Obama on rising tuition

A point Obama made in his SOTU speech and again in a speech at the University of Michigan was to put pressure on colleges to keep tuition from rising by threatening to remove federal subsidies. University of Washington President Mike Young said that Obama doesn't understand public university budgets and dismissed Obama's plan as "political theater."

Obama's plan is focused on increasing campus-based aid and will not affect the vast bulk of federal grants and loans. Since there is no central authority for higher education, the federal government has a very limited control over the real costs and significant gridlock in Congress.

University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman said that tuition increases are needed to make up for drops in state funding. Obama wants state governments to be more helpful, which Coleman agrees with.

Young said that the cost of educating students has actually gone down and that the state authorized tuition increases are only to make up for the state cutting their subsidies.

Obama's speech at the University of Michigan was part of a campaign to promote his SOTU agenda in competitive states.

I did not understand what University of Washington President Young meant about university costs. Were his university's state subsidy cuts greater or less than decreases in the cost to educate? And if they were lesser, what was the point of the tuition increase?

This does seem like a pre-campaign season campaign targeted at younger (college age) voters who are a growing demographic among registered voters. And young people were more likely to vote for Obama in 2008.

I am doubtful that any federal plan to keep tuition from rising can make it through the gridlock of Congress, but I have my fingers crossed for an effective plan to be enacted within the next several months. What are your thoughts, AP Gov folk?

State of the Union 2012

This year's State of the Union speech was particularly important for President Obama as it is an election year, and he was bound to portray the state of the country as improving. He opened the speech talking mainly about political things like the end of the Iraq War and the death of Osama bin Ladden before talking about the military as a bridge to talking about national unity and what the country previously accomplished before neatly segueing into talking about policies. The first policy related things Obama brought up regarded the deficit and Wall Street regulations, both of which would be recurring themes through the speech. He also mentioned throughout that he wanted manufacturing and clean energy to be major economic focuses and talked about related goals like providing job training and discouraging outsourcong. All of his policy talk was punctuated with political things like both parties coming together to get legislature through in a timely manner and equal opportunity.

What bothered me about the speech was its lack of depth, but details of so many issues can't be discussed in only an hour. I was left wondering if such plans were possible and could survive Congress, and, if they do, how effectively they can be executed. A specific detail that bothered me was what Obama said the Iraq War money would now be headed: half to infrastucture and half to paying off debt. Since the government is sustaining heavily on borrowed money, doesn't that mean that the government would just be borrowing half the cost of the war less per year? And that the rate of debt increase only slows, not reverses?

I would also like to note how this speech seemed to be partly a rebuttal to any negative predictions the Republican candidates were saying about policies made durring the Obama administration, as Obama kept saying positive predictions about the future and stressed any accomplishments in the present.

It's Just Water....... boarding.....

This post is coming a bit late, but I post this due to President Obama's speech in Hawaii today. During the Republican debate on Saturday, the subject of waterboarding came up and received many different answers. It ranged from Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann calling it enhanced interrogation techniques to Ron Paul acknowledging that it is indeed torture. My stance is this, I agree with Ron Paul (for once). Waterboarding is torture period end of story. It is a way of trying to make people talk by simulating what would happen to you when you drown. Now we all know that drowning is not a pleasant feeling since it involves suffocating to death underwater. To me, when people call it an enhanced interrogation technique it sends shivers down my spine. Have we become so heartless as to force a fellow human to experience their own death via suffocation just to get information (that will probably be wrong. I highly doubt people subjected to torture are actually going to give the right information). It is wrong and inhumane. I personally can find no way to justify it. So, when I watched the Republican debate on Saturday, I was disgusted by the nominees, to an even larger extent, by the audience. Cheering for waterboarding? I just want to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they don't know what waterboarding is, so that way I can go to bed thinking that they weren't actually cheering on torture. If McCain and Obama could agree that it was torture during the 2008 presidential race, then I think we should all be able to come to the same conclusion as well. Now, I find myself having to include Ron Paul in that category too, and that is something I am glad for. I may not like the man (at all) but at least he knows what is torture or what is not (although I guess it is really none of his business).

Here is an article that I got the idea from. It is incredibly short, but I felt it gave me enough to talk about. Plus, it has a video.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/13/obama-calls-waterboarding_0_n_1091711.html

Deficit Commission?

Obama is supporting a Senate proposal which would create an eighteen member bipartisan deficit commission who's task it is to propose a plan to gradually reduce our national debt. This commission is opposed by many Republican's, but Obama is prepared to issue an executive order creating a similar commission if necessary. I feel that this commission is necessary to start the initiative to lower our national debt. I believe the Republicans will find it more convenient to pass the Senate bill rather than forcing the President to issue an executive order. I believe with the right bipartisan commission, our government can effectively formulate ideas on how to lower our national debt over the next few years. The vote on this commission is scheduled for Tuesday, so if it does not pass, Obama might introduce his new commission in his State of the Union address on Monday.

Welcome to the Ranks, Senator Brown

In the race for the Massachusetts Senate seat, Brown (Republican) has emerged victorious. This means that the Democrats have lost their sixty seat majority, and could possibly overthrow the healthcare changes President Obama has been working so hard on. This is an hour that Obama is probably mourning.

From the article, "In a race that became the center of national attention, Brown’s win is widely seen as a vote against the president’s agenda from one of the most reliably Democratic states. "

The article also notes the irony that Brown won, considering that the Senate seat in question belonged to Ted Kennedy, who dedicated his life to healthcare reform.

Democrats nervous about Massachusetts senate race

Polls have demonstrated that the Republican Candidate, Scott Brown, is either ahead or even in the race. President Obama will be visiting the area to help out the Democratic Candidate, Martha Coakley.

Unfortunately for Democrats, it seems that the wind in their sails, with Obama's rise, is dissipating. This is probably due to voter dissatisfaction with progress made by the Obama administration. Obama's popularity is falling, so it is to be questioned whether his presence in Massachusetts will actually help Coakley.

Obama's popularity has fallen among younger voters in particular, and this is probably because he made a few promises that quite simply have not been kept, although there are, of course, obstacles that prevented him from keeping them.

The possibility of low voter turnout for the Democrats, as they try to maintain their majority in Congress, is a serious threat to them. Obama is being criticized by both the left and the right.

The Democrat's campaign is trying to encourage a high Democrat turnout by parading the polls that say they're in trouble.

I'm not really sure what to think of the whole article. Clearly the Obama administration isn't as efficient as it claimed it was going to be, but to be perfectly fair, what administration has been? Every administration encounters problems, and every single election the American population expects some terrific revolution and efficiency to be increased, and it never is. As to whether or not Coakley is elected or not, I don't know what effect Obama's help will have. I think it will probably work, but once again, what do I know?

Help in Help in Haiti is arriving late

Many countries have sent help to Haiti, but apparently the help isn't helping very much. It's taking time for planes to land, and the roads via which help can arrive are filled not only with blockages, but with the dead. Current estimates suggest that between 45 and 50 thousand people are dead, with over 3 million people having been affected in some way (that's a THIRD of the population). Help is still supposedly on the way, but it's coming to slowly. Obama has promised a considerable amount of aid. But, besides the 50 thousand dead, there are probably hundreds or thousands more trapped under the ruins of collapsed buildings, and they have limited time. UN vehicles patrol open streets keeping the peace, but they're not actually providing help. Other countries, however, have managed to supply some degree of help. England, China, and Cuba either have rescue teams there, or, in Cuba's case, had doctors there before the quake (they're now being quite helpful).

I don't mean to criticize current relief efforts; my only point is that help is coming slow. This is, unfortunately, to be expected. The UN is overrun, roads are blocked, and it's more than just an organizational catastrophe. At the very least, efforts are being made. With any luck, the help that still hasn't arrived or hasn't had the ability to help yet will be able to rescue the majority, if not all, of those trapped underneath buildings and provide medical aid to all who need it. Let's hope for the best folks.

China, Missiles, the US, and Taiwan

Last week, the United States sold Taiwan over 200 Patriot Missiles. In response, China shot down one of its missiles with another missile. This shot demonstrated China's anger towards the US and its continued support for Taiwan, which China has considered to be a "renegade province" since its separation in 1949. Taiwan has not formally claimed independence, and China has openly stated that if Taiwan did so, it would use military force. The US has hinted at the possibility that it would defend Taiwan.

The US is required to sell missiles to Taiwan under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, and of course, China has a problem with this. China views the Taiwan issue as an interior problem, which the US should not meddle in.

China-US tensions seem to be increasing, and this upcoming weeks' events may increase them further. Barack Obama will be meeting with the Dalai Lama and Taiwan's President will visit the US.

To be frank, this worries me. The fact that war is possible at any time in the future is something to shudder at, and rising tensions with a rising super power is not something desirable. It is to be hoped that Obama and the Chinese administration find some way to ease this tension. The Taiwan dispute will, as long as Taiwan, China, and the US exist, be a source of disagreement, but it would be nice if we could focus on something other than disagreements. How about, for example, the billion dollars worth of goods the US imports from China every day? There's some good there, right?

There must be some kind of analogy comparing this situation to two toddlers and a teddy bear in a sandbox, but I don't know it.

Obama’s Speech on Job Creation and Economic Growth

President Obama gave a speech Tuesday in the Brookings Institution on the state of the economy and how he plans to hasten job creation. Obama mentioned how the signs seemed to be pointing up for the economy and commended himself and his administration on a job well done He claims that by using some of the money to boost the economy, the economy will get back on its feet faster and the government will earn more tax revenues as well as decreasing costs on agencies such as unemployment insurance, effectively helping to decrease the deficit. Obama also noted the poor employment situation in the nation (10% unemployment in November). Obama outlined some proposals of his to spur job creation. However, the plans listed by Obama worked indirectly to create jobs, and did not have the complete focus on job creation that some might want. Obama said that he wanted to “generate the greatest number of jobs while generating the greatest value for our economy.” He does not want to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs itself; no one is going to be paid to dig holes in the ground and then fill them up again. Instead Obama will only create jobs that he feels would have a beneficial effect on the long-term economy.

Obama split his plan up into three parts: “small business, infrastructure, clean energy.” He stated that small businesses create 65% of the jobs in America, and thus his most direct efforts would be focused on these businesses. He proposed extending tax credits for businesses, having Geithner and the Treasury increase lending to small businesses through the TARP, and creating a tax incentive for small businesses to hire more employees. Amongst his jabs at the opposition party, he addressed the concerns over using TARP money that was intended to help pay back some of the public debt. Geithner has already extended TARP so that it will not end until October 3, 2010; the program was originally set to end this year.

Obama wanted to focus a great deal on improving the United States’ infrastructure. He mentioned how the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act had provided funding for many projects to create bridges and roads and rail lines, increase broadband availability, and repair water systems. While the funding from that act and those projects start ramping down, he wants another boost to these areas. He also wants to improve areas like the computers of public utility systems, saying that ‘modernizing the physical and virtual networks that connect us” will allow companies to be more efficient and save money, thus allowing the industries to be in better shape once the recession ends.

On clean energy, Obama believes that “the nation that leads in clean energy will be the nation that leads the world.” In order to help this industry, Obama is proposing a tax rebate to homeowners that retrofit their houses to be more energy-efficient. He also wants to expand sections of the ARRA that provide a boost for clean energy businesses in the form of increased lending, funding for R&D initiatives, and tax incentives to clean energy companies. He claims that these measures not only help create jobs in the industry, but it will also save families money as they will pay less money as things become more energy efficient. Obama also mentioned how the Recovery Act created a fund to raise overall student math and science literacy. 

Obama's proposed methods have angered members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Republicans are angry over the devotion of TARP funds to tasks other than what was originally intended, namely that of paying back some of the public debt. Some Democrats are also not going to like Obama's plan. In addition to concerns that it does not do enough to curb unemployment, Democratshad been working on a bill for job creation that would take its money from TARP. Obama's plan uses TARP funds for only activities such as loaning to small businesses; the deficit might not increase, but the money for some of Obama's other proposals will not come from leftover TARP funds. Some people are even wondering if Obama's plans will even be effective in creating jobs. A CEO of a company that produce wheelchairs states "You have to have a customer for that employee to serve -- so I'm confused how a tax credit would stimulate anything." His reasoning being that tax credits and more loans are all well and good, but if aggregate demand simply isn't high enough, there would be no reason to hire a new employee as that employee would have nothing to do and, tax credit or no tax credit, would only exist as an unnecessary cost that negatively affects the company's bottom line.

A video of the speech and a transcript.

White House Crashers (just less funny and without owen wilson)

So, I'm actually surprised no one posted this before since this happened like last week. Reality TV hopefuls. Candidates for Bravo's "new" show Real Housewives of D.C. Michaele and Tareq Salahi attend last Tuesday's dinner on the White House South Lawn for the prime minister of India and were not on the guest list.

Secret Service spokesman Jim Mackin said officers at the checkpoint had a clipboard with names of the invited guests. Even though the Salahis names weren't on it, they were allowed to proceed. It's unclear what they said to get through, but federal law makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully falsify statements on matters within the federal government's jurisdiction. The couple is currently facing a series of civil lawsuits.

This has drawn a lot of attention to the secret service and the president's safety. Though the couple went through magnetometers and other levels of screening, it still puts the president at risk. This has gotten a lot of media coverage so I thought I should do a post on this. What do you guys think of this situation?

On a side note, there's gonna be another Real Housewives series?!?!?!

Obama: Too Short of a Stay?

In New Orleans, most people are pretty happy with our president, Mr. Obama. “President’s doing a good job as far as I’m concerned,” Mr. Bienaime, 71, said. “And he ain’t even been there a year.” In fact, scheduled this Thursday is Obama's visit to the Gulf Coast. However, despite some of the praise for the new president, his visit terms to New Orleans was met with criticism.

Apparently, Obama is only going to stay in that state for a few hours, visiting a charter school and an university, then heading to our San Francisco for a fundraiser. So what's the problem? Well, many people think that this visit is definitely way too hasty and kind of contradictory of what the President previously had said.

The president is not visiting any areas ravaged by Hurricane Katrina, despite his attack on Bush for Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina. Also, during his campaign, Obama visited the city of New Orleans five times. Some people, like a strong supporter Lawrence N. Powell, said“I know he’s got a lot going on, but I think this needed to be approached differently. You can’t multitask a world-historical tragedy.”

Other people like Nick Shapiro, White House speaker, says that all this criticism is not necessary since Obama is already doing some of the things that the people of New Orleans wanted and that this is not Obama's last visit to the region. Obama's administration is also setting up and doing projects that rebuild the Gulf Coast, set up more protection, etc. I personally do not think that all the criticism is that warranted, since Obama definetly will visit this region sometime soon and the administration is directing money and efforts toward rebuilding and aiding the Gulf Coast. However, I can understand how Obama's hasty visit appears to be contradictory of what he stated in his campaign. What do you guys think?

-Henry Zhang

Enough is enough

"If the president should listen to McChrystal and adopt a troop "surge," the question remains: How many is enough?"

Currently the United States has around 48,000 troops in Afghanistan not including Iraq. General Stanley McChrystal plans to put 40000 more troops into the area to help keep things "under control."

But is there a point to all the troops going into Afghanistan? Will the 40,000 US troops make a difference in subduing the insurgencies going on?

The current state in Afghanistan has gotten to point where it is nearly a civil war. Although Kimberly Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War claims that the extra 40,000 troops may reduce the amount of violence in the country, I feel that adding the 40,000 may not help the overall of the war. Sooner or later, the US will have to pull out because our economy won't be able to support our troops there and the insurgents aren't just going to fall back and retreat just because we added in a more troops.

Just last week, eight more US soldiers were killed fighting hundreds of insurgents in the lower areas of the Nuristan province. If we add 40,000 more troops, what's stopping the insurgents from rallying up even more people to help "fight the US" off?

As Rep. Jim McGovern says, " We need to come up with a strategy that includes an exit strategy, because it'll also put pressure on the government of Afghanistan to step up to the plate, which it has not done so far."

IN THE END, ITS A DICTATORSHIP. NOMATTER WHAT YOU CALL IT

I am at a loss of understanding whether i need to provide specific evidence of what our president is doing wrong or not.
Earlier today you put this question for me on the internet.
Later today, you withdrew your question. Kindly, Clarify your stands. Do you still need me to explain to you what i meant, or have you figured it out on your own?
...History WILL repeat itself.


SO, lets analyze the historical economic path that socialist countries have taken and what exactly had led them to economic disaster all over the world.

October 1917, the Russian Revolution began. The very first declaration by the government was to nationalize by declaring ownership of industrial factories, agricultural lands, and small businesses. I believe that the Russian government did this under the assumption that it would be better able to run the economy and businesses including the private sector better than individual businesses, private enterprises, and entrepreneurs. Today, all of the latest actions and decisions made by the white house are clear evidence and indications of the same approach and belief that the Russian government exercised from 1917 to June 1987.

After the revolution, the Russian government seized all news publications and completely silenced the opposition. The country became a one party system, or simply, a dictatorial regime that really wasn't any different from Nazi Germany which started from the same idealistic social democratic ideas. Today in America, the white house has already made attempts to silence talk radio when it attempted to silence conservative host Rush Limbaugh.

Pretty much in every socialist, communist, and fascist country, the opposition was vilified and columniated. They were then called dissidents. Most of them were either sentenced to 25 years to life of hard labor in camps, and many were executed simply for voicing a different opinion. But nevertheless, it started with simple vilification of these people. Today in America, people disagreeing with the white house's policies are called unamerican, angry mobs, tea baggers, brown shirts, nazis, and racists.
I wonder how long it will be before they are being prosecuted?
The first amendment the liberals used to fight for, is already being challenged by no other than liberals themeselves.
Lets not forget June 1989, when hundreds of dissidents, or could we call them tea baggers, were leveled into the pavement by chinese tanks on Tainanmen Square.

Once upon a time, this country used to have a legislative process in which politicians used to represent people to the government. There was an electoral process, where people of this country, had elected these representatives into the senate and the house of congress, and therefore, the people, of this country, had vested power in these representatives.
Today we have 33 czars, never elected, never scrutinized. They can not be questioned by the people, they cannot be questioned by the senate, and they cannot be questioned by the congress. They only answer to the new president of the United States. From this example, we may conclude that slowly but surely, our new president is seizing power!
This process, in an awfully similar manner, has been used in EVERY country known to to us as a country with a dictatorial regime.

In communist China, Mao Zedong created a new movement of civilian security forces, the hunweibins.
In Nazi Germany, we had brownshirts and Hitler youth forces.
In Russia, they started with C.K. later known as NKVD, later the KGB.

-all of these groups were used as civilian security forces or secret police, and were specifically used to control the political views of the population.

Our President mentioned several times that this country needs civilian security forces just as big, as powerful, and as well finded as an american army. considering historical examples of every country under dictatorial regimes in the world today and in the past in which civilian security forces were always used strictly to control political views and subjugate citizens, i cant find an answer as to what use civilian security forces would have in the country by the people and for the people.
Democracy and civilian security forces dont really go together because the second will cancel the first.


all of these countries driven by noble ideas, politicized education in schools. And students had to pledge to be loyal servants of the leading party and the leader. Wasnt that quite literally the same the part removed from President Obama's address to the students recently. The white house made a request to the board of education to impliment a "suggested lesson plan that calls on school kids to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help President Obama...For grades 7-12, the Department of Education suggests teachers prepare and ask as questions for students to prepare such as 'How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?'" Obama went so far as to request that a pledge of service to him to be made by all students. Later, the white house removed this request because of critics responces.

We can go on and on, the amount of evidence indicating the shift from democracy to dictatorship is overwhelming.

Its a convenient game of obfuscation when true intentions are hidden behind beautiful words, ideas, and ostensibly philanthropic intentions.
But in the end, its ALWAYS a dictatorship, no matter what you call it.

President of The United States

The position of the president of the united states is one of immense power. It is the power to represent a nation of over 300 million people. The power to veto bills of legislature. The power to order troops. The power to be heard by every single person in the nation. So how did the colossal power end up in the hands of a moron such as George W. Bush? Is this blog going to be a Bush bash? a bit but more importantly it is about the effect of having such an idiot be president.

For me, my entire view of the presidency has been of Bush. Bush was elected in 2001. I was 9 when that happened. I had no idea of politics or Clinton when I was 9. So before Obama was elected last year, I had never been aware of another president. This means a huge amount. My personal respect for the position is much less than that of someone who has in their life had educated and intelligent people lead the nation.

More than just Bush's intellect (or lack of it), the hatred of him (especially in the bay area) really has a lasting effect I think. A lot of people disprove of Obama. However, a lot of people aprove of him as well. To me it is wierd to think that people whom I respect or agree with at times praise the president. It feels wierd when I agree with Obama because I am so used to hating the person who holds that office.

I hope my natural feelings towards the position change overtime but I do not know if they will. I think that Bush did to the generation of adolescents during his office as Nixon did to the adolescents during his presidency. Before Nixon, it was not uncommon to have complete faith in the president. However after his corruption, many people became more cautious and cynic about what comes out of the president. It is different though. While one can call Nixon a crook (despite any speeches he may have given denying it), no one can call him stupid or unintelligent. I think that while Nixon degraded the trust of the president, Bush degraded the respect of the president.

Veterans groups are angry at President Barack Obama?

Veteran Groups were upset and are up against Barack Obama's new proposal regarding to have the "treatment for service-connected injuries" charged. Obama says that this would help and provide our nation in accumulating and saving up revenues. The veterans were discouraged with grief as they now will have to pay and be charged for their injuries in battle. During Obama's campaign in the race for presidency he did announce to enhance and reshape the country's financial crisis, however he didn't explicitly define his means of how he was going to change it. And now there is a dispute and struggle between the charged veterans and the president of the United States.

" 'The vets are paying premiums to insurance companies and that is a free ride that needs to stop,' Gorman said in describing the president's message to the group. " And the troops replied:

" 'Veterans of all generations agree that this proposal is bad for the country and bad for veterans. If the president and the OMB want to cut costs, they can start at AIG, not the VA,' said Paul Rieckhoff "

Honestly I think that this proposal that Obama's tends to pass is a good effort in the attempt of good recovery of the economy, however I have to agree and support the veterans groups since they did struggle out in the armed forces for our protection and safety. What do you guys think? Should Obama continue his plans in raising revenues by charging the veteran's treatment for service-connected injuries? Would you support it?

The Stimulus has been signed

President Barack Obama signed the stimulus package into law today and readied a new $50 billion foreclosure rescue for legions of Americans who are in danger of losing their homes. Obama focused on the $787 billion stimulus plan, an ambitious package of federal spending and tax cuts designed to revive the economy and save millions of jobs. Most wage-earners will soon see the first paycheck evidence of tax breaks that will total $400 for individuals and $800 for couples.
Unemployed people will find their first $2,400 of benefits is untaxed, and they may qualify for reduced health-insurance premiums through their former employer's group plan, or Cobra.
There's the $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers who buy between Jan. 1 and Dec. 1, 2009 -- this credit doesn't have to be paid back, unlike the $7,500 perk available in 2008. I think that this could either be a very good thing or a very bad one, but I'm not seeing a medium coming into play, though I do support Obama and am hoping for the best. We're just going to have to sit back and see how things play out, don't you think?

Obama Interviews

Today Obama did a sweep of interviews with some main news stations. Most presidents don't do multiple interviews unless there is a big announcement, but Obama talked with these news anchors about the issues he is dealing with in the oval office. He talks about mortgage crisis, his cabinent appointees and his economic bill, which is a nice change. I think that hearing from a president make Americans feel like he has nothing to hide. He is representing America and there shouldn't be too much going on behind close doors. These are some of the things he talk about in his interviews.

NBC interview with Brian Williams: Willams ask President Obama about the home mortgage crisis and who is to blame for it. Obama replies that there are some people who need to take responsibility for it, but he never assigns blame. He says that loans were given to people who couldn't afford them unless the housing market kept going up and that this is because of "looser standards" from the appraisers and mortgage brokers. Williams also asks about the frustration level that Obama experiences in the white house, with the long hours and constant traveling. Obama replies that he has been able to accomplish a lot so far, much more then the normal standards, but that it is hard being away from his family. He says that he got to go to a soccer game, and take his girls to school, and has attended parent teacher conferences but he knows that he has missed a lot.

I think that this gives me, if it is even possible, a higher level of respect for Obama. I think in the first issue, health care, by explaining what happened but not assigning blame was a respectable thing to do. There is no use blaming, only learning from our mistakes and moving on. With regards to his family, I think that his answer shows how he is a real person. He misses his family but he is doing this job "because it is worth it".

CBS interview with Katie Couric: Couric begins by asking President Obama about his choices for cabinet appointees, in particular Tom Daschle who withdrew his name because of tax issues. Obama says that he still believes that Daschle would have been a great person for the job but that there can't be higher standards. He say that he doesn't want to promote "two sets of rules: one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes every day". Couric also asks him about his other appointees and asks whether there is something wrong with his vetting process. He says that the vetting process isn't wrong but that he "messed up". He said that he really wanted to give health care to the people but didn't "recognize the perception" of his giving someone the spot who didn't pay his taxes when everyday people are paying taxes all the time.

I think that this is the greatest thing I have heard him say, well almost greatest. The fact that he can admit that he messed up is something that I, personally, never thought a president could say. Recognizing that he made a mistake and that he is sorry for it makes Obama look like someone who really is trying to do good. When he realizes that he made a mistake he tries to fix it, not just staying there and keeping going on with it for years and wasting American lives and tax dollars and... oups. Little rant just then. But really, kudos to you Mr. Pres for admitting you were wrong.

ABC interview with Charles Gibson: There has been controversy on Obama's economic plan. Gibson asks him about this plan and Obama explains his motives. He wanted a big stimulus package, his 800 billion dollar bill. He wants to "create jobs and lay the infrastructure for long term economic growth" one way, by creating green jobs. Gibson then asks if he did this too much too quickly. Obama says that the economy is desperate and that he won't do the same things that "landed" us in this economy to begin with. He also says that he want bipartisanship and wants republican support not just for the politics of it but because he wants the bill to work for the American people has a whole, but he also doesn't want to wait to create new jobs.

This is another great interview. Obama is working for the people, not for the political system. He is upholding his promises and defending his ideas with logical and persuasive argument. He isn't spending money just to spend it, but to help the people. He truly is serving the people, and I think he shows this here.

All in all, President Obama hit a home run today with the interviews. The people are getting the information straight from him, no roundabouts or spin. GO OBAMA!

P.S. Each interview section has a hyperlink to the website with the full interview and more!

Top Chefs Push Obama to Improve Food Policy

Former president George W. Bush rarely visited restaurants and didn't talk about what he ate. Obama, on the other hand, loves to dine out and enjoys tasting all sorts of foods. He is the president, and everything he says or does is influential. Even his dining habits can affect policy, food policy, that is. Rick Bayless, chef of restaurant Topolobampo, hopes that Obama will "recognize that we need to do what we can in our country to encourage real food for everyone". Although this is not as important as other things, foreign policy or the economy, for example, nutrition IS a huge issue in our country. Obesity is high, and most food is "over-processed, over subsidized and grown with no regard to the environment", which makes it "harder for small farms to make a profit selling more natural, nutritious food". Americans will hopefully also expand their horizons when it comes to what they eat. Even those who can not afford to eat at fancy restaurants (where food is locally grown, environmentally friendly, and nutritious), are encouraged to grow their own vegetables and pay attention to where their food comes from. Barber believes good food needs more publicity, and he hopes Obama and his wife will advertise what they are eating and what they are feeding their children, 10-year-old Malia and 7-year-old Sasha. "A few small gestures from the president and first lady Michelle Obma could accomplish what many of the chefs have been working toward for years."

Internet Activists Aren't Done With Involvement

During his campaign, Obama managed to obtain a huge support base through the Internet. People self organized to support him on social networking sites. Now that the campaign is over, these individuals have not returned to their normal lifestyles. They want more. And Obama and his team are willing to give it to them. Obama has continued to post videos about the activities of his transition groups, while including speeches and other useful information. This is helpful because it counters the news media's 30 second sound bytes from his speeches and other addresses—Americans now have the opportunity to get the full story. And the involvement doesn't end there. Obama and his staff hope to direct this positive and hyperactive electorate energy in a positive direction. They have begun by conducting polls asking what type of involvement these activists are hoping for, along with what they feel are the most important goals for the “movement”. The general feeling about this public activism is that their energy will come from government meeting them “in the middle”. Mostly their goal for channeling this energy is to advance policy. If the electorate's Internet activism was so influential in Obama's election, hopefully their energy and influence will help his policy initiates. The hope is that there will be “a new campaign to help Barack win big changes—like health care and clean energy”. But ultimately, Obama's main purpose in his continued use of the Internet to connect with the electorate is in hopes of making government more transparent.

Has Obama already initiated the change he promised?—never before has the electorate been this excited and passionate about the possibility for reform and the capabilities of government.

Some Unwanted Press Coverage for Obama

A report came in to the news media saying that Obama's aunt was illegally living in South Boston. Further investigation of the matter was done. As it turned out, Obama's aunt had been living in America illegally for quite some time. In 2004, a official familiar with her specific case ordered her to leave. Somehow, she was able to allude this decree and remained in the United States.

Now, further investigation of this matter was brought onto the doorstep of Obama. When asked if he knew about his Aunt's immigration status, Obama commented by saying that he "didn't know her immigration status."

This immergence of new information regarding his Aunt's illegal immigration status 2 days before the election may prove to be somewhat difficult for Obama. I believe that if Obama doesn't follow his own rules for his immigration poilcy, it will look incredibly bad for him. How do you thnk this will affect his campaign? Do you think that it could affect voters' descision in whether to choose Obama or not?