April Fool's Day ??

My first thought, when I saw the headlines, was that it must be April Fool's Day or a page from The Onion. Huffington Post headlined two articles, side by side:

"Bush to Receive First-ever International Medal of Peace."

"I Was Unprepared for War . . . I'm sorry about the economy."

The Peace Medal is given by the Global PEACE Coalition in recognition of Bush's initiative to treat AIDS and malaria in Africa. This is perhaps the one area that he can take some credit for, although it's marred by his demand that one-third of the money be spent on abstinence-only sex eduation. He claims that it helped treat two million people; but that's a relatively small percent of those infected with AIDS in Africa, every single one of whom could be treated for a year with the money we spend in nine days of our war in Iraq.

The second headline touts an interview with Bush by Charlie Gibson. But don't let the headline fool you. Bush is expressing regrets about some things "that happened," but he's not taking an iota of responsibility. For example, he "regrets" that he was given "incorrect intelligence" that led to war. He takes no responsibility for not knowing what many of us on the street knew at the time.

On the economy: "I'm sorry it's happening, of course. . . . Obviously I don't like the idea of people losing jobs, or being worried about their 401(k)s. On the other hand, the American people got to know that we will safeguard the system. I mean, we're in. And if we need to be in more, we will."

Again, regrets that "it's happening." But no responsibility. We WILL safeguard the system, Sir? Why DIDN'T you safeguard the system when it would have mattered? And do you now support replacing the safeguards you and your Republican scrooges tore down?

No, I didn't think so. Please spare us the crocodile tears, Mr. Almost-Ex President. Go peddle your "regrets" for "things that happened" somewhere else.

Ralph

Obama's emergence as a strong president

Forget "inexperienced." It's been trumped by intelligence and competence. Forget Hillary's secret quote "he can't win." He won by bigger margins than Bill Clinton. Forget the attempt to smear with "socialism." Bailing out Wall Street is being called "corporate socialism," and the Republicans did it. Forget "most liberal senator." Thus far in his appointments, competence trumps ideology.

If anyone, at this point, has reason for concern, it is his liberal, progressive supporters. I don't share that concern. I have such confidence in Obama's judgment and his assessment of what is possible that I'm willing to relax and let him run the show. He doesn't need advice from me.

That may be short-sighted, but it is such a relief after eight years of gnashing my teeth over everything Bush/Cheney/Rove & Co. did. Still, Obama needs us progressives to keep the pressure on him to push forward -- despite the economy -- and at least make a start, by outlining plans for progressive legislation. He intends to do it; but faced with opposition in Congress, he will need a strong, grassroots pressure to back him up.

Thus far, Obama has assembled a team that will govern with intelligence, expertise, and pragmatism in the important areas of economy and national defense and law enforcement. Expect to see more liberal ideology showing up in later appointments: Health and Human Services (Daschle), Commerce (Richardson), and others such as Labor, EPA, Energy, Housing, Interior. Those are the areas for progressive policies and legislation.

So many myths the Repubs invented about the dangers of an Obama presidency are evaporating. I felt a rush of satisfaction as one more bit the dust: that the military will not respect him. He's already trumped that one too by quickly winning over the top military brass. He had a sit-down with Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the other day. According to the Washington Post, Adm. Mullen "came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman 'felt very good, very positive,' according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby."

The Post continued:

"But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials . . . is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.

"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council of Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."

Sooner or later, Obama is going to make some missteps. Or he will run out of trump cards. But so far, his emergence as the President has been as nearly flawless as his campaign.

Ralph

I Hate to Agree with George Will, but...

As conservatives go, George Will is certainly intelligent, thoughtful, and well-spoken. (He's also supposed to be a bit arrogant - people here tell a story about a reading at a book store in Raleigh where he allegedly threw a pen across the room because it was a Bic, and so not classy enough for him).

So there are times I feel his analysis of the situation is accurate. I think that's the case with his comments on the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

"She's run two things in her life," Will said, "her campaign, that did not go so well. It was faction ridden, it leaked a lot. And before that, the health care event that they could not even get to a vote in a congress they controlled. Her record as a manager raises caution signs."

Caution signs? How about whopping red flags? Hillary made a debacle of the health care plan, and that at a time when the country supported change. I remember feeling deeply troubled at the time with the way she handled it. Despite clear legal guidelines, she refused to keep records of who she met with, and what they said. She excluded primary care physicians from any significant input, and catered to the desires of the health care industry over the needs of citizen consumers.

She has always been secretive, controlling, and self-serving. In health care, in Travelgate, in the primaries, and generally throughout her career. Her campaign was a disaster, and full of factionalism and finger-pointing.

I'm afraid her position as Secretary of State could easily turn into a platform for making a run against Obama in 2012. At the first sign of a 'mistake', the behind-the-scenes whisper campaign could start a chatter about how the job is beyond him, he doesn't really know what he's doing, if only Hillary had won the primary, and for the good of the country and the Democratic party she will just have to go against him in 2012.

The Clintons have always put their interests ahead of the party. What makes anyone think they wouldn't do so again? Hillary and Bill are arrogant enough to believe they could unseat a sitting president from their own party and win the White House.

I'm hoping I'm wrong, that we see a new Hillary, Hillary the Team Player. But it's hard to believe she's nto going to be looking out for her own interests first, and last.