first is the traditional First 100 Days, set by Franklin Roosevelt. The other runs from the inauguration to the congressional summer vacation.

Many lawmakers return in the autumn ready to showcase their differences with the president, driven in part by their own re- election races a year later. After those midterm elections, a new presidential campaign season kicks into gear, making bipartisan cooperation on big issues more difficult still.

“August has been cruel to a great many presidents,” Gergen said.

The lesson is “strike early and focus on your high priorities,” Edwards said.

Presidents at times seem all-but obsessed with honeymoons - - or the lack thereof.

Within days of taking office in 1974, Ford told Congress: “I do not want a honeymoon with you. I want a good marriage.” His pardon of Nixon a month later prompted a 30-point drop in his public-approval rating.

Nixon Pardon

As a consequence, “Ford’s ability to get results plunged,” said Fred Greenstein, a historian at Princeton University in New Jersey.

Reagan joked shortly after his 1984 re-election, “If I’ve had a honeymoon with the Congress, romance has been dead in Washington for four years.”

Reagan’s 1981 honeymoon was already stalled by late February, but his popularity soared after surviving an assassination attempt in March.

“The shooting gave him an enormous boost,” said Gergen, who was a top Reagan aide. “It was a significant turning point in his presidency.”

‘Banana Peel’

Historians said Clinton had only himself to blame for his short-lived honeymoon, which was caused by such distractions as the uproar over his gays-in-the-military policy, a $200 haircut aboard Air Force One and snafus with top Cabinet appointments. Gergen, who later served Clinton as a counselor, said he slipped on “one banana peel after another.”

Clinton eventually recovered and went on to outwit the congressional Republicans in a budget dispute that led to a government shutdown.

Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson made the most of their honeymoons: FDR with the New Deal and LBJ with the Great Society.

“Roosevelt got a huge amount of legislation enacted and was overwhelmingly re-elected,” Greenstein said. “Then he brought it all to a crashing end when he made his Supreme Court- packing proposal.” This didn’t prevent him from being elected to four terms, however.

Johnson enjoyed two honeymoons. The first was in 1963, when as vice-president he ascended to the presidency after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The second was in 1964, when he won the election by a landslide. Public disenchantment with the Vietnam War eventually led Johnson to not seek re-election in 1968.

Eisenhower Record

Eisenhower enjoyed the longest honeymoon. “There was not single month in which more people disapproved of his conduct than approved,” Greenstein said.

For Obama, the political goodwill and high public expectations may be a double-edged sword.

“Sometimes, efforts to move quickly before the pieces are in place can end up doing more harm,” Mann said. “A more measured way can lead to some positive impressions and more modest victories that can actually increase one’s political capital.”

Lawrence Jacobs, director of the center for the study of politics and governance at the University of Minnesota, said he doubts Obama’s honeymoon will break any longevity records.

“The deep-seated differences between the parties -- and the philosophical differences within the Democratic Party -- remain,” he said. “And within a short period of time, the differences will be front and center again.”

Barack Obama's Record

Record of Advocacy: Obama has worked to promote civil rights and fairness in the criminal justice system throughout his career. As a community organizer, Obama helped 150,000 African Americans register to vote. As a civil rights lawyer, Obama litigated employment discrimination, housing discrimination, and voting rights cases. As a State Senator, Obama passed one of the country's first racial profiling laws and helped reform a broken death penalty system. And in the U.S. Senate, Obama has been a leading advocate for protecting the right to vote, helping to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and leading the opposition against discriminatory barriers to voting.

Plan to Strengthen Civil Rights

The Problem

Pay Inequity Continues: For every $1.00 earned by a man, the average woman receives only 77 cents, while African American women only get 67 cents and Latinas receive only 57 cents.

Hate Crimes on the Rise: The number of hate crimes increased nearly 8 percent to 7,700 incidents in 2006.

Efforts Continue to Suppress the Vote: A recent study discovered numerous organized efforts to intimidate, mislead and suppress minority voters.

Disparities Continue to Plague Criminal Justice System: African Americans and Hispanics are more than twice as likely as whites to be searched, arrested, or subdued with force when stopped by police. Disparities in drug sentencing laws, like the differential treatment of crack as opposed to powder cocaine, are unfair.

Obama

Dear Madam Speaker, Leader Boehner, Leader Reid and Leader McConnell:

Thank you for the extraordinary efforts you have made this week to work with President-Elect Obama in implementing the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. In addition to the commitments I made in my letter of January 12, 2009, the President-Elect asked me to respond to a number of valuable recommendations made by members of the House and Senate as well as the Congressional Oversight Panel. We completely agree that this program must promote the stability of the financial system and increase lending, preserve home ownership, promote jobs and economic recovery, safeguard taxpayer interests, and have the maximum degree of accountability and transparency possible.

As part of that approach, no substantial new investments will be made under this program unless President-elect Obama has reviewed the recommendation and agreed that it should proceed. If the President elect concludes that a substantial new commitment of funds is necessary to forestall a serious economic dislocation, he will certify that decision to Congress before any final action is taken.

As the Obama Administration carries out the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, our actions will reflect the Act's original purpose of preventing systemic consequences in the financial and housing markets. The incoming Obama Administration has no intention of using any funds to implement an industrial policy.

The Obama Administration will commit substantial resources of $50-100B to a sweeping effort to address the foreclosure crisis. We will implement smart, aggressive policies to reduce the number of preventable foreclosures by helping to reduce mortgage payments for economically stressed but responsible homeowners, while also reforming our bankruptcy laws and strengthening existing housing initiatives like Hope for Homeowners. Banks receiving support under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act will be required to implement mortgage foreclosure mitigation programs. In addition to this action, the Federal Reserve has announced a $500B program of support, which is already having a significant beneficial impact in reducing the cost of new conforming mortgages. Together these efforts will constitute a major effort to address this critical problem.

In addition to these commitments, I would like to summarize some of the additional reforms we will be implementing.

1. Provide a Clear and Transparent Explanation for Investments:

* For each investment, the Treasury will make public the amount of assistance provided, the value of the investment, the quantity and strike price of warrants received, and the schedule of required payments to the government.
* For each investment, the Treasury will report on the terms or pricing of that investment compared to recent market transactions.
* The above information will be posted as quickly as possible on the Treasury’s website so that the American people readily can monitor the status of each investment.

2. Measure, Monitor and Track the Impact on Lending:

* As a condition of federal assistance, healthy banks without major capital shortfalls will increase lending above baseline levels.
* The Treasury will require detailed and timely information from recipients of government investments on their lending patterns broken down by category. Public companies will report this information quarterly in conjunction with the release of their 10Q reports.
* The Treasury will report quarterly on overall lending activity and on the terms and availability of credit in the economy.

3. Impose Clear Conditions on Firms Receiving Government Support:

* Require that executive compensation above a specified threshold amount be paid in restricted stock or similar form that cannot be liquidated or sold until the government has been repaid.
* Prevent shareholders from being unduly rewarded at taxpayer expense. Payment of dividends by firms receiving support must be approved by their primary federal regulator. For firms receiving exceptional assistance, quarterly dividend payments will be restricted to $0.01 until the government has been repaid.
* Preclude use of government funds to purchase healthy firms rather than to boost lending.
* Ensure terms of investments are appropriately designed to promote early repayment and to encourage private capital to replace public investments as soon as economic conditions permit. Public assistance to the financial system will be temporary, not permanent.

4. Focus Support on Increasing the Flow of Credit:

* The President will certify to Congress that any substantial new initiative under this program will contribute to forestalling a significant economic dislocation.
* Implement a sweeping foreclosure mitigation plan for responsible families including helping to reduce mortgage payment for economically stressed but responsible homeowners, reforming our bankruptcy laws, and strengthening existing housing initiatives like Hope for Homeowners.
* Undertake special efforts to restart lending to the small businesses responsible for over two-thirds of recent job creation.
* Ensure the soundness of community banks throughout the country.
* Limit assistance under the EESA to financial institutions eligible under that Act. Firms in the auto industry, which were provided assistance under the EESA, will only receive additional assistance in the context of a comprehensive restructuring designed to achieve long-term viability.

The incoming Obama Administration is committed to these undertakings. With these safeguards, it should be possible to improve the effectiveness of our financial stabilization efforts. As I stressed in my letter the other day, we must act with urgency to stabilize and repair the financial system and maintain the flow of credit to families and businesses to restore economic growth. While progress will take time, we are confident that, working closely with the Congress, we can secure America’s future.

President-Elect Obama on the Senate Vote to Release 2nd Half of the Financial Rescue Plan

The Senate voted today to release the second half of the $700 billion financial rescue plan, which will now be overseen by the incoming Obama Administration. In a statement released after the vote, President-elect Obama acknowledged the frustrations that many Americans have felt over how the first of half of the plan was used, and he pledged to increase transparency and accountability while ensuring that more money reaches struggling homeowners and small businesses:

Restoring the economy requires that we maintain the flow of credit to families and businesses. So I'm gratified that a majority of the U.S. Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, voted today to give me the authority to implement the rest of the financial rescue plan in a new and responsible way.

I know this wasn't an easy vote because of the frustration so many of us share about how the first half of this plan was implemented. There was too little transparency and accountability, and it didn't do enough to get credit where it's needed most -- small businesses and families struggling to keep their jobs and make ends meet. Now my pledge is to change the way this plan is implemented and keep faith with the American tax payer by placing strict conditions on CEO pay and providing more loans to small businesses, more transparency so that taxpayers can see where their money is spent, and more sensible regulations that will protect consumers, investors, and businesses.

Earlier in the day Lawrence Summers, President-elect Obama's incoming Director of the National Economic Council, sent a letter to the bipartisan leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives outlining in detail the President-elect's commitment to accountability and transparency in the use of these funds. The letter also pledged to use the money in a way that will help preserve home ownership, promote jobs and economic recovery, increase lending, promote the stability of the financial system, and safeguard taxpayer interests.

The letter outlined four key goals:

1) Providing a clear and transparent explanation for investments

2) Measuring, monitoring and tracking the impact on lending

3) Imposing clear conditions on firms receiving government support

4) Focusing support on increasing the flow of credit

Other important elements include limiting executive compensation, preventing banks from using government funds to purchase healthy firms rather than to boost lending, and disclosing information online so that American American people readily can monitor the status of each investment made by the Treasury Department.

Obama

Good morning. President-elect Barack Obama travels to Bedford Heights, Ohio, today to talk about his plan for giving the economy a jump-start. Last night, President George W. Bush said goodbye to the American public. Also last night, the Obama family moved into Blair House -- the official guest residence across the street from the White House.

Here are some of the stories making headlines:

• USA TODAY -- Despite hard times, many Americans are confident in Obama: "Americans are as down as they've been in decades about the state of the country and its polarized politics, even as they express soaring confidence that Barack Obama will be able to turn things around. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds stratospheric expectations for the incoming president that his own supporters acknowledge may be unrealistic. A majority of those surveyed say Obama will be able to achieve every one of 10 major campaign promises, from doubling the production of alternative energy to ensuring that all children have health insurance coverage."

Related: Obama tells USA TODAY he plans a quick diplomatic effort on Gaza and the Middle East.

• The Washington Post -- Obama plans "fiscal responsibility summit:" "President-elect Barack Obama pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare 'bargain' with the American people, saying that the nation's long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs. That discussion will begin next month, Obama said (in an interview with the Post), when he convenes a 'fiscal responsibility summit' before delivering his first budget to Congress. He said his administration will begin confronting the issues of entitlement reform and long-term budget deficits soon after it jump-starts job growth and the stock market."

• Politico -- Obama will aim for a "soaring but accessible" Inaugural Address: "With at least three drafts behind him, (President-elect Barack) Obama is nearly done with his own speech, an aide said Thursday -– striving for a tone that's soaring but accessible, simple but inspiring, urgent and confident all at once. A competitive man by nature, Obama seems acutely aware that he's stepping into the ring with history itself Tuesday –- squaring off against not only the public's expectations for a voice-of-God moment, but also against the addresses that came before his, the formidable and the forgettable."

Related package by The New York Times -- William Safire and other former presidential speechwriters offer their suggestions for what Obama should say.

• Chicago Tribune -- Blagojevich won't be an the Inaugural: "Gov. Rod Blagojevich, worried he would be a 'distraction' given the impeachment and criminal charges against him, won't be going to Washington for President-elect Barack Obama's inaugural festivities, a spokesman said (Thursday). The governor was invited to several inaugural events, but won't make the trip, Blagojevich spokesman Lucio Guerrero said."

• President Bush -- After 9/11, most Americans were able to return to their previous lives, "but I never did:" In his farewell address to the nation last night, President George W. Bush spoke of the 9/11 attacks and his efforts to protect the nation since then. "As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11," he said. "But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe." The full text of the president's speech is posted here. And the White House has put the complete video here. The Associated Press has also produced this short clip from the speech.

Obama Cabinet

"Good Morning America" news anchor Chris Cuomo conducted a surprisingly tough interview with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday, grilling her on the lack of accountability for how 2008's financial bailout money has been spent. He told the powerful Democrat, "...I think there are a few issues that unite Americans like this. Don't waste our money, especially right now."
[NewsBusters.org]

Regarding the news that Congress doesn't know how much of the $350 billion T.A.R.P has been spent, Cuomo challenged, "Why didn't savvy lawmakers like yourself, like Barney Frank, say, 'We're not going to just release this money with no strings. We'll build it in the law. We'll build in accountability?' Why didn't you do that?"

When the Speaker of the House attempted to pass blame off to President Bush, the ABC journalist retorted, "Are you saying that you can promise the American people, that going forward, with your president and your party, things will be different? That they will know where the money is?" During a discussion of the possible distribution of the second $350 billion funds, Pelosi again blamed Bush. Regarding that money, Cuomo proclaimed, "I guess the way to say it, this will be on Obama's account. Not on Bush's account, how this money is spent."

After Cuomo called for no more pointing at the administration and saying, "Well, they screwed up T.A.R.P.," a unrepentant Pelosi attacked back, "Well, they did. But they did." The GMA news anchor closed out the discussion by again instructing, "Now, it's you. It really is you by any other definition."

Cuomo did offer some softball questions for the liberal congresswoman. On the topic of a children's health care program, he blandly wondered, "With everything that's going on, this is a very important first step for you. You want this high on the agenda. Why?" The network host followed up with the equally uninteresting query: "So, what is the message that you're hoping to send by bringing this up early? And I guess, with your hopes, getting passage, with a President Obama?" But, overall, Cuomo should be commended for pressing the House Speaker on accountability.

A transcript of the January 14 segment, which aired at 7:15, follows:

CHRIS CUOMO: We have an exclusive interview for you this morning, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. About to enter a new era with a Democrat in the White House. The big issue, of course, is the economy and the problem the government has had managing the use of your tax dollars. What went wrong with the first $350 billion? What will be different going forward? That's where we started with the speaker in her Capitol Hill office. Why didn't savvy lawmakers like yourself, like Barney Frank, say, 'We're not going to just release this money with no strings. We'll build it in the law. We'll build in accountability?' Why didn't you do that?

HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: Well, we did build it in, by having an oversight committee and an inspector general. But that- the next thing we could do was to go down to Pennsylvania Avenue with a set of handcuffs and say to them you're no longer allowed to enforce this law because you're not doing it right. Instead, we had an election. And we changed the country. And now we have a new president.

CUOMO: But, Congress passed the law.

PELOSI: Right. We passed the law. The President-

CUOMO: You could have put in the conditions. There were other things in there.

PELOSI: We did put in the conditions. We did put in conditions.

CUOMO: But now you know in retrospect they aren't enough, right?

PELOSI: Well, you don't expect somebody to give somebody tens of billions of dollars and say, don't tell me how you're going to spend it. There was a purpose for the money, but they did not insist upon it.

CUOMO: I mean, I think there are a few issues that unite Americans like this. Don't waste our money, especially right now. And a situation you all have to deal with the new president is, you have Citibank, Morgan Stanley thinking about merging. It just gets slipped out in the news that they're reserving $2 to $3 billion, for retention payments. We both know that word means one thing. Bonuses.

PELOSI: Bonuses. Well, let me say this: There's nobody more disappointed than how the Bush administration executed the T.A.R.P. law, than the members of Congress who sent the bill to them. And so, yes. When people see bonuses under any name, whatever they want to call them, they're fighting words for the members.

CUOMO: Haven't heard anybody complaining about the Citigroup/Morgan Stanley, $3 billion in retention payments. Barney Frank, he's no shrinking violet. Haven't heard him come out about this. You know, where's the outrage?

PELOSI: Well, the- You talk anecdotally about one thing or another. There's tremendous outrage about CEO compensation in general.

CUOMO: Are you saying that you can promise the American people, that going forward, with your president and your party, things will be different? That they will know where the money is?

PELOSI: Things will be different because we will have a president who will enforce the law. And, again, with the light of transparency that will be built into any new- if there is to be anymore T.A.R.P. funding.

CUOMO: Well, he's asking for $350 billion.

PELOSI: President Bush has sent over the request. He sent it over yesterday.

CUOMO: For Obama. It's not that it's being asked for by Bush. He wants it. He asked for it.

PELOSI: No, no. The official request has been made by President Bush.

CUOMO: Because he's the president.

PELOSI: That's right.

CUOMO: But, he's asking for it because President-elect Obama wants it.

PELOSI: Well, he's asking for it because he wants President Obama to be identified with it. But we're comfortable with that because President Obama will enforced the law in a completely different way.

CUOMO: This money- I guess the way to say it, this will be on Obama's account. Not on Bush's account, how this money is spent.

PELOSI: Absolutely.

CUOMO: And the responsibility is on the Democrats, because there will be no more just pointing at the administration and saying, 'Well, they screwed up T.A.R.P.' 'Well, they got us in this mess.'

PELOSI: Well, they did. But they did.

CUOMO: Now, it's you. It really is you by any other definition.

PELOSI: And you will see a difference.

CUOMO: Pelosi could not be more confident about better days to come under President-elect Obama, an administration whose first legislative achievement won't deal with the economy, but health care. A program the speaker and President Bush were at odds over. This state child health insurance program. With everything that's going on, this is a very important first step for you. You want this high on the agenda. Why?

PELOSI: Over 11 million children will have access to health care cause of this legislation. In the previous administration, President Bush said we couldn't afford it. It would cost 40 days in Iraq to insure over 10 million children for one year. Certainly, we can afford it.

CUOMO: So, what is the message that you're hoping to send by bringing this up early? And I guess, with your hopes, getting passage, with a President Obama?

PELOSI: Well, that a new day has dawned. President Bush objected. President Obama supports it. And supports providing health care for our children. It's a shared value that we have in a bipartisan way in the Congress. And now, with the president of the United States.

CUOMO: Thank you very much for taking the time to do the interview.

PELOSI: My pleasure.

CUOMO: Appreciate the opportunity.

Barack Obama's Impact On the Project Management World

Barack Obama's imminent presidential inauguration has been predicted by many to have significant impacts in various, if not all, industries. Given the current challenges, there will, inevitably, be ever-changing priorities on his to-do list, in the way that some elements will remain consistent. Let's have a look at how these elements are bound to transform.

Let's have a look at five priority areas. Here is my take on how they might influence project and program management:

1. Health care reform. Reform in health care is aimed at controlling costs and making health care more available and more affordable to many more people in the United States. On the cost control side, it would seem that we can expect companies and organizations of all sorts will put an increasing emphasis on accelerating cost-containment in their organizations. These methods are already in operation, possibly, but there remain untested policy initiatives that could speed up and make more efficient these methods.

Projects of the Six Sigma nature should be incorporated more into health care projects, particularly among care providers and employees of pharmaceutical firms. It could include rethinking of priorities in favor of cost control and containment. Based upon many statements made, we can expect emphasis on more efficient information systems to manage personal and general health care information. The move to make health care available to most, or all, American citizens would seem to be quite a logistical and administrative challenge, spawning further projects in information technology and records management.

2. Energy. There has been a lot of talk about energy throughout the campaign, and hopefully not everything will shift as dramatically as energy prices have! But I think this will be a continuing source of projects of all sorts, and virtually everything in the energy field is big and requires expert project management skills. There are tremendous logistical and operational challenges throughout the whole supply chain, from extraction all the way through getting product to the consumer. Keeping some semblance of balance in that supply chain, especially in the face of erratic pricing and markets, makes that even more challenging.

There is likely to be an increased interest in alternative energy sources, including an emphasis on natural gas, drilling in new areas, wind energy, and solar energy. The key factor in my mind is the economics of each and tracking the variability in those factors, so that when changes come projects can be started rapidly. Given that most of these are large capital intensive projects, and that they are long term in nature, they will be hard to stop once started, and project selection and portfolio management will require exceptional skill.

3. Tax reform. Much emphasis has been put on tax fairness. This has been a clear indication that higher income individuals will receive higher tax rates. This could have an effect on consumer spending and possibly investment, thus effecting projects accordingly. It also may be that capital gains taxes will increase, and this will have a direct impact on the viability of projects many projects. The question is, how much of an impact, and specifically where?

My guess is that these tax policy changes will have a marginal impact as far as project managers go. I believe that those viable projects will remain viable, and only a few from the status quo will have to be changed. Of course in the short term, at least, the availability of money to finance many projects is a huge factor.

4. Education. Frankly, I am not sure at all what education reforms might be viable, but here are some ideas. Any educational service related to technology and the bringing of books, virtual classrooms, and interactive learning that bring efficiencies to the educational process will be considered. Other things that I think will be considered relate to customization of educational services or segments, such as charter schools who want to make their own innovative programs.

There may also be some macro changes in the educational system, related to local versus broader control of education. This type of thing would likely spawn information technology projects aimed at tying together information across local domains. Other changes in this area could relate to sharing teaching resources and flexibility across educational domains for both students and teachers.

5. Regulatory reform and infrastructure spending. There will likely an increased number of regulatory reform projects related to new financial regulations probably at the top of the list, just as there have been a plethora of Sarbanes-Oxley projects in the last few years, though there will be an increasing number of projects of that sort with the new changes to come.

We're Too Damned Fat, America!

Last Spring I wrote an article on America's weight problem, a short piece based mostly on my personal views and observations. Since then I have been reading more on the dilemma and have become a more avid 'weight watcher'. (No, not my own as I still need to lose some excess pounds to reach my optimum weight.) I have been watching other people a little more closely - making mental notes of what I see - and have been appalled at what I observe in my everyday travels about town. Fat people galore! - especially young people who should never be in that condition.

By young people I mean those between the ages of 15 to 35 years old. From this group the majority of future health problems - and costs - are going to leap upon us as a society. These are the people who should now be targeted for changing their lifestyles to eliminate the causes of being overweight. These are the individuals most moldable now whose behaviors can be modified more easily than older fatties before irreversible harm has been done to their bodies.

While it may not be politically correct to ridicule overweight people, the time has come to fully and publicly recognize the extent of the problem of Americans being overweight. It is apparent that we have reached a near epidemic of fatness and obesity in our society. While this may be an appearance detractor, played to by television advertising for any number of weight reduction gimmicks, more importantly it is a health problem creeping up on us and is going to be pandemic in our country with costly consequences.

How bad is the problem? Very bad according to the Centers for Disease Control and other government agencies and medical organizations monitoring the situation. Factually, more than 65% of adult Americans are currently overweight. More than 20% of our children are similarly affected by this condition. More than one third of adult Americans go beyond being overweight - they are considered obese, fat to the extent it is extreme. This equates to more than 70 million potential health problems which will significantly impact the health care system of the United States in the not so distant future. This is not a problem to ignore as it is predicted by medical experts to be much worse in the near term. By 2015 - a mere six years from now - the percent of adult Americans considered overweight will approach 75% and obesity will increase to over 40%. Alarming, isn't it?

Obesity kills! The incidences of Type 2 diabetes are growing at an alarming rate, more than doubling over the past 30 years in consonance with increasing levels of obesity. Heart disease is similarly on the increase as are a number of other ailments related to being overweight. Studies and reports can be easily found in numerous government and medical publications, but they don't seem to attract the attention of anyone other than medical experts. They certainly haven't swayed the general public if the fat statistics are to be believed. We get fatter as a nation by the year.

Yet, little is being done to correct the situation and change lifestyles of Americans, especially our youth. The government and medical organizations have published reports on the problem repeatedly. Who reads government reports? Not many of us - particularly not our fast food chomping youth who have been raised on high calorie meals of cheeseburgers and french fries, tacos and lard laden burritos, and other fast food fat producing short cuts to a healthy diet. Our American youngsters have been 'supersized' by the fast food industry - and negligent parents - to the extent they are now to an alarming degree overweight, unfit, and, in a significantly increasing number, obese.

Our society - particularly our youth - has become increasingly sedimentary forsaking real exercise for television reality shows and spectator sports - watching rather than doing - and playing computer action games rather than getting outdoors and becoming involved with bona fide action games as in playing rigorously. The lack of any actually strenuous daily activities involving working up a little sweat is causing this problem. (That and our poor choices of food in our diets.) Americans, I fear, have become lazy when it comes to getting enough exercise to ward off becoming overweight.

The simple fact that even a daily brisk walk of about three miles would be highly beneficial if combined with a reduction in calories by eating less fast food. Playing PlayStation for hours on end has no benefit at all in ridding ourselves of excess fat. Neither does hours of couch - sitting while watching the twaddle on television that has become our entertainment.

As Americans, we basically consume too much fat in our daily diet and get too little exercise. The problem is as simple as that - easily curable and reversed. But not without some education, effort, and headship by our leaders.

In a recent column, Morton Kondracke (Roll Call) called upon President - elect Barack Obama to make this a priority early in his administration, to declare a war on obesity, and to encourage Americans to join him in slimming the country down. Kondracke points out that Barack is one who Americans would follow in the battle to eat better, exercise more, and loose the fat now dragging us all into a health crisis. Morton states "…Obama is singularly positioned to lead the charge against excess flab: he's lean, he exercises, and he can set a great example for getting the nation fit again."

The new President certainly has enough wars to deal with. But a new war - on obesity -can be easily engaged, promoted, and won. We just need someone like Barack - and perhaps other influential leaders in the sports field - to declare it an immediately necessary ongoing battle and encourage the general populace, especially young people, to join the ranks of all Americans in the fight to rid ourselves of this burdensome and dangerous health concern. The young are enthusiastic over the election of Barack and will undoubtedly follow his marching orders to get up off the couch, drop that cheeseburger, and get fit. (President Kennedy encouraged youth fitness as important to our society as have other Presidents. None have had the success Barack would have as an example of an active and fit adult.)

That is an excellent possible solution to an imminent, though silent, disaster looming on our horizon. It would not be costly, it would not take an excess effort, and it would be effective and nearly immediate in its taking hold. If Barack simply stated in his first speeches on health care that we can all help solve the problem by diet and exercise, people would understand and get on board. We all know through observing those around us and looking in the mirror that most of us need to shed a few pounds and we all know we need to get involved in a more active lifestyle. We recognize that we spend too much time on the couch and not enough time outdoors. Barack could prompt us to change. After all, he damned the status quo of the health care system and promised change when campaigning. This type of change would be, most likely, the easiest thing to do in his administration. And, one to produce credible, effective, and long lasting benefits.

Parents can neither escape criticism for this growing problem nor can they shrink from their own responsibility in solving it. Parents promote the inevitable fatness of their children by condoning calorie laden fast foods, sodas, and other unhealthy choices. They allow sedentary behavior. In fact, they set the example many times with their own. An active parent is almost always an example for encouraging a child to follow suit. As a parent, get your kids up off their chairs, out from behind those computer screens, away from the malls and fast food shops, and instead get them active in action playing requiring physical exertion. Do your part.

As I stated at the beginning, I am an avid weight watcher. And I don't like who I see walking around the shopping centers gobbling a fatty snack from a fast food purveyor while quaffing a supersized cola of some sort. Fat people galore! Young fat people which is most disturbing. Yes, we're too damned fat, America, and we need to do something about it! Now!

The Good and Bad of 2009

2008 has turned out to be the worst year for financial markets I can remember, and a lot worse than I expected. The S&P/ASX200 will be down close to 40% for the year while global markets have performed much the same. In contrast, the Australian economy has held up better than expected, with unemployment barely rising and most companies only feeling the impact of the world slowdown very late in the year. The huge amount of global deleveraging (the reduction of borrowed money) that we are seeing has had most impact on the economies with large financial sectors, particularly the US and UK.

Tough year ahead

As we move into 2009 the level of pessimism is deepening and most expect it to be another tough year. It is possible, however, that we will see the reverse pattern to 2008, with markets showing resilience, even as economic conditions are likely to deteriorate. This would not be unusual, especially given the amount of policy stimulus that has already been thrown at the economic crisis and given that all policy makers have expressed willingness to continue on this path. Let's look at the policy responses - which cover both monetary (or quantitative) and fiscal measures:

Policy responses will soothe the pain

First, we now have zero interest rate policies (quantitative easing) in the two largest world economies - the US and Japan - with the UK and Europe looking to be moving rapidly in the same direction. Australian interest rates are moving towards 4% and could go a lot lower. The 40% fall in the A$ is an additional boost that will be very supportive of our economy and markets in the coming year.

What does this monetary easing mean? For the economy, it soothes the pain of deleveraging, by lowering or offsetting, much of the rising interest burden caused by the credit crunch. In countries moving to a zero interest rate policy, it means the central banks are actually buying back from the market the debt securities that no one else wants and quantitatively forcing up the supply of money. With inflation still positive (ie negative real rates of interest), this is a big incentive for consumers and business to start spending again.

If we are moving into a true deflationary crisis for the economy, where low interest rates have limited impact, then it is important to see fiscal policy fill the void left by falling demand. To date, the fiscal responses we have seen from across the industrial world have been encouraging. Unlike the 1930s, governments do understand the need to let the budget position move into deficit during down-cycles. Further US fiscal support is likely in the first quarter of 2009 with the arrival of Obama and his new team.

Bad economic news, but perhaps good news for markets

These policy impacts will, however, take time to offset the negative momentum that was allowed to build up in the later part of 2008. For that reason, I would expect further bad economic news, especially here in Australia, where we have lagged this cycle. Ironically, while the economic news will probably get worse, the chances of a market rebound are improving. In financial markets, cash is now piling up fast, with individuals and institutions facing rapid declines in the overall income they are getting from their portfolio. For the first time I can recall, dividend yields are now higher than risk free rates of return in almost every major country and many investors have allowed their equity exposures to fall below long-run targets. I expect this combination means investors gradually look to rebalance back to equities, and that a substantial short-covering rally is likely in the first half of 2009.

How BTIM portfolios are positioned

Our portfolios remain focused on quality large-cap companies and securities (under-weight smaller leveraged companies and sectors). We also favour international markets and have stayed underweight Australian equities (the falling A$ has really helped this strategy). Assuming the world economy does respond to the "wall of money" stimulus coming from governments globally, then it is likely that, here at BTIM, we will start to add to Australian equities and the smaller, leveraged companies in the New Year, and trim international equities and cash.

Eloquent Reminders For Planning Your 2009 Business Ventures: Very, Very Hot!

Having a recap for 2008 took around a full hour for some TV channels and around four full weeks of December, every single day until the New Year for other media channels. But putting it in simpler terms where you do not have to waste your precious time, a precise in-a-nutshell recap of 2008 most important realities that had some type of effect can be resumed in as little as one sentence or a simple article so you consider what you should choose to do in 2009 and what might happen if you elect to do nothing.

Year 2008 for the economy went in precise as: the famous bubble burst is finally out in the media, how much is worth your home right now and how much you owe on it or what's the appreciated value? Second, everything in regards to or that can be associated with treasury, starts warming up. At this time lies about investing your money on many investing opportunities start jumping in many magazines and sufficient amount of TV channels for people who decided to have a keen eye on patterns for potential economy nightmares. Check some of my interesting articles and predictions back in 2006 and 2007.

Interesting, CDs begin having different set of patterns according to some newsworthy news. You check resources like the Morning Star online and some forums and the correct English term is swaps. Swaps and investments take place to protect the ultra rich and investors with equivalent power to avoid financial pockets of value to personally go bankrupt! Interesting, for some reasons a company called Enron boggled my mind as continue writing. Then, the mortgage collapse!

At this time for your own health you could not turn the TV on. You had from 2 to 100 financial experts or gurus talking about finances. But hey, without being sarcastic - many of say it's good TV! Around this time, greed hit gas prices. For some reason, not every Arab likes the US! Next in no particular chronological order of historic disaster you have Lehman Brothers and bigger companies flocking into financial disaster.

At this time some international minds light a Cuban tobacco and interesting enough oil prices go record high. At this time, you probably said to yourself: do I need a BMW, Infiniti, Mercedes or a nice car to look or be even hotter? Or perhaps you predicted this much earlier and dump unnecessary luxuries. Then, the amount of corruption, fraud and coercion begins.

A prudent next step begins after, the bailout begins. Some if not all of 2006 and 2007 tax dollars are given to save Wall Street and million dollar parties among those who got richer or saved by the bailout go bigger than previous year as far recording and some TV news channels let us know. Unfortunately, it isn't wishful thinking! It was and continues to be reality.

Then my next door neighbor boughs a shotgun! An economic freeze began at such times and 401k gets bigger volatile hits in people with such investments. Finally Obama wins and millions of people see him as the savior and winning strategist of the influential or should I say, past irresponsible leader leading America?

In ending review, if you had or already have multiple successful correctly ran businesses running on the internet: you survived or thrived on the worst of those days. If you did not, you learned a powerful lesson that should not ever repeat itself as you gain knowledge and experience. My question would be, what would you do in 2009 and every other year to thrive?

The Obama Factor - Does the US Hold The Solution to the Sub-Prime Crisis?

The economic crisis that has enveloped the 'developed' world has it origins in the US mortgage market - or to be more accurate the 'boom' in the housing market and the inevitable 'bust' that followed it. Symptoms of the 'boom' included consumers drunk on irresponsible lending by the banks, on properties that they could ill afford, and borrowing well beyond their means. America has been a scapegoat, as many lenders in the UK behaved erroneously on the FSA watch. Self declaration of income only encouraged unaffordable loans. Plenty were warned but no one listened.

Over the past few days, Harvard economist Robert Shiller has been in the UK. Shiller is a Harvard economist who predicted the dot com bubble burst and the current mortgage crisis. He has been meeting with, amongst others, Gordon Brown and Mervin King to offer his perspective on the lending crisis and how it can be resolved. There have been similarities between the reactions of the UK and the US to date. For example, the recent cut in interest rates to 2% by the Bank of England comes at a time when the Federal Reserve is set to slash borrowing rates to zero. Our transatlantic cousins are generally seen as being further through the 'bust' period than us, and many economists predict it will only be a matter of time before the UK interest rates are at an unprecedented 0%.

Remortgages and mortgages should track the same borrowing formula. I.E. if a bank borrow at libor they lend at libor plus. If they borrow at base, they lend at base plus. Mortgages with rate spikes are not needed, and long term fixed rate mortgages as per America should be encouraged. All lending should be regulated by one regulator. 'Flash Gordon' Brown was hailed as a superhero and saviour of the economy on both sides of the Atlantic when he came up with the bank bailout plan, but this has had intangible effects for the average homeowner and consumer to date.

There have been signs in recent days that the Bank of England is turning to increasingly drastic measures (a la USA), in a bid to get banks lending again. Alistair Darling recently announced that he was looking to implement the recommendation in the Crosby report to guarantee securities backed by new mortgages. This follows the Federal Reserve's announcement that it will purchase half a trillion dollars in mortgage backed securities in the States. This is a great idea. It moves the problem cases to a new body who have to have the ability to resolve unaffordability, reduce balances, extend term etc, otherwise it is still a repossession ,but by a different institution. Any regulated lender should have access to the scheme.

At the end of the day, the US and UK economies are different animals. The UK economy is reliant on property and the banking system. The US has industries such as manufacturing to fall back on. If channels of lending are to open up again, we need to take a 'back to basics approach.' This means that lenders, brokers and borrowers all take their fair share of responsibility, and accurate and proper criteria is applied when gauging the affordability of loans. Whether secured, unsecured or mortgage based

Obama Foresees Years Of Trillion $ Deficits!

President Elect, Barack Obama prophesized yesterday that the U.S. would see "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come", and added that the country will need to continue spending taxpayer dollars in order to get the economy back on track.

Obama, who was speaking to reporters at his Washington transition office, admitted that he didn't want to get into specific budget numbers because his proposal is still to be worked out with lawmakers and has yet to be submitted for debate, but he did caution that he expects a trillion-dollar deficit before the next fiscal-year budget is even proposed.

"We're already looking at a trillion-dollar budget deficit or close to a trillion-dollar budget deficit, and that potentially we've got trillion-dollar deficits for years to come, even with the economic recovery that we are working on at this point".

When asked to answer to the numerous concerns related to increased deficit spending, Obama said, "We know that we're going to have to spend money to jump-start the economy".

Obama added that he is plans to establish an oversight board that will meet publicly and then issue reports to Congress on how the money is being spent.

This is the first time for sixteen years that Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress and we might finally see a somewhat fruitful session if Obama is able to muster Republican support for his initiatives and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., promised on Monday as she welcomed Obama to her office, "We will hit the ground running, to address the pain being felt by the American people".

Democrats will soon attempt to use their bolstered majority to push through several changes to House rules which include a repeal of the six-year term limit for committee chairmen which is a rule that was imposed when Republicans took control of the Congress in 1995.

Life is obviously going to get harder over the next few years but people can at least try to forestall approaching foreclosures and bankruptcies and some advice on how to do so can be found on a small network of sites at http://home-loan-help.org

Candidates Hold Forum

Editor's note: We are participating in the Quad-City Times First Vote, where students are able to attend political forums and report on them.

Recapturing the American Dream As Americans, we share common hopes and dreams. And we all deserve the same chance.

"I'll take away President Bush's tax cuts," Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama said.

"Distribution of wealth will start to close the widening gap between upper and lower class. And in correlation, the economy will flourish. We can only withdrawal troops after establishing diplomacy in Iraq. So far, we have spent one-hundred-twenty billion dollars on the war. The extra income, wont hurt."

"As your next president," Obama said. "I will recapture the American Dream."

The headlining banner for the forum that hangs overhead Obama's podium. The Mississippi Bend Area Education Agency, in Bettendorf, IA, is where supporters gathered to listen.

By cleaning up irresponsible government spending, Obama outlined that education and healthcare can be solved.

Obama gave a detailed and inspiring speech about his family and the fortunate life that America, gave him. And how we can all work to achieve dreams we all have and want to share with others.

Obama likes to compare checking out presidential candidates to looking over a used car, saying, that he knows voters like to look under the hood and kick the tires before we take it for a ride. In hopes, he can convince America that his ride is for change.

Better Veteran Care

There are occasional stories in the news about army veterans not receiving the benefits they need.

The Washington Post published an article of inspection at the Walter Reed Medical Center. It was reported, "Mouse-droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses," were among some of the common sights. Walter Reed is a representation of how the current administration is taking care of our veterans.

Democratic Presidential Candidate, Bill Richardson, spoke about this issue at the Adler Theater two weeks ago.

Third Party capital gains would save us twenty-five billion dollars. Richardson will take that money, and like Robin Hood, he will spread the wealth.

Under Richardson, veterans will receive a Heroes Card. Which means no more long lines at the VA. They get care wherever they want.

For their first year back, veterans won't pay federal income tax. If they are severely wounded, paid leave is offered up to a year. And education is free for the family. With a detailed plan laid out, there would still be nine and a half billion saved.

Richardson is also interested in topics of the current headlines. Stating that we need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible to start diplomatic establishment.

"Seventy percent of Iraqis think there is nothing wrong with shooting a U.S. soldier," Richardson said. "That says there's something wrong in our current policy."

He believes in diplomatic resolution in Iraq and Iran. Which are both turning into unforeseen problems.

"I'm an advocate for high-speed rails," Richardson said. "I would reverse our current funding in the highway bill for the commuter bill."

Richardson has many plans to control 'out of hand' government spending.

U.S. Needs Credibility First The Hat Pub in Davenport was packed of Joe Biden supporters last week one afternoon.

Democratic presidential candidate Biden has served in the Senate for thirty-six years.

Meaning, his resume is quite impressive when compared to any candidates, democratic or republican running.

"I'm the most qualified for this job," Biden said. "We need to regain credibility in the world if we want to lead the world to peace. That means that the conflict in Iraq must be resolved before massive withdrawal."

Roadside bombs cause Seventy-Five percent of troop deaths. So, Biden wants to fund troops with the necessary tools.

"I don't play games," Biden said. "Iraq is a more important issue. It is paralyzing us as a country."

The new fortified vehicles give soldiers a three hundred percent increase in survival. He touched on the current issue of Iran and its nuclear capabilities.

"Yes, it is a concern," Biden said. "But Pakistan is a bigger threat. They have nuclear warheads and radical fundamentalists are taking over."

Saying, that we don't need to fear about the 'what ifs.'

"That is what partially got this administration where it is now," he said.

We have spent one-hundred-twenty billion dollars on the 'War in Iraq,' so far.

"And republicans talk about values," Biden said. "Show me your budget and I will show you your value."