Pelosi Calls For Commission to Investigate Wall Street Tricks

SPEAKER ADDS SUPPORTS TO PLAN RECENTLY GAINING MOMENTUM
With an eye towards quelling the populist anger roiling across the nation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today called for the creation of a commission to root out the causes of Wall Street's meltdown patterned after an obscure Depression-era committee.

In San Francisco to speak about her book encouraging the rise of women in society at a gathering for the Commonwealth Club of California, Pelosi said Americans are angry with the economy and bonuses given to AIG and said at least 75 percent want an investigation into the missteps that led to this recession.

"That's what we would do with this commission, is to make sure it does not happen again." she said.

Pelosi spoke with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner this morning about the plan to emulate the Pecora Commission created in 1932. That commission named after the Deputy District Attorney of New York County Ferdinand Pecora followed two failures and benefited by Franklin Roosevelt's election. The commission's findings led to the Securities Act of 1933 and the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission,itself, alleged to have been lax in regulating Wall Street with Bernard Madoff's infamous Ponzi scheme being the poster boy for this age of decadence.

“Some people can tell you one piece of it. Others can tell you another piece of it. It's really hard to know. Do you understand it?” Pelosi asked rhetorically, “We need a clearer understanding of how we got here.”

Pelosi is not the first politician to allude to the Pecora Commission in recent weeks. Sen. Byron Dorgan called for a new iteration of the committee along with reinstituting the Glass-Steagall Act whi9ch separated commercial and investment banking. Many believe its repeal in 1999 was the impetus for banks and investment firms like Citigroup and Travelers to merge and allow the subprime credit markets to run rampant. A New York Times editorial last month also called for a Pecora-like commission to be created.

Earlier in the day, appearing on the local Fox affiliate KTVU, Pelosi characterized an upswing of “Tea Party” tax protests as window dressing for elite conservative interests in lower taxes calling them “Astroturf”, as a manufactured antonym for “grassroots”.

The Speaker drew upon her personal biography to encourage woman to continue to rise to more positions of power. Her book, Know Your Power: A Message to American Daughters urges woman to get involved in all aspects of community service. Pelosi, herself, is the daughter of the Baltimore establishment and said she found politics both exciting and distasteful. “It taught me I didn't want to be a part of it,” she said.

While raising five children with husband Paul Pelosi, who incidentally spent the speech doting over their newest grandchildren, she slowly became immersed in Bay Area politics with her big break occurring in 1976 when she secured Maryland for a youthful Jerry Brown in the Democratic presidential primaries. Pelosi joked, though, the then-Governor of California had a problem with saying, “thank you.”

Despite no longer being in office and playing to the liberal San Francisco audience, Pelosi also had a few jabs for former President Bush. While saying she “absolutely loves” working with President Obama, she said “having a great intellect saves a lot of time.”

Will Obama Attend Easter Mass? Bush, Saint Reagan Never Had Time

INVOKING SECURITY CONCERNS IS A GOOD EXCUSE

The managing editor at Fox News makes a good observation about the lack of news regarding President Obama's Easter Sunday plans. Which church is he going to attend? I don't really care as much as attempt to point out our two seemingly most pious recent presidents--Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush rarely attended Sunday services.

The Fox News blog posting recounts Reagan's lame excuse his presence would put undue stress on the congregation. Good try. Presidents Carter and Clinton regularly attend. Bush, who attempted to make us believe his election was manna from Heaven and consulted on foreign policy with Jesus rather than his more experienced father, hardly ever set foot in church despite being a born again Christian. In fact, he believed himself so religious that he did not need to attend. I'll try using that line with my grandmother this weekend.

Spanish Judge About To Gore Gonzalez, 5 other Bush Aides

TIME TO CANCEL THOSE TRIPS TO THE RIVIERA
Say goodbye to freshly made paella, Alberto Gonzalez. Ah, those wonderful baquettes in Paris. Forget about whiffing their warm, yeasty delight, David Addington. John Yoo, you like torture; so say goodbye to the medieval spectacle of a Spanish bullfighting because the globally defender of human rights, Spanish magistrate Balthazar Garzon, is going to indict you soon.

In addition to the trio, San Francisco Curcuit of Appeals Judge Jay Bybee, the man Gen. Tommy Franks once derided as the "f--king stupidiest guy on the face of the earth", Douglas Feith and current Chevron lawyer William Haynes III were named in a complaint issued for review to the Spanish court. The Spanish believe they have jurisdiction because five Spaniards were allegedly tortured in Guantanamo. All five were thrown out of court because their torture led to inadmissible evidence.

It's been the LFR stance for two years, President Bush, Dick Cheney and/or their minions would one day face legal jeopardy for their deeds the best eight years with the likelihood, the infamous Spanish judge would be its starting point and one former U.S. official's plight could be instructive.

Former Secretary of State and Bush cohort Henry Kissinger has lived the past 30 years under the shadow of international indictments stemming from his actions with the CIA in South America known as Operation Condor. It is de rigueur for Kissinger to inquire about the possibility of incarceration before travelling abroad. This is likely to be the lasting effect of possible Spanish indictments against the six former Bush aides. Although liberals would salivate at the possibility, there is simply no situation where an American president would allow an international court to nab current or former government officials for merely the sake of precedent, but the implication of impropriety is better than nothing.

President Bush wouldn't care if he couldn't climb the Alps in Switzerland or ride his mountain bike under the Champs de Elysses. He was probably going to the let his passport expire anyway.

He Bangs

President Obama hit his head yesterday on Marine One. Big news apparently and an opportunity to conjure up the antics of the former president.

The political blog at the Los Angeles Times offers a brief history presidential pratfalls including the tallest president (Abraham Lincoln) and the shortest (James Madison).

Liberal Media Welcomes Limbaugh Back

WHERE HAVE YOU GONE, RUSH LIMBAUGH?

Rush Limbaugh seems to be popping in and out of the news cycle recently. A new Democratic president could be the culprit. A blowhard like Limbaugh is far more entertaining speaking for the minority party, but his re-emergence is being touted by more liberal-friendly media outlets.

Tolerating the voice of Limbaugh after eight years of quietly peddling the GOP muck and piling up a fortune is the trade-off for a Bush-less Washington. Limbaugh did rear his neck out from under his headset periodically, though. He parroted the Bush administration 9/11 bravado, helped convince the nation to invade Iraq and battered Sen. John Kerry. Otherwise, his star never burned brighter than when he had Bill Clinton to push around. Limbaugh still can throw his weight around, though, with conservatives as illustrated by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) metaphorically knelling down to kiss his ring earlier this week.

Now, with President Obama, Limbaugh is all over the news. Making racist and blatantly un-American comment on why he does not support the new prez. Is Limbaugh really making more outrageously tasteless remarks than normal or are producers at outlets like CNN, MSNBC attempting to create a villain for their programs and articles?

Watch a video from MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews below. The resulting story focused on Rep. Dick Armey's misogynistic comments to Salon chief Joan Walsh, but notice the segment is set up twice by referencing the rotund Republican, Limbaugh.

Cable news is hardly news anymore, but entertainment. Hardball is an informative and entertaining program (Matthews' repeated on-air HA-HA-HA's are fun enough), but keep in mind the foil of Limbaugh as merely an attempt to create an opposing voice when most of Washington and the nation is quite united with the President...for now.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Afghanistan: Are You Ready For Your Close-Up?

GATES: 17K TROOPS NEEDED IN AFGHANISTAN

The drumbeat of war emanating from Washington is not the deafening booms of a thousand timpani which led President Bush to invade Iraq, but the likelihood of expanding the war in Afghanistan sounds a bit like a smooth jazz rhythm--cool and barely nuanced--a bit like the new president.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates testified to the Senate Armed Service Committee today the need for 17,000 more troops in Afghanistan within the next few months. On Friday, reports surfaced that President Obama ordered military drones to bomb Taliban extremists in the Northwestern Pakistan which killed 22. Also, Gates reiterated the Status of Force Agreement signed by the U.S. and Iraq in June, will leave Iraq bare of American troops by 2011.

The Obama administration's call for an expansion of involvement in Afghanistan comes as no surprise, despite calling the war in Iraq the wrong war. Throughout Obama's presidential campaign he was the only candidate who focused on Pakistan--Afghanistan's neighbor to the South and enabler of the Taliban in the Waziristan region. Americans may have inadvertently bundled both conflicts into one and find the decision to send more troops to the regions a bit contradictory. But, isn't this what liberals have always said about Bush's follies in the Middle East: the war in Afghanistan was justified, the war in Iraq was not. But, the situation today is vastly different than 2002.

Noted Middle East expert Juan Cole says a returning focus to Afghanistan could make it "Obama's Vietnam," meaning "Obama may be falling into the Lyndon Johnson Vietnam trap, of escalating a predecessor's halfhearted war into a major quagmire." Cole sees the recent attack on Pakistan without prior interaction with the government as a "bad sign."

It is not clear if Obama really believes that the fractious tribes of the Pakistani northwest can be subdued with some airstrikes and if he really believes that U.S. security depends on what happens in Waziristan. If he thinks the drone attacks on FATA are a painless way to signal to the world that he is no wimp, he may find, as Lyndon Johnson did, that such military operations take on a momentum of their own, and produce popular discontents that can prove deadly to the military mission.

Matthew Yglesias writing in The American Prospect agrees with this assumption and says we also need to retire the term "war on terror" lest it continues to hamper the fight in Afghanistan and the entire region. Much of the conflict in Afghanistan is intertwined with Pakistan. As William Dalrymple writes in a New York Review of Books article on author Ahmed Rashid's new book, Descent into Chaos, the Pakistani intelligence apparatus has a history of encouraging the Taliban in Afghanistan as a friendly bulwark against India and no longer encourages its own self-interests.

It is for this reason that many in the army still believe that the jihadis make up a more practical defense against Indian dominance than even nuclear weapons. For them, supporting a range of jihadi groups in Afghanistan and Kashmir is not an ideological or religious whim so much as a practical and patriotic imperative—a vital survival strategy for a Pakistani state that they perceive to be threatened by India's ever-growing power and its alliance with the hostile Karzai regime in Kabul.

The Obama administration seems bent on resolving Afghanistan through Pakistan. This could take years, though. With the swift change in course comes apprehension for Americans weary of seven years of conflict comes questions. Will Afghanistan threaten to gobble up the next four years like Iraq destroyed the Bush presidency? Iran also cannot be forgotten in this equation. With Afghani elections later this summer, Iran may be need to barter a positive post-Karzai era.

Obama Gets To Work; Rolls Back Bush Policies

CHECK, CHECK, CHECK THAT: TO-DO LIST NEARLY COMPLETE

Just when full-throated progressives thought Barack Obama's centrist cabinet nominations may portend for a president deserting his base and veering too far center of the left, he pulled off a stunning half week of work giving those hope for a return to a more palatable Washington.

The list of accomplishments reads like a liberal wet dream on the streets of Berkeley. Obama orders Guantanamo closed within the year, takes torture off the list of interrogating tactics, reverses President Bush's gag-rule on U.S. funding of abortions overseas and significantly curb the power lobbyist on K Street. Obama even showed military muscle in Pakistan yesterday named two Democrats steeped in successful diplomatic efforts in Northern Ireland and the Balkans to sort out ongoing trouble in Gaza and Pakistan. What a week!

About one point, the litany of executive orders ostensibly rolling back some of President Bush's most controversial policies ran the risk of stuffing too much, too quick into the faces of the downtrodden GOP. By Friday, when Obama reportedly "reminded" Senate Minority Whip John Kyl of Arizona that "I won" and the rationale became clear: there may not be a significant opposition from the GOP on Capitol Hill to stifle Obama's plans since these actions are part of the "change" 60 million American voters called for last November so ram it through.

Thus far, Obama has been deliberate and in hindsight quite open about his desire to move quickly, some of us though were still jaded on that possibility. Moving fast on reversing the old administration's questionable governing is bold and wise during a period when so much is needed on the economic front. There was one thing Obama forgot, though. Psst...bring the troops home.

Obama Tweaks Bush, Calls Out Tyranny; Brings Hope

Today, we live in the age of President Obama. Our 44th President offered some of these lines during his inaugural address. Along with the highlights of the speech are a few reflections on their meaning and insight into the next four years. Read the entire text of the address here:

At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents. So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
These lines sound similar to tenor of Obama's campaign speeches, yet with the Capitol as a backdrop they now seem Presidential--conveying hope in not only ourselves but tapping into the hope and successes of all Americans throughout our history.

Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.
Like it or not, President Obama is giving the nation its nasty dose of reality. Undoubtedly, like the Roaring 20s, where greed and the broadening of rich and poor led to economic calamity, so have the avarice of 21st Century Wall Street. It is also a gesture to all, specifically on those who signed those conspicuous loan documents, that you too are also partly to blame. As a nation, we have rested on our laurels and unrivaled power to sit idle as we doddled with a poor energy policy that allows outside nations to control our wealth by way of the supply and demand of fossil fuels. The future wars of the world will be solely about energy, if they are not already today.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
These lines are a few of the most important in Obama's address. He has within his grasp a power of which few presidents have possessed in the past 40 years--unity within the government and the populace. Who knows how long it last? It has always been my belief the only way Americans would welcome needed change would be through calamity such as these times where the pocketbooks of all are affected. What are the "petty grievances" and "worm out dogmas"? I would like to think a few are the right to bear arms, gay marriage, and the perennial harbinger of gridlock and division rolled out every four years, but not this election--abortion. The point is not to deny those who believe strongly for or against, but these battles have little bearing on how we fix what ails the country.

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
Sounds a bit like the Republican ideology of picking yourself up by the bootstraps. Obama must be commended for taking a swing at the Bush White House here. It is so apparent in the minds of all Americans that the former president did serious damage to the nation. Numerous reports described the massive throng of people at the Capitol booing images of the former prez on the many jumbotrons.

We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.
Some talking heads on television noted Obama's address was devoid of details on policy, yet this portion of the speech lays out exactly what he intends to accomplish. Again, he snubs his nose at many of Bush's failed policies.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Here lies the reason many like me supported candidates like Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. They all believed in America as a benevolent leader in the world, where inhabitants of foreign countries dreamed about this land. I still believe there are young boys and girls who toil in impoverished lands and dream about coming to this country. People like my father who sent letters to his uncle in California from a tiny house filled with eight brothers and sisters in the Azores Islands. Torture and the brute force of our nation against others is not what those people believe in when they think of our country. My father did not, I do not and hopefully no one will ever think of us in that way again.

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
Obama used this tough language during his election night victory speech in Grant Park. It sounded un-Obama-like then as it did today. It would be naive to believe our nation is no longer in danger from extremist elements because of Obama's election. He delivered these lines with such quiet intensity that it reminds us that campaign rhetoric sometimes becomes just that when a man is elevated to the presidency. These words are not the change we have been waiting for, but again, the next four years will force Obama to make decisions he thought he would never have to make. Bush never thought he would be nation-building in 2000. It turned out that is all his presidency dealt with.

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers.
The inclusion of "non-believers" is something most religious righties cringed when hearing.

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
Did you hear that, Iran, North Korea and Cuba? Obama will talk to you. The notion Obama would talk to our enemies was controversial during the campaign. Apparently, this is one promise he is sticking with. Will anything get done? Probably not.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
Much like his campaign for the office where Obama rarely made light of race. This address utilizes the same tone. The momentousness of this day in American history hangs over every word but until this paragraph is it mentioned. Framed in this way, it is truly remarkable, not that our culture has come far in race relations--we really have not--but in such a short period of decades this man ascended to the presidency. It is more a testament solely to Obama rather than our nation's attitudes.

America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Remember, Obama is a writer. This final paragraph is lovingly conceived with rich imagery and hope for the future. If our ship of state does reach calm waters under Obama's watch this paragraph is destined to be etched on the walls of the future Obama Presidential library.

Roberts Flubs Oath, Not Obama

At first it seemed like President Obama screwed up the beginning of the Oath of Office. In actuality, it was the other rookie standing at the podium, Chief Justice John Roberts.

Obama apparently had the correct order of words zooming through his mind. You didn't think he would be prepared for it? Many watching the oath for the first time most likely did not catch Roberts inadvertently delete the word, "faithfully" upon which Obama paused, nodded at Roberts and smiled before the chief justice could recite the correct line.

Nevertheless, the seemingly uber-confident Obama showed an immense snapshot of humanity. The pause and the stumble illustrated that the man was nervous. Who wouldn't be? At that moment, it is worth remembering that he is not the ultimately savior to all that ills our country, merely a man with the conviction to change America at a unique time in our history.

I have heard some people wonder aloud why anyone would want to be president now. Actually, all of them would kill to be in Obama's position. For men who desire the office of presidency a certain amount of legacy inhabits all of them. President Clinton surely looked at President George W. Bush as lucky to have a formative moment like 9/11 to cement his legacy instead of a stained blue dress. You could see it in the faces of all the living president's as Obama walked to his sit on the inaugural platform. I wish I was in his position they seemed to say.

Yet, when you're the man entrusted with the country and the world's problems the job is daunting and Obama showed he is only human. That is probably why over 60 million Americans voted for him in the first place.

Good Riddance

DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE A@#$: President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and their spouses wave farewell to FORMER President George W. Bush

Bush: Arrogant To The End

Our enemies are patient and determined to strike again. America did nothing to seek or deserve this conflict. But we have been given solemn responsibilities, and we must meet them. We must resist complacency. We must keep our resolve. And we must never let down our guard.

--President Bush speaking at his farewell speech to the nation.

President Bush looked tired. His hair gray. His neck visibly thin, barely filling his starched white collar. His farewell address tonight revealed that certain grace that initially created a brief bond with a certain swath of America. He thanked Uncle Dick, had loving words for his wife, daughters and even mom and dad. You almost felt sorry for him. Some tender part of you said you might miss him--not his disastrous policies--but, his goofiness, his sneer and even the universally accepted notion of him the Dolt-in-Chief.

Empathy with President Bush only goes so far. He can't hide from his cocky hubris. It is omnipresent and so much a part of his soul that he cannot stifle it. Many early news reports of tonight's address focused on one pull-quote, "we must never let down our guard." As if we were transported just for old time's sake back to 2003 when the mainstream media walked in line with everything we know was false about the invasion of Iraq. Bush is still fighting the terrorists while the rest of us of are fighting the debt collectors.

Bush's retro bravado is not the most intriguing part of the above mentioned paragraph, instead three sentence beforehand he says, "America did nothing to seek or deserve this conflict." How could such an inflammatory and purely arrogant line be glossed over? The United States did nothing to provoke the ire of the perpetrators of 9/11 and the entire Middle East?

If this was the oblivious and ignorant rationale for the crumbling of the next six years, was it all worth it?

There was not a singular event that caused al-Qaeda to attack seven years ago, but over 50 years of American intervention in the region. Arrogance which continually slapped the downtrodden adherents of Islam in the fact although in a usually covert, but rarely as upfront as the style Bush preferred. The U.S. has toppled (or attempted to) governments throughout the region with Iran, Syria, Egypt just to name a few. The U.S. played both side of the Iran-Iraq War, supported Saddam Hussein before turning on him and generally played the Middle East with hegemony deserving of a King. We were happy to spill their blood for their oil.

The U.S. did plenty to deserve 9/11. It did not deserve the loss of 3,000 innocent people, but then again, our government has not been very careful in differentiating insurgents from innocents, either.

Obama's Official Portrait Released

DID PRESIDENT-ELECT BUY HIS TIE AT DISCOUNT STORE?

The official portrait of President-elect Barack Obama--the one which will hang on every post office wall across the land was released yesterday.

Talk about ubiquitous. This image of Obama will likely burn an imprint on the collective brain of the world.

Take, for instance, the youthful, cocky smirk of George W. Bush's official portrait. It has been copied, mocked and repeatedly photoshopped with horns the past eight years. Click here to see it one last time.

How young President Bush looked back then as opposed to now.

By the way, I'm not liking Obama's tie and does he really need a lapel pin of the flag with one directly behind him?

Cheney Again Hides Behind Presidential Power

CHENEY LOOKS SICKLY ON MORNING TALK SHOW

Dick Cheney sounded a bit too much like President Nixon this morning with Bob Schieffer. If you have been watching television lately you might have noticed ads for the movie "Frost/Nixon" featuring actor Frank Langhella impersonating Nixon saying, "It's legal if the president does it."

On Face the Nation, a gaunt and raspy-voiced Cheney said something similar in an exchange where the veep referenced Abraham Lincoln's controversial suspension of habeus corpus during the Civil War. (Click here to watch the clip from rawstory.com.)

"It certainly was in the sense he wasn't impeached," said Cheney, "And it was a wartime measure that he took that I think history says today, yeah, that was probably a good thing to do."

Cheney's response is an awkward version of "it's only illegal, if you get caught," and further illustrates the Bush-Cheney chutzpah of the last eight years will continue. Shortly after the Abu Ghraib disaster and massive flubbing of Katrina, the administration has, in a sense, thrown in the towel in regards to convincing the public their policies are beneficial in the short term. Instead, both the president and Cheney resort to using rhetoric from the future--history will vindicate us!--it possibly could, but likely will not, but it's all they have.

At a few points in this interview, Cheney is downright unapologetic about some of the policies he and the president have supported. One could almost see such sanguine answers as evidence used in the court of law. Hopefully lunatics on the left save their energy and focus it on taking advantage of the monumental opportunity afforded by the last eight years and remake the nation in a progressive image of equality and domestic tranquility.

Obama's Rise Starts With The People Of Iowa

LFR'S PERSONS OF THE YEAR: THE VOTERS OF IOWA

Two thousand-eight will be go down as the year of Barack Obama. No publication in their right mind would argue with this assessment, but the end of eight years of partisan bickering under President Bush began in earnest during a snowy January night when the caucus-goers of Iowa proved that a black man could indeed become President of the United States. For this act of political bravery and vision the voters of Iowa are the LFR Persons of the Year.

Back in October of last year, the inevitability of Sen. Hillary Clinton's run to the White House began to decrease with reports of disarray in her Iowa campaign staff. The LFR wondered at this time whether Clinton might finish third in the Jan. 3 caucus--she did--but, it was not John Edwards who reaped the rewards, instead Obama easily won the nation's first contest and set the tone for the rest of the campaign season in the name of slogans such as "change we can believe in" and "Yes we can".

It wasn't just that Obama outsmarted Clinton on the ground in Iowa; this was expected. The Clintons going back to 1992 never engaged the voters of Iowa like they did in New Hampshire. President Clinton deferred to native son Sen. Tom Harkin in 1992 and ran unopposed in 1996. The sound of change, though, rang like a clarion call to voters unwilling to believe Obama could actually win the presidency when a Midwestern state featuring demographics of 92 percent whites threw up their arms in despair over the damage wrought by Republican rule and unequivocally set forth the rise of Obama on America. He would be upset in New Hampshire by a Clinton comeback but 13 straight victories along with the momentum it achieved became an unstoppable force for Clinton and ultimately the Republican challenger--Sen. John McCain.

Here's a sampling of the commentary from early January:

Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post said, "Because tonight voters decided that they didn't want to look back. They wanted to look into the future -- as if a country exhausted by the last seven years wanted to recapture its youth."

Ed Morrisey at the Captain's Quarters wrote, "Obama beat Hillary in a state that has a very small African-American demographic; he won not by playing the race card, but by simply offering a departure from Clintonian politics."

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Dick Polman seemed to be reading into the future saying, "He’s the 'change' candidate unless and until somebody else swipes the label. That won’t be easy, because now he looks like the leader of a burgeoning movement, and that’s catnip for independents and non-establishment Democrats who have long yearned to shake things up."

A diarist at Daily Kos makes the most illuminating point of all, "Tonight we saw the the core of a future progressive majority make its presence known in Democratic politics. Young Voters are not a hidden vote or icing on the cake, and after tonight, everyone knows it. "

It is easy to forget where this all started before voters in Iowa met in cramped high school gyms and clammy Elk's Lodges to thrust the candidacy of Obama towards its destiny almost exactly 11 months later. Obama was a likable, handsome candidate who could spin one hell of a speech, but until Iowa these attributes did not make a serious candidate.

The roots of Obama's successful campaign first spread in Iowa. His attention to unifying the country. The decision to never make race an issue. His ability to rally the youth and his use of sophisticated web tools such as emailing, text-messaging and grassroots organizing captured the mood of Iowans and later the entire country.

It is likely that historians will look kindly on Jan. 3, 2008 as the day America began to heal and the nation is indebted to the people of Iowa.

Obama Needs To Go Large With Goals

PRESIDENT-ELECT CAN BE BOLD LIKE BUSH, BUT EFFECTIVE

Here's a truly outside-the-box idea for the next president from Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic.

The title says it all, "Why Obama Should Copy Bush (Really!)"

Of course, Cohn does not recommend emulating Bush by ignoring the Constitution, torture and general spying on the citizenry, but he does urge W.'s one-track mind towards big goals.

One of Bush’s most remarkable qualities--and one, I admit, that I frequently admired--was his stubborn focus on goals and willingness to push political boundaries aggressively. It took a president of uncommon gumption and boldness to push such a radical agenda; America, after all, is not a radical country by nature. But Bush understood political opportunity when it presented itself and he seized it. And while I’d hate to see Obama systematically ignoring policy experts and manipulating intelligence--or deliberately stoking partisan division for the sake of winning elections--I wouldn’t mind if, like Bush, Obama showed the same sort of singular focus.

A good argument can be made the Bush presidency has been highly successful for a select few, but, nonetheless; big promises were made and delivered.

Cohn lists them:

Consider what Bush has accomplished. He has overhauled the tax code, tilting it towards the wealthy and significantly reducing federal revenues. He signed a landmark education reform that changed the curriculum in virtually ever public school. He gutted the regulatory state and hollowed out the bureaucracy. He added a drug benefit to Medicare, thereby enacting the largest single entitlement expansion since the 1960s. He tipped the Supreme Court’s ideological balance with two strongly conservative appointees.

Although gas prices hover just under $2.40 per gallon in the Bay Area, Bush did deliver his oilmen buddies prices 100 percent higher during his two terms.

A week after President-elect Barack Obama's election, there is no real gauge as to how bold his foreign and domestic agenda will be. The naming of Rahm Emanuel as presidential bulldog is a signal that he will be bold domestically with a known quantity both feared and admired for getting things done in Congress.

If Obama decides to shift the country leftward or institiute bold objectives like Bush he will have two things the 43rd president did not have: a clear mandate and confidence in his intellectual heft.

Puppy Dog The Republican Hunter

NYT'S KRISTOL TALKS TOUGH; RUNS FROM OBAMA'S PUPPY

It's a dog eat dog world out there for Republicans.

William Kristol of the Weekly Standard, writes in the New York Times op/ed page his whole perception of the next four (or eight) years was transformed by the mere mention of a puppy.

President-elect Barack Obama's intention to buy his daughters a puppy during his speech last Tuesday night apparently stopped in its tracks Kristol's belief that the U.S. is still a center-right country and the loss was attributed to a huge anti-Bush vote.

"I gulped," he writes.

And so did I. According to Kristol, the canine portion of Obama's speech could be the most famous since Richard Nixon vouched for Checkers the dog. (Click here to watch Nixon's "Checkers” speech.)

Here, in a few sentences, Obama did the following: He deepened his bond with every dog lover in America. He identified with every household that’s tried to figure out what kind of dog to get. He touched every parent with a kid allergic to pets. He showed compassion by preferring a dog from a shelter. And he demonstrated a dry and slightly politically incorrect wit by commenting that “a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me.

What Kristol is actually afraid of is President Bush with a brain; not just the guy you would have a beer with, but the neighbor you would rather invite over for a beer and a barbecue with the family.

For Republicans, it has come to this: posture that the country has not really changed and foster the belief the election of Obama was one entirely fictional protest vote against eight years of Bush.

A staunch conservative like Kristol finds himself confident in the face of the further loss of the new Latino voting bloc, the beginning of a Democratic Southern realignment, the loss of white men, the rise of new first-time voters but it's the sad puppy eyes of the Obama's future pet that has him in shaking in his boots.

It's Gonna Be A Long Walk Home

THE LONG ROAD TO REDEMPTION STARTS TODAY.

Times have been difficult for Americans. The times we feel today are much different than the angst felt in the first years of the Bush presidentcy.

The pillars of our country--freedom, openness and democracy were smashed with a neo-conservative hammer laying the foundation for the fall of banks and the credit markets.

The excitement of yesterday, though, is tempered by uncertainty. Millions of Americans still wonder with the Christmas season coming how to placate their children while crossing their fingers there's enough money to pay the bills or the mortgage, for that matter.

As Bruce Springsteen wrote, "It's gonna be a long walk home" to our ideals as a people.

I've been thinking of this song, "Long Walk Home" for a few months in anticipation of the election of Barack Obama. (Listen to a snippet, here.)

What is home for us? I think The Boss puts it eloquently when he sings:

My father said "Son, we're lucky in this town
It's a beautiful place to be born
It just wraps its arms around you
Nobody crowds you, nobody goes it alone.
That you know flag flying over the courthouse
Means certain things are set in stone
Who we are, what we'll do and what we won't."

It's gonna be a long walk home, pretty darling.

The World Is Watching; Hoping For Change

POSTCARD FROM THE DESERT KINGDOM OF DUBAI

election'08: the race to clean the place

By Gabriel de Andrade
Special to the LFR

Watching the run up to this election from Dubai has been both fascinating and entertaining. What I cant get over is how scared Americans seem to be of change. The fact that words such as socialism, which are perfectly normal to use in most of the free world, has some Americans scrambling for cover is quite amusing.

I can't understand is the most powerful country in the world has no problem spending billions of taxpayers money fighting useless wars in distant shores but has a problem with providing its taxpayers with health care. Watching too much Fox News has not helped. I have not come across such a bunch of righteous and ignorant commentators in my life before. I hope that this is only the view of a few and that Americans know better.

A readers poll in today's Gulf News that asks "who would you vote for to be the new US president?" has Barack Obama leading John McCain, 63 to 11. Intrestingly enough, 17 percent of those polled stated none of the above .This is interesting as it indicates to me a general mistrust of any U.S. leadership, however, the general consensus on the Middle Eastern street is anybody but George W. Bush.

Don't get me wrong. I for one and most people out here love the U.S. and its people. But Bush's actions over the last eight years has left a perception his administration had a personal and imperialist agenda. We hope that after today's vote all that will change.

That Obama is the clear favorite out here is no surprise. A vote for McCain is perceived as a vote for the status quo. Obama is seen as a young, dynamic advocate for change who will deal with the rest of the world in an unbiased and evenhanded manner.

Believe me, if he gets that right in the Middle East the US will have millions of new friends and will do a lot better in winning hearts and minds than sending troops into villages with candy. I have no doubt that if he wins today he will have is work cut out for him. To rectify the political and financial mess is going to require a massive effort and the support of all who live in the USA.

Although the polls say otherwise there is still doubt out here as to whether the people of the USA will have the courage to elect a leader of color. I sincerely hope that they will show intent and show the rest of the rest of the world how free thinking America really is. I have faith in the American people to do the right thing and hope that America has the courage to do the right thing and put Obama in office.

Gabriel de Andrade is a South African national living in Dubai. Unfortunately, he is also a fan of the Liverpool football club in the English Premier League.

LFR Endorsement: Barack Obama For President

Americans are somewhat reactive in their politics. The rise of a peanut farmer from Georgia was in some part voters washing their hands of Watergate and hoping for a return in the belief in government.

In this election, the American people are yearning for this same cleansing of the national soul. Two wars in the Middle East, an economy nearing Depression levels, at least--chatter about--and global standing in need of a good public relations consultant have American walking around with a haggard look.

The person who can guide America's standing at home and abroad is Sen. Barack Obama. In fact, Americans are blessed to have the only man actually capable of these things actually in the race.

That Sen. Obama burst upon the national scene four years ago and stunned the Democratic party by defeating Sen. Hillary Clinton in the primaries attests to the idea that America is truly blessed by a higher power.

It is in own national DNA to believe this. Colonists of this nation found a land rich in resources, constructed the Constitution and enriched the wealth of the new nation from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Scholars try not to include Manifest Destiny as a popular example of America's greatness, yet its presence directly led to American hegemony in the Western hemisphere and beyond.

Americans are fed up with being pawns in the soulless acts of the Bush administration. They do not desire to simply "shop" to help the country after 9/11 and they are still appalled their government stood back and nearly let an American city drown.
________________________

After eight years of horrendous government under President Bush, Americans need to return to the belief that our nation is blessed. At this moment in our history, we need a leader like Sen. Obama to return us to our inherent values of leadership, innovation, strength and intellect.

The world is made up of 80 percent of people without white skin. The world is watching the rise of Barack Obama as a symbol of what they believe America to be about. A country that does the right thing in the name of freedom, not the colossus that runs over countries without nary a shred of evidence. A country that can surprise you with its compassion and sheer idealism. Every country has racial disharmony, yet have never contemplated making a mixed race man its leader.

Within our borders, more Americans are suffering than ever before. It is no longer just the poor left hanging without support or a recognizable lobby for their plight. It is nearly all of us. Sen. Obama has nicely straddled the line between inciting class warfare and urging those with more to help those with less during his campaign. The rich have become increasingly richer under President Bush and Sen. Obama should symbolize a return to progressive economic policies nearly killed from the time of President Reagan on.

The stark redistribution of wealth towards the rich stood as one of our country's most symbolic troubles--the erosion of the middle class. The financial meltdown which started two months ago seemed to be the clarion call to ordinary Americans that Republican tax policy and the fattening of the rich were to blame.

Sen. Obama believes we need share the wealth, Sen. Joe Biden said it is "patriotic" to pay your taxes. They are both right and Americans see it this way. If we pledge to watch over our neighbors homes and kids and form small communities across the land where hurchgoers easily pass the hat around to help fellow parishioners in need, why would it not be easy for us to recognize during tough economic times the need to help each other?

Americans are fed up with being pawns in the soulless acts of the Bush administration. They do not want to simply "shop" to help the country after 9/11 and they are still appalled their government stood back and nearly let an American city drown.

Sen. Obama is a true populist. Over and over he has espoused the belief the campaign is not about him, but about us. He tells supporters to be ready to do their part. The response to duty is, in turn, overwhelming.

The United States did not become the most powerful nation in the history of man without the fortitude and intelligence it has exuded for over 200 years. After eight years of Bush rule, those principles briefly escaped us, but did not break us. The fact that Americans, with an awful racial history of our own, looked past skin color and put the best man in position to bring us back to be that "shining city on the hill" speaks volumes about us as people.

Protester Attempts to Arrest Rove in The City

WOMEN NEARLY DOES WHAT CONGRESS IS UNWILLING TO DO.

It's no wonder President Bush has never visited San Francisco during eight years in office.

A protester at a meeting of those downtrodden mortgage bankers in downtown San Francisco attempted to make a citizen's arrest of former Bush Brain, Karl Rove.

I actually know a quite militant lefty who has repeatedly told me that such an act is needed to roundup various members of the Bush admnistration.