Next Thursday the President will deliver his long-awaited address to the Muslim world in Egypt's capital, Cairo. The University of Cairo will provide the venue for the speech, with Al-Azhar University co-hosting. The site was chosen to highlight the storied history and scholarly traditions of Islam. In a conference call with reporters this evening, Robert Gibbs gave some background on the speech. "The speech will outline his personal commitment to engagement, based upon mutual interests and mutual respect," Gibbs said. "He will discuss how the United States and Muslim communities around the world can bridge some of the differences that have divided them.  He will review particular issues of concern, such as violent extremism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  And he will discuss new areas for partnership going forward that serve the mutual interests of our people."

Attendees at the speech won't be confined to President Mubarak's supporters. Officials said that "the full range of actors in Egyptian political society" had been invited. Later in the week the President visit Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany. He'll then travel to Normandy, where he will take part in a ceremony to commemorate D-Day. Advisers say he's looking forward to the opportunity to meet with and thank veterans. It will also give him a chance to remind Americans that he's made significant increases to the budget for Veterans Affairs.

President Bush made a rare public appearance last night, speaking to the Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan at Lake Michigan College. According to reports by the Associated Press and the Detroit Free Press, his prepared remarks and answers to audience questions were wide ranging. Bush refrained from criticizing his successor, saying he found it unhelpful when former Presidents weighed in on his decisions. "I wish him all the best," Bush said, striking a very different tone than many of his supporters on talk radio. He didn't mention Dick Cheney, but he did defend harsh interrogation techniques. "I made a decision within the law to get information so I can say, I’ve done what it takes to do my duty to protect the American people,” he said. “I can tell you, the information gained saved lives.” He also touched on the economy, saying a significant contributor to the recession was a "lack of responsible regulation" of lenders. He also raised concerns about North Korea. "You can’t conduct diplomacy unless you have leverage," he said, cautioning that the U.S. shouldn't be too soft in its response to the recent nuclear test.

 Bush said he misses flying on Air Force One and having his meals cooked for him (neither he nor Laura enjoy cooking). He spoke wistfully about both the inspiration and difficulty of his meetings with families of the fallen. But his biggest applause line of the night was in response to a question about his legacy. "Well, I hope it is this: The man showed up with a set of principles, and he was unwilling to compromise his soul for the sake of popularity," Bush said, to cheers and applause. 

Our favorites this morning from around the web:

No matter how much the political system changes, some things in DC will always stay the same. The latest example? MSNBC reports that Obama has appointed three campaign fundraisers (two of whom raised over $500k) to plum ambassadorial posts - the United Kingdom, Japan and France. No hardship posts or small, remote locales there. It would be highly unusual for a President to appoint a key fundraiser as Ambassador to Sierra Leone or Equatorial Guinea. Nope, those are for the career diplomats. Instead, over the years Republican and Democratic Presidents alike have sent campaign allies to places where there are important, powerful relationships to foster and lovely residences to inhabit.

To his credit, Obama did acknowledge the likelihood of this happening before he assumed office. And there is definitely strategic and political sense in appointing trustworthy friends to pivotal posts. Your Gaggler just thinks it odd that an Administration can commit to curbing the financial and political influence of lobbyists and at the same time tap fundraisers for important international slots. Certainly fundraising and lobbying are different trades, but both often have access and cash as their trademarks, and have been accused of holding undue power in the corridors and meeting rooms of the nation's capital.

Summer is fast approaching in DC. Sunsets are later, temperatures are on the rise and DC women are busting out their summer wardrobes. While the men of the District appreciatively notice hemlines, your Gaggler has been struck by one thing: Girls with guns. Everywhere I turn I see girls in tank tops with biceps worthy of Michelle Obama. So have the First Lady's muscular bare arms prompted American women to rethink their workouts? Jaime Andrews, a personal trainer and General Manager of sleek new DC fitness club Vida @ Metropole, says yes.

DC women don't want the scarily thin arms of Hollywood starlets, or Madonna's fiercely over-sculpted "even when my arms are limp it looks like I'm benching 200 pounds" limbs. Women are flocking to Vida asking for help in getting lean, toned arms, and many cite Michelle Obama in their requests. Andrews says that women have long been concerned about excess skin around their triceps as they age (what my people down under call bingo wings) but these days she's seeing a new trend. "Michelle Obama is showing up to formal events and business events in sleeveless tops. The type of clothing is changing and it’s putting a little more pressure on. People want to show their arms more," Andrews says.

While Michelle Obama has a gym in her house, a personal trainer and ten years of working on those guns in her column, most women rely on general fitness clubs. To satisfy the uptick in members seeking the Obama look, Vida has added a new group exercise class focused on toning and sculpting using barbells. Over 40 minutes of the class focuses on the upper body - chest, back, triceps, biceps and shoulders.  Andrew tells clients that focusing on the entire upper body is better than just doing bicep curls, after all, Michelle Obama has the complete package - scultped shoulders, defined triceps, lean arms as well as the famous biceps.

Cardio workouts like running and cycling remain essential for overall tone, fitness and weight control, but a lot of women jump on the elliptical machine and skip the strength training. Andrews says this is a no no - carving out time in a workout routine for push ups, pull ups and weights is the quickest route to the Obama look. Women often worry that weight training will make their arms too big and they'll look less feminine. But Andrews tries to tell her clients that fear is unwarranted - it's much more difficult for women to load bulky muscle than men.

Andrews says that most DC women have to juggle demanding professional and social schedules, but if they make time to work out for one hour, three times a week, after a month her clients start to see results. And judging by the guns in Dupont Circle last weekend, many DC women are doing just that.

Your Gaggler thought she wouldn’t read anything more bizarre than that fight yesterday over how to pronounce Sonia Sotomayor’s last name, but not surprisingly, she was wrong. Via Talking Points Memo, we find this story from yesterday's edition of The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper, which takes a closer look at how Senate Republicans are gearing up to fight Sotomayer’s nomination. It seems the Repubs have taken great interest in a lecture Sotomayor gave in 2001 at the University of California at Berkeley law school, where she talked about how personal experiences shape judges—ie, a big no no in their book. But here’s the story gets weird:

Sotomayor also claimed: “For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandoles y pernir — rice, beans and pork — that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events.” This has prompted some Republicans to muse privately about whether Sotomayor is suggesting that distinctive Puerto Rican cuisine such as patitas de cerdo con garbanzo — pigs’ feet with chickpeas — would somehow, in some small way influence her verdicts from the bench.

Curt Levey, the executive director of the Committee for Justice, a conservative-leaning advocacy group, said he wasn’t certain whether Sotomayor had claimed her palate would color her view of legal facts but he said that President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee clearly touts her subjective approach to the law.  “It’s pretty disturbing,” said Levey. “It’s one thing to say that occasionally a judge will despite his or her best efforts to be impartial ... allow occasional biases to cloud impartiality. But it’s almost like she’s proud that her biases and personal experiences will cloud her impartiality.”

Really?? Now we must note The Hill omitted Sotomayer's full description of the foods she loves—pig intestines, pigs’ feet with beans, pigs’ tongue and ears. “Adventurous taste buds,” she said in the speech. No kidding. (Your Gaggler, for the record, is apparently not that adventurous of an eater.) But someone is seriously going to ding Sotomayor on food and how it might influence her on the Supreme Court? Wow.

While the White House is growing more confident by the day that there will be no knock down, drag out fight over Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court, there is some unease on both sides about the judge’s position on abortion. Abortion foes are angry because they believe Sotomayor would vote to sustain Roe v. Wade, but, as the New York Times notes this morning, abortion rights advocates aren’t so sure how she would rule. Part of this has to do with the fact that Sotomayor has never had to directly rule on a law regarding abortion. But yesterday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters at the daily briefing that President Obama had, in fact, not asked Sotomayor about abortion or privacy rights because the president, as he said, has no “litmus test.” That has caused some women’s rights groups to temper their support for Sotomayor, including NARAL Pro-Choice America, which has a banner on its home page at the moment calling for Sotomayor to get a “fair hearing that includes questions on Roe v. Wade and the right to privacy.”

The back story on this is that pro-choice groups were already a little concerned about Obama’s commitment to abortion rights, which is partly why the tension is there.

Our favorites this morning from around the web:

The White House says Sonia Sotomayor helped save Major League Baseball. Cool. But your Gaggler must admit she is a little more impressed with one particular anecdote from today’s New York Times profile of Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. Writing about her years as a private attorney in New York City, the Times says that Sotomayor used to go after counterfeiters who sold fake Fendi bags. And when we say “go after,” that’s no joke. Here’s the Times:

If the firm had a tip from the United States Customs Office about a suspicious shipment, Ms. Sotomayor would often be involved in the risky maneuver of going to the warehouse to have the merchandise seized. One incident that figures largely in firm lore was a seizure in Chinatown, where the counterfeiters ran away, and Ms. Sotomayor got on a motorcycle and gave chase.

Gave chase? On a motorcycle in New York City? Over fake Fendi bags? If true--and we did notice the word "lore" there--all your Gaggler can say is, wow.

Your Gaggler won’t lie: After hearing many different pronunciations from various people—including those in the administration--she had to turn to YouTube yesterday to figure out the proper way to say Sonia Sotomayer’s last name. As Slate notes—with a helpful recording, too—the judge puts emphasis on the final syllable: “so-toe-my-YORE.” This, in turn, has irritated Mark Krikorian over at National Review, who declares the pronunciation is simply “unnatural in English...and insisting on unnatural pronounciation is something we shouldn't be giving into." Seriously? 

President Obama is in Las Vegas today, where he’ll tout the benefits of the stimulus package Congress passed earlier this year by touring a solar energy farm at Nellis Air Force Base. But that’s not the main reason he’s out on the road this week. Last night, Obama was the star attraction at a $2 million fundraiser for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who looks to face a tough re-election campaign next year. After speaking on the stimulus, Obama flies to Los Angeles, where he’s headlining a reported $3 million fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee at the Beverly Hilton. (Home of the Golden Globes!)

This is the beginning of what will likely be a busy summer for Obama, in terms of politicking. Although Democrats hold a significant majority in Congress, the party, with the exception of House Democrats, has been running neck and neck with Republicans in terms of campaign cash. And that has some party elders nervous—especially those who still remember the 1994 blowout when Republicans took majority control of Congress during Bill Clinton’s first term in office. While recent poll numbers suggest Democrats have nothing to worry about, people on both sides know that the political environment can dramatically shift between now and November 2010. And it only takes million dollars here or there to make a difference in a House or Senate race that could potentially reshape the political landscape in Congress. That’s where Obama comes in. As the star of the party, he’s the Democrats’ biggest financial draw, and right now, they need it.

Where exactly do the numbers stack up? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Republican National Committee has raised $31 million to the DNC’s $22 million so far this year. Of that total, the RNC still has over $24 million in the bank, compared to just over $9 million for the DNC, which also reports $5.4 million in debt. The same trend applies to the party committees—with the exception of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who has outraised its House GOP counterpart with $20.3 million compared to $11.2 million. But in the number that really counts—cash on hand—both committees are running essentially even, with about $4 million apiece in the bank and major debts.

The New Haven firefighter case is one of the most controversial rulings in Sotomayor's record, and one that will no doubt be a prime source of criticism from conservatives. The case, Ricci vs. DeStefano, was brought by Frank Ricci and a group of his firefighting colleagues (all non-black including one Hispanic man). The men were denied promotion after an examination to determine their eligibility to move up yielded no successful black candidates. As a result, the New Haven authority decided to discard the exam results and grant no promotions. Ricci and his colleagues argued they'd been discriminated against, but their case was dismissed. Sotomayor was part of a three judge panel on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals who upheld the dismissal. The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court. It raised considerable ire, sparking affirmative action debates.

In a background briefing at the White House this morning, Senior Administration Officials gave clues as to how they'll handle attacks based on this case. During her vetting, White House officials were very careful to avoid asking her about the Ricci case because, depending on both the Supreme Court's actions and her confirmation, it might end up before her again, one official told reporters. But officials shared their own analysis. "It was a unanimous decision by the panel that she sat on. It applied second circuit law very faithfully. It did rely upon what was a very thoughtful well written district court opinion," one official said. "The ruling there I think was a fairly constrained application of what the law of the second circuit is. I know people have come and want to use this as a point to attack Judge Sotomayor, but again, I think her job as a court of appeals judge is to apply circuit law, and that is what the panel did in that case."

The notion that she acted with restraint, following precedent and applying second circuit law faithfully, will be the core of the Administration's defense of Sotomayor's handling of the Ricci case. A second official echoed these sentiments. "You can’t at once attack someone as a judicial activist and then attack her for following precedent and exercising restraint as she did in this case. I know there are those in the early going who are trying to make both cases at once but they’re sort of impeaching themselves," the official said.

The officials shied away from the term "war room" in discussing their preparations for her confirmation hearings, saying that they weren't anticipating a war. One official pointed out that is would be Sotomayor's third time before the U.S. Senate, and she'd recieved bipartisan support previously. Senator Chuck Schumer is expected to play a key role in shepharding her through the Senate. Cynthia Hogan, Vice President Biden's Chief Counsel, will head up the White House effort. The official said that they had recieved no indication that Republicans were strategizing to delay the process.

When President Obama introduced Sonia Sotomayor this morning at the White House, he was quick to note that she began her career on the federal bench in 1992 after being nominated by George H.W. Bush, a Republican, for the U.S. District Court, and that she was subsequently prompted to the Federal Court of Appeals by Bill Clinton, a Democrat. “It’s a measure of her qualities and her qualifications,” Obama said. Yet it’s a little misleading. As John McCormack over at the Weekly Standard writes, Sotomayor was nominated by Bush as part of a compromise with Senate Democrats at the time to break a deadlock on judicial nominees. Under the agreement, then-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat and senior member of the Judiciary Committee, was allowed to recommend judges for two of seven vacancies. One of his picks: Sotomayer.

One interesting bit of trivia: A fair number of Republicans voted in favor of her nomination at the time. According to the 1992 Senate roll call of the vote, she attracted support from seven Republicans who are still in office and will be weighing in on her Supreme Court nomination: Robert Bennett, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Judd Gregg, Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar and Olympia Snowe. (Arlen Specter also voted in favor of her nomination, but he’s a Democrat now.) Among those who voted against her: Jeff Sessions, the current top Republican on the Judiciary Committee; Sam Brownback, John McCain; Mitch McConnell; Mike Enzi; Chuck Grassley, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jim Inhofe, Jon Kyl, Pat Roberts and Dick Shelby.

A beaming President introduced his first Supreme Court nominee to America at 10:15am this morning. Flanked by Vice President Biden, Obama said that few of his decisions "are more serious or more consequential than selecting a Supreme Court justice." Throughout his meticulous, "exhaustive" selection process he looked for a nominee with "rigorous intellect" and a "mastery of the law." He also sought a person who understood the limits of a judicial role, that is, the need to interpret not make laws. But those qualities alone, he said, were not enough, adding that the sort of qualities he's mentioned several times already - the ability to imagine the real world impact of laws - were also essential to his decision. "It is experience that can give a person a common touch, and a sense of compassion, a sense of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court," he said. Obama noted that she would be the only member of the Supreme Court with experience as a trial judge, a quality he said would "enrich" the court. He also said she has more experience on the bench than any of the president justices had when they were nominated to the court.

Obama's announcement had lighthearted moments. Referencing a decision she handed down which ended the 1995 baseball strike, Obama called her the woman that saved baseball and said that her fifteen minute deliberation on that decision exemplified "a swiftness much appreciated by baseball fans everywhere." He also joked about her childhood inspiration - Nancy Drew novels. But he spent much time emphasizing her extraordinary personal narrative, a story that in some ways mirrors his own. He spoke at length about the sacrifices of her family and the obstacles that she, as a child of relatively poor Puerto Rican immigrants, overcame to acquire her impressive education and experience. He called her an "inspiring woman who I believe will make a great justice" and said she had "wisdom accumulated over an inspiring life journey." He pointedly noted that her previous confirmations had garnered bipartisan support and that she'd received nominations from both Presidents George H. W. Bush and Clinton. He urged the Senate to confirm her quickly. 

Sotomayor responded with a heartfelt speech. "Thank you Mr. President for the most humbling honor of my life," she said, after quipping that it was impossible to abide by the advice she'd been given: don't be nervous. She saved her sincerest thanks for her mother, who worked two jobs to support her children after her husband passed away when Sotomayor was 9 years old. "I am all I am because of her, and I am only half the woman she is," Sotomayor said. "Eleven years ago, during my confirmation process for appointment to the Second Circuit, I was given a private tour of the White House. It was an overwhelming experience for a kid from the South Bronx.Yet, never in my wildest childhood imaginings did I ever envision that moment, let alone did I ever dream that I would live this moment."

In terms of her view of the role, she stated "I strive never to forget the real world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses and government."

President Obama has settled on his pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter: Sonia Sotomayor, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A native of New York—as has been much reported, she grew up in the Bronx, in the shadow of Yankee Stadium—Sotomayor is not only a woman but would be the first Hispanic on the court if she wins the confirmation. Of all the candidates rumored to be on Obama’s short list, Sotomayor was the one he knew the least. According to the White House, Obama met her for the first time last Thursday, where he was “very impressed," according to one administration official. The president made his final decision last night.

No doubt Republicans are going to have a field day, and Democrats, hoping for a strong liberal pick, might not be so pleased either. As you might recall, Sotomayor was the first rumored nominee to get the big profile treatment. A few weeks ago, The New Republic ran a piece called “The Case Against Sonia Sotomayor,” which quoted anonymous critics raising questions about her temperament and her intellectual prowess, especially when it comes to challenging conservative voices on the court like Justice Scalia. “Not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” one unnamed clerk told TNR. Meanwhile, conservative groups have already been getting ready for attack. According to the New York Times, they’ll go after Sotomayor for being “willing to expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution.” Their evidence, among other things, is Sotomayor’s statement from 2005 (magically on YouTube) where she said “the court of appeals is where policy is made.”

Our favorites this morning from around the web:

North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs pose a grave threat to the peace and security of the world, and I strongly condemn their reckless action. North Korea's actions endanger the people of Northeast Asia, they are a blatant violation of international law, and they contradict North Korea's own prior commitments. Now, the United States and the international community must take action in response.

The record's clear: North Korea has previously committed to abandoning its nuclear program. Instead of following through on that commitment, it has chosen to ignore that commitment. Its actions have also flown in the face of United Nations resolutions. As a result, North Korea is not only deepening its own isolation, it's also inviting stronger international pressure. That's evident overnight, as Russia and China, as well as our traditional allies of South Korea and Japan, have all come to the same conclusion: North Korea will not find security and respect through threats and illegal weapons.

We will work with our friends and allies to stand up to this behavior, and we will redouble our efforts toward a more robust international nonproliferation regime that all countries have responsibilities to meet. In this effort, the United States will never waver from our determination to protect our people and the peace and security of the world.

Liberty University's Democrat students club received notice last week that it would no longer be able to associate the University's name with any of its activities. According to a Lynchburg VA paper, the club's leadership was told "we are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by" the school. “The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the “LGBT” agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.),” Liberty's Vice President of Student Affairs, Mark Hine, apparently told the group via email. (If this email quote is correct, your Gaggler is mystified. Is he accusing Democrats of promoting hate crimes? What's wrong with having a gender identity? And aren't we over this whole democrats = socialists thing yet? Go read some early Frankfurt School philosophy and then tell me how U.S. Democrats are socialists. Also, I don't think all those Christians in the Democratic party, like say, the President, think the Democrat party platform is contrary to the Christian doctrine.)

Today, University President Jerry Falwell Jnr dialed back on some aspects of the ban. He said the group would be allowed to hold meetings on campus, but the club and its activities won't be formally recognized. “There is absolutely no animosity at all toward any of these kids," Falwell said. “They are good, Christian kids who sit with me at ball games. I just hope they find a pro-life family organization to affiliate with so they can be endorsed by Liberty again." DNC Chair and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has weighed in on the issue, along with gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe. "I urge the leadership of Liberty University to reverse this attack on the liberty of its students and allow the College Democrats to have the same rights on campus as their counterparts, the College Republicans," Kaine wrote in a statement today. It is of course hard to imagine Liberty's Democrat club being overrun with members, but still, to illegitimize their activities seems like the sort of intellectual and political repression that institutes of higher learning in democratic nations are supposed to guard against.

Newsweek's Daniel Stone, an integral part of the Gaggle Family, is in Hawaii at the moment. (No, no, I'm not jealous at all. Why do you ask?) He decided to do what all the cool kids are doing in Hawaii these days: a bit of Obama tourism. Here's what he found:

You might say that Barack Obama has a pretty respectable job these days. But scan his resume and below those U.S. Senator and law professor gigs, you'll find where Obama received his very first job training. Just off Hawaii's famed Waikiki beach, a young Barack Obama (he went by Barry back then) earned his first paycheck scooping ice cream for Baskin Robbins. The store, which hasn't changed much since then, still sits in a pretty ordinary looking strip mall east of the tourist center and beach. "It was a pretty respectable job for someone his age," says Mitch Berger, who owns a tour company called Guides of Oahu that started giving tours of Obama's former neighborhood after the election. Working for a national franchise in those days meant Obama was a big deal among his friends. "He could invite his buddies around to be served at a decent place, not just any old, you know, hole in the wall," says Berger.

Of course your Gaggler, doing what anyone would do, went inside for a cone. But inside, the president's former ice cream shop looks like any plain old Baskin Robbins, color scheme and all. No plaque marking Obama's former territory. No cardboard cutout. Not even a special flavor (Ben and Jerry's already cornered 'Baracky Road' and 'Yes Pecan!'). Omar Dy, the store's owner, says he'd like to put something up if corporate would allow him. A company representative deflects back, saying the onus is on Dy to propose something for approval. All the while, we can't help but wonder: with the proven success of Obama marketing in the midst of the recession hitting the islands especially hard, wouldn't some Obama stimulus in the tourist trodden Honolulu be good for business? Who knows, it might even attract talented employees eager to emulate Obama's career.

Our favorites this morning from around the web:

Bummer, homework over break?
Don't pack up for your beach houses or BBQs just yet, Dems! The Democratic Party Committee and Senate Democratic Communications Center handed out briefing books yesterday with top how-to suggestions on shoring up support for key initiatives during the week off. Four pages were devoted to possible events highlighting stimulus dollars at work. Anyone have an extra hammer for a congress member? (CQ) 

 
First Lady talks about perspective she brings to the White House
Michelle Obama speaks out about breaking down barriers and trying to be inclusive at the White House. "When young people come here, they don't have to come here and be something they're not," she says. "They can come here and be who they are, and the folks here will listen. And we can go out and be ourselves and listen in their communities, as well." Doesn't sound like a bad deal. (Time)
 

Ready, set, type! Internet attack ads out on potential SCOTUS picks
Speculation about Obama's SCOTUS pick continues to focus on a select group of candidates, making them prime targets for attack ads. Conservative groups have already answered the call - online . (LA Times)
 

Beware: National Dog Bite Prevention week
It's National Dog Bite Prevention week (who knew?) The U.S. Postal Service, which has been suffering from serious debt issues in addition to an apparent high number of dog bites amongst its carriers, issued these helpful hints for postal workers on avoiding miffed mutts. Perhaps number one should be change professions. (Miami Herald)

1. Tone, tone, tone. Obama's unmatched oratorical skill is not news. Although his style ranges from inspirational to didactic, equanimity is his trademark. It's sometimes difficult to detect emotion. Not today. The President was forceful, defensive and at times blunt, vigorously explaining his policy and decisions. Today we saw the President as close to angry as we've seen him. "As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence.  I bear the responsibility for keeping this country safe.  And I categorically reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation," he stated with unusual force, emphaszing the "I" in each sentence. Obama stayed true to his proclivity to explicate his thinking - indeed he was perhaps at his logical best -  but this was Obama in take no prisoners mode. He was unequivocal, unapolegetic and unfazed by his critics, appealing above the noise to the the level-headedness of Americans in the knowledge that he is his own best messenger.

2. Republicans were squarely implicated. Obama has no intention of shouldering the blame for "the mess" as he put it, in Guantanamo and on interrogations. After a long introduction (the most flowery part of his speech - lots of language about history and morality) where he chastized the previous administration's "ad hoc" post 9-11 decision making, he mentioned Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham by name, indicating that they agree with him on substantive parts of his policy. He referred to President Bush mulitple times, implying his decision had been motivated by fear not foresight. Time and again he noted that some of the talking points Republicans have been using against him, like the idea that once freed, detainees often return to radical groups, are problems created by his predecessor. He stated that the decision to release 17 Uighar detainees took place under Bush and that 19 of the 21 cases where courts have ordered detainees to be released were decided before he took office. "We are acutely aware that under the last administration, detainees were released and, in some cases, returned to the battlefield," the President said, addressing the New York Times report today. "That's why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past. Instead we are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and that our security demands." But perhaps the most heavy hitting paragraph, and the one delivered most emphatically, was this one:

For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of military commissions that were in place at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists.  Let me repeat that:  three convictions in over seven years.  Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setback after setback, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system. Meanwhile, over 525 detainees were released from Guantanamo under not my administration, under the previous administration.  Let me repeat that:  Two-thirds of the detainees were released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.

3. Obama won't be pandering to the left on national security. Those who hoped for a mea culpa on military commissions or abusive photos got a rude awakening. Obama was straightforward and unrepentant about both decisions, reiterating his established reasoning. Where his was perhaps most firm with supporters on the left was in his opposition to an independent commission. "Some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, in some cases debates that they have lost," he said. "I've opposed the creation of such a commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability.  The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques.  The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws or miscarriages of justice."   

4. When it comes to the politics of closing Guantanamo, Obama will call a spade a shovel. For someone reknowned for using high-fallutin' language, he didn't mince words about the politics being played on Capitol Hill.  "We will be ill-served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue.  Listening to the recent debate, I've heard words that, frankly, are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country," he said. And later "Now, as our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These are issues that are fodder for 30-second commercials.  You can almost picture the direct mail pieces that emerge from any vote on this issue -- designed to frighten the population.  I get it.  But if we continue to make decisions within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes.  And if we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future." And when the President said "I get it", there was no doubt he did. Never have those three words sounded more like a threat.

...

Barack Obama may be the guy who attracts the huge crowds, but Joe Biden is no slouch either, at least in Kosovo. Upon arrival in the capital of Pristina this morning, Biden was greeted by thousands of people waving American flags and holding signs professing their love for the Veep. But that was nothing. Every billboard in town featured his face and a "thank you" message. Biden's photo was also plastered all over fences and various buildings throughout the city.

Speaking to reporters on the final day of his tour of the Balkans, Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged the administration still hasn’t figured out what to do with all the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay but predicted that it will still meet its deadline of closing the prison within a year. “I think so,” Biden said, when asked about the January 2010 deadline. “But, look, what the president said is that this is going to be hard. It’s like opening Pandora’s Box. We don’t know what’s inside the box.”

The Veep, who prefaced his comments by noting he’s “been out of the loop” because of his travels this week, said the White House has been going through inmates with a “fine tooth comb” briefing him and other senior officials about the prisoners by categories based on how much evidence they have or not on each individual. Asked about what the administration would do with the most dangerous prisoners, Biden said the administration is still trying to determine that. “There’s a lot of speculation (about) detainees who are a real danger who are not able to returned or tried,” Biden said. “But that (number), to the best of my knowledge, has not been established.” Echoing President Obama’s comments earlier today, Biden brushed off critics who say confining detainees to federal penitentiaries is too dangerous. “There’s a bit of a hysteria about, well, my god, these guys are so dangerous,” he said. “Go to some maximum security cells if you want to know some dangerous people. Matter of fact, it might be an awakening to them.”

Though he didn’t offer details, Biden told reporters that he talked to a foreign official during his travels this week—he’s visited Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo—about “the prospect of a detainee coming back to the region.”

While President Obama prepares for a major speech this morning on national security, where he is expected to address the growing controversy over the closure of Guantanamo, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan is offering a glimmer of possibility for a "Northern Guantanamo". CQ reports that Levin is open to the construction of a new maximum security prison to house the detainees in the remote northern part of his state. “If the governor and the local officials are open to it, that’s something that should be considered," Levin said. Michigan's economic woes are no secret, and they'll probably get worse before they get better as Detroit's struggling automakers scramble to rethink, reinvent and realign their businesses. As other Democrats back away from the President, fearing a Republican-instigated populist backlash, Levin has no doubt recognized former Republican Governor Engler's calculation that the state stands to gain $1 billion a year from the such a facility. The state's Governor, Jennifer Granholm, is an ally of the President, and if she's not tapped for the Supreme Court, is more likely than most to support the proposal.

At this stage, Michigan seems like a more likely destination for the detainees than the one American town that would happily imprison these suspects - Hardin, Montana. The town recently constructed a 464 inmate facility in the hope of rejuvinating the local economy, but the sparkly new prison currently sits completely empty after failing to win contracts they'd strongly believed the state would grant them. (The town later sued the state for misleading messages.)  The town's local council wants to lobby the Administration to consider using its prison, but Montana's Senators aren't too hot on the idea and would like try to block the town's efforts.  

Our favorites this morning from around the web:

Newsroom cuts cause concern amongst Innocence Project workers
Those who work to exonerate individuals on death row say cuts in newsrooms, especially from regional papers, mean more work for them and perhaps more wrongful convictions. They say fewer reporters are scrounging up evidence or petitioning for DNA analysis. (NY Times)

 
We'll hold off on that 'socialist' label for now
In a victory for RNC chairman Michael Steele, the RNC abandoned its resolution to rename the Democratic party the "Democrat Socialist party." The resolution would have just brought the Republican party bad press, said Steele. The altered resolution, approved yesterday, will urge the government and Democratic party to stop "pushing our country towards Socialism." (The Hill)

 
Sin tax: beer dollars to prop up health care?
Discussions are underway about how to pay for expanding healthcare for some 50 million uninsured Americans. One option on the table is to levy taxes on beer, wine, and hard liquor. Taxing sugary sodas is also under consideration, though diet soda still remains in the clear. The idea behind the taxes - tax lifestyle choices that raise medical costs. (AP)
 

How Specter is fitting in across the aisle
A month after Specter's contentious party switch, he says you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Friction over public Republican-leaning comments cost him his seniority on all of his committees, but he's also being accused of switching positions to get in better stead with the Democrats in advance of a potential primary election. Now he is treading carefully and avoiding off-the-cuff statements. (Politico)
 

...

When Joe Biden arrived in Belgrade on Wednesday, he landed in a ghost town—or so it seemed. The Veep, on day two of his tour of the Balkans, was reportedly the subject of the Serbia’s most intense security ever. The country closed the regional airspace, shut down all the roads and major highways leading into Belgrade’s city center and ordered people living and working along Biden’s motorcade route to stay out of sight. Authorities even reportedly advised people against looking out the window—although more than a few people were spotted breaking the rules. It was all an attempt to keep anti-American protests at bay.

The result: A little eerie—though not as creepy as that scene of a deserted Times Square in Vanilla Sky, which your Gaggler kept thinking of during the ride. Occasionally, pockets of people could be spied watching the motorcade from afar—though not close enough to do anything that might cause a security snafu. (In the photo above, that's police in the distance.) Your Gaggler spied many closed roads and cities on foreign tours with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney over the years, but this seemed especially tight. The Serbs said the U.S. requested it, but Biden's staff said it was all up to the locals. At a foreign ministry building where Biden was meeting with Serbian Prime Minister Mirko Cvetkovic, officials there had closed all the windows for security reasons, which in turn set off the fire alarms because it was so hot in the building. "This is what the Americans wanted," a sweaty Serb government official on site told a group of equally sweaty reporters. "Usually it's very nice here."

As of last night, the school formerly known as Webster Magnet Elementary will be named Barack and Michelle Obama Service Learning Elementary. Staff and students had voted on the name change earlier this month, and last night the School Board ratified their decision in a 5-1 vote. The school is in it's first year of a service learning program and the community wanted a name change to reflect the change in direction. But it sparked a heated debate among parents about whether it was premature to name the school after a President who has been in office nary four months. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports:

Tom Conlon, the board's lone Republican, opposed the change. The school's history "is being taken away from them," said Conlon, who had suggested that the school name a room or part of the school after Obama, "and I think that's tragic." About a dozen community members spoke to the board about the name changing, voicing opinions ranging from calling Obama a socialist, to suggesting that the board wait until he is out of office to change the name, to saying that becoming the first African-American president is a worthy enough accomplishment to name a school after him.

One board member told the paper that the kids were inspired by Obama, and it was fitting to name the school in a manner that inspires and motivates students. After attending a school named after a convent in Italy, your Gaggler has no real feelings on the matter, except perhaps relief that none of Rod Blagojevich or Eliot Spitzer's constituents wanted to name schools after them in their first few months in office.

Over at Big Money, Caitlin McDevitt has done some digging into "The Michelle Effect", that is, trying to understand if Michelle Obama's fondness for J Crew is having a discernible impact on their sales, which seem to be weathering the economic crisis relatively well. Even with all the hype about Michelle's fashion, McDevitt contends the opposite: That Michelle has gained more from here association with J Crew than vice versa. McDevitt writes:

Indeed, it may well be that J. Crew has done more for Michelle Obama than she has done for J. Crew. By wearing the retailer's reasonably priced clothes every now and then, she has convinced American women that she understands them—an invaluable reputation in a recession. While J. Crew is undoubtedly pleased with the free publicity and occasional single-item sales bumps that she provides, the retailer would be doing just fine without her.

So, if it's not Michelle, what has kept the company afloat? There are a few likely explanations. For one thing, the retailer is cutting back. In February, it eliminated 95 positions, stopped matching contributions to 401(k) plans, and sacked merit-based wage increases. Another reason for stability: J. Crew isn't anchored to the sinking shopping mall: Approximately 30 percent of sales come through its catalog and Web site, jcrew.com. Such sales not only offer higher margins, but they can pick up the slack for weak mall traffic. Also, according to analyst estimates, 20 percent of J. Crew's sales come from its outlets, which offer markdowns that are especially appealing in a downturn. And, in its standard stores, it has lowered price points for popular items like ballet flats and jeans.

The Boston Globe reports that Colin Powell had some harsh words for Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh last night. The two vocal conservatives have been giving Powell a hard time lately, and Powell's had enough. "Rush Limbaugh says, 'Get out of the Republican Party.' Dick Cheney says, 'He's already out.' I may be out of their version of the Republican Party, but there's another version of the Republican Party waiting to emerge once again," Powell told a crowd of 1,500 business leaders (and oddly, Gisele Bundchen, who was there with Tom Brady.) Sounds like he and Meghan McCain would have a lot to talk about these days.

Our favorites this morning from around the web:

Some Bush officials stick around the beltway

About a third of Bush's Cabinet members are working for lobbying or consulting firms. Though there is a two-year lobbying ban preventing them from lobbying on a specific issue they worked on during their final year in government, it's not uncommon for former administration members to put their expertise to work. Who would know the inner workings of the government better than the folks that used to run it? (USA Today)

National Archives: has anyone seen that Clinton hard drive?

The search is on for a missing hard drive from the Clinton-era that contains personal information like Social Security numbers and secret service strategies from that time. Though the disappearance was confirmed in April it's still unclear if the terabyte of data was stolen or just misplaced. (NY Times)

Discussions underway for more financial regulation for consumers

Obama economic advisers are considering creating a regulatory commission for financial products like credit cards, mortgages, and mutual funds. Inspired by an idea from Elizabeth Warren, who oversees the Congressional Oversight Panel, the reform would be a direct effort to address some of the causes of the financial crisis like predatory lending. (Washington Post)

Kennedy's cancer in remission

The bastion of health care reform, Sen. Ted Kennedy, will reportedly be back in the Senate when the issue escalates this summer: Kennedy's brain cancer is in remission says Harry Reid. Colleagues expect Kennedy back after Memorial Day recess.  (The Hill)

Thanks for the clothes, GOP! Are there shoes to match?

You can't use donors' money for personal expenses like wardrobe, but money from your party? That's a horse of a different color, says the Federal Election Commission. Yesterday it dismissed a complaint over the $150,000-plus the Republican party spent on high-end couture and make-up for vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Besides, she says, I wasn't going to keep it all anyway. (AP)

In a speech so pointed that he paused to apologize several times out of concern he was being rude, Vice President Joe Biden warned Bosnia on Tuesday that it needs to rise above the chronic ethnic tensions that have long threatened its stability or face being a failed state. “To be very blunt with you, I personally, and the leadership of my country is worried about the direction of your country and your future and your children’s future,” Biden told members of the Bosnian Parliament in Sarajevo on Tuesday.

His speech came nearly 14 years after U.S. diplomacy helped to end the war in Bosnia, which killed at least 100,000 people. Yet the country’s progress has remained stagnant and largely divided under the same ethnic lines that caused the initial war in the first place. In particular, Biden called out a “sharp and dangerous rise in nationalist rhetoric.” “God, when will you tire of that rhetoric, stirring up anger and resentment,” Biden said. “With all due respect, and forgive me for saying this in your parliament, but this must stop.” Failure to do so, he warned, would lead to “ethnic chaos” and continue Bosnia on the path of being one of the “poorest countries in Europe.” “And you will be judged,” Biden said. “You will be judged harshly by history and by your children.”

Biden strayed from his prepared remarks several times during the speech, most notably to deliver repeated apologies for speaking so harshly about the country in front of its legislature. “Americans feel we have a stake in your success,” the VP said, reminding the group that the U.S. has sent thousands of its “sons and daughters” into the region to uphold Bosnia’s freedom. “We feel that we have earned the right to speak honestly, even bluntly, in a country that has captured our hearts.” Parliament members, who listened to Biden’s words through interpreting devices, were virtually dead silent during the Veep’s remarks. No one clapped, no one moved—until the end, when the lawmakers stood to give Biden a standing ovation. “The choice is yours,” Biden said. “If you make the right choice, we will stand with you.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid woke up to some unfortunate news in the Las Vegas Review Journal this morning. In a poll conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, 45% of Nevadans said they would vote to replace him in 2010, 17% said they would consider a different candidate and only a third would opt to re-elect him. Just 38% had a favorable view of Reid, while half of those polled had an unfavorable view. The paper notes that Reid's approval ratings have declined since he become the leader of his party in the Senate in 2004. That's not entirely unusual though, just ask Tom Daschle. 

Obama on the other hand, is polling relatively well in Nevada: 55% view him favorably and 30% had an unfavorable view. The remainder were neutral on the President. Reid's electoral fortunes may rest on Obama's popularity to some degree - everyone is eager to figure out just how long those coat-tails are. But the GOP's meandering is also aiding the Majority Leader. A strong Republican challenger for Reid's seat is yet to emerge.

On Friday, Gaggle Pal Eleanor Clift kicked in an interesting anecdote about a secure hideaway in the Vice President's residence that Dick Cheney was fond of in the days following 9-11. Joe Biden had told the tale of his discovery of Cheney's home-lair to dinner companions at the annual Gridiron Dinner. Clift's post was picked up by Fox News and others, and soon Biden was under fire from conservative blogs for spilling the beans on what might have been classified info.
 
Biden's people disagree with how some news outlets have characterized Clift's post. Spokesperson Elizabeth Alexander sent us this statement to clarify: "What the Vice President described in his comments was not - as some press reports have suggested - an underground facility, but rather, an upstairs workspace in the residence, which he understood was frequently used by Vice President Cheney and his aides. That workspace was converted into an upstairs guestroom when the Bidens moved into the residence.  There was no disclosure of classified information."
 
To be clear, no-one at the Gaggle said that the hideaway was an underground facility. Clift was simply relaying information she'd gleaned from a Gridiron newsletter. Your Gaggler spoke to someone who attended the Gridiron dinner yesterday. The source, who wished to remain anonymous in order to freely speak about what was heard at the head table that night, confirmed Clift's report but added, "He didn't present it as some big discovery, and it is clearly not the only place [Cheney used as a hideaway]." The source said it was part of a lighthearted conversation about some of the Veep's unexpected discoveries since he assumed office. Biden was just joking about Cheney's soft spot for a particularly odd space he'd been shown.

We might never know exactly what this steel-door room looked like, or when it was constructed. Jonathan Landay of McClatchy Newspapers was also intrigued by what he'd read in the Gridiron newsletter, wondering if the room described was actually Cheney's infamous underground hideaway, so he approached the Vice President's office about it several weeks ago. Landay asked for further information about the room, as well as a tour. But he says the VP's office declined his request, saying they wouldn't discuss any matters related to Biden's security.  Landay dropped his investigation.
 
So that's that. This Gaggler is just hoping the Bidens, who are no doubt convivial hosts, got rid of that giant steel door before they had overnight guests.

Thanks to the Christian Science Monitor, your Gaggler attended a breakfast this morning with Janet Napolitano. The Homeland Security Secretary was at once frank and disciplined. If she didn't want to talk about something, she simply wouldn't, but she was no mess, no fuss on subjects she wanted to discuss. For example, asked about what it was like to be on the SCOTUS list, she stared down at her plate and replied, "Man, these are really good eggs." But when she was asked about what keeps her up at night in her new position, she said she worries that, while her department can do everything in their power to reduce the risk of a terrorist attack, the risk will never be elimated entirely. "There are just too many ways it can happen and too many avenues for attack. And you’re not going to put the entire United States under a bubble," she said. "One thing I worry about quite frankly is complacency, and this notion that the Department of Homeland Security will take care of it…. We can coordinate, we can lead, we can do a lot of things, but they are shared responsibilities… and I’m concerned that the further we get from 9-11 the more complacent we get about recognizing the real risks that are out there."

On immigration reform, Napolitano indicated there would be movement this year, but she couldn't say precisely when or how the discussions would evolve. The President is eager for reform, she said, but his priorities are the economy and healthcare, so its unclear when his attention will shift to immigrtion. Referring the the New York Times report indicating that illegal immigration had decreased because of economic decline and resulting diminution in jobs, Napolitano said that rather that providing a reprieve for reform, that this was "exactly the time you should be peering forward."

Your Gaggler was curious about what things Napolitano has done differently than her predecessor. In what areas has she overseen a significant change from the Chertoff era? "I think one area, and part of this is my own background coming in, is a real focus bringing state and local governments in at the get go and keeping them informed and really making those partnerships very strong, recognizing that security can not be a top down methodology," Napolitano said. She wants to find mechanisms through which intel and analysis collected by the multitude of agencies operating in DC can be operationalized around the country. "What can make an awful lot of sense in Washington DC may not make a lot of sense when you are a thousand or two thousand miles away so we have been bringing people in solely to focus on that," she said. 

Our favorites this morning from around the web:

Daily Intel briefing: bible quote need not apply
During the Bush presidency, at least in 2003, when the war in Iraq had high casualties, bible quotes apparently targeted at supporting the war effort were put on the first page of Bush's daily intelligence briefings from the Pentagon. Of course likening U.S. soldiers to Christian crusaders didn't sit so well with at least one Muslim analyst and seemed inappropriate to others. (AP)

How about helping us in Haiti, President Clinton?
Bill Clinton, who has focused his time since his presidency on philanthropic works, was named a United Nations special envoy to Haiti. Clinton had visited the island nation two months ago alongside the U.N. Secretary General to raise awareness about the massive damage left in the wake of harsh storms last year. (Miami Herald)

Obama does not take stance on gays in military
President Obama who campaigned on reforming the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military let the deadline pass to appeal a case up to the Supreme Court of a San Francisco Major who was expelled for being a lesbian. (Wall Street Journal)

CIA officials concerned about hindered investigations with public scrutiny
House Speaker Pelosi's recent comments about how much congress overseers were told about harsh interrogation techniques has put the CIA on the defensive as some of its members appear before a grand jury this week. The CIA says the queries are no distraction though, at the office and in the field it's still business as usual. (Washington Post)

 

...

While President Obama navigates the tricky diplomacy of the Middle East peace process in Washington, Joe Biden is off on a mission of his own this week. With your Gaggler in tow, the Veep arrived early Tuesday morning in Sarajevo, the capitol of Bosnia-Herzegovina, kicking off a four-day visit to the Balkans. He’ll deliver what U.S. officials describe as some much needed diplomacy in an area of the world that still remains largely unsteady after a series of wars divided the region more than a decade ago.

Here in Sarajevo, Biden will meet later today with top Bosnian officials and speak to the Parliament. Tomorrow, Biden takes his tour to Belgrade, Serbia—a city that still has visible scars and resentment stemming from U.S. bombing runs during a 1999 effort to force what was then Yugoslavia to pull out of Kosovo. On Thursday, Biden heads to Kosovo, where he’ll speak to the Assembly of Kosovo and visit U.S. troops still deployed on peacekeeping missions in the region. The big picture goal of the trip: To reaffirm American support to a region that has been neglected in recent years amid troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan—not just by the U.S., but also Europe, who has struggled to deal with lingering security issues in the region, especially in Bosnia.

If Obama’s talks with Israel yesterday were tricky, Biden’s mission here isn’t any easier. He’ll not only have to navigate long simmering ethnic divides in the region but also face down suspicions of the U.S., especially among the Serbs, with whom relations have been no so great in recent years. In a conference call with reporters last week, a senior administration official, who declined to be named for the usual reasons, used the same language the White House has been employing in its diplomacy with Russia to describe their intentions. “We hope to be able to press the reset button with Serbia,” the official said. (Hopefully Biden left the cheesy props at home.)

En route to Bosnia, Air Force Two landed in Shannon, Ireland, late Monday night to refuel. Getting off the plane to stretch his legs, Biden, in jeans and a blazer, ran smack dab into several dozen Georgia National Guard members who were roaming through the Shannon airport while their own plane refueled. It quickly became an impromptu meet and greet, with Biden shaking hands and posing for pictures. The Veep was all about the love. He grinned. He laughed. He gave bear hugs and hearty back slaps. Your Gaggler even spied him squeezing a few cheeks. Everybody seemed thrilled, especially one soldier who was all smiles after getting a photo with Biden. As he walked away, the soldier eyed the photo on his digital camera and held it up to show a friend. “Nice,” the other soldier replied. “Who is that anyway?”

House Majority Leader John Boeher penned an op-ed that appeared this morning in USA Today urging Americans to support the "Keep Terrorists Out of America Act". This legislation aims to prevent the transfer of detainees from Gitmo to the United States. It would require the President to seek approval from a state's Governor and legislature before transferring any Gitmo prisoner to a U.S. facility. Obama would also have to demonstrate to Congress that prisoners don't represent a security threat. The Act is an attempt to undermine the President's pledge to close Gitmo within the first year of his presidency. And the op-ed is an exercise in fear-mongering. Boehner writes:

Unless the president reverses course, more than 200 of the world's most dangerous terrorists soon will be released or transferred from the Guantanamo Bay prison. Where they will end up is anyone's guess; even the administration won't say. Nonetheless, it's possible that some may be imported into America, the country they have dedicated their lives to destroying.

That's alarming to an overwhelming majority of Americans, a growing consensus in Congress, and even Democratic Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, who opposed it as Kansas governor. That's why House Republicans are building support for the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act.

These are not common criminals. Not when you consider that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), suspected mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and Abu Zubaydah, who allegedly trained the hijackers, are detained at Guantanamo. Simply put, importing them would be a strategic mistake and an incredible risk — one that Americans have every right to be concerned about, which is why more and more states and communities are speaking out against it.

Just imagine the strain — on financial, manpower and other resources — of "hosting" terrorists like KSM and Zubaydah in our prisons. Importing them could give terrorists the same rights as citizens, increasing their chances of being released by federal judges. And wherever they're transferred would undoubtedly become a prime target for other terrorists seeking to become martyrs.

Boehner, it seems, would like to believe that closing Gitmo would result in terrorists running free in U.S. cities. Leaving aside for now the question of whether all the remaining Gitmo detainees are actually terrorists, Boehner shows very little faith in the American prison system, the same one that managed to successfully hold Timothy McVeigh for several years. He also implies that federal judges would flippantly release dangerous criminals. Obama has already agreed to use a revised version of Military Commissions for trying Gitmo detainees, making it unlikely that federal judges would end up with jurisdication over these men. Boehner's populist op-ed arouses unnecessary levels of fear and concern about deeply unlikely scenarios. Really Mr. Boehner, no President of either party would knowingly allow terrorists to roam around American communities. And to our knowledge, Gitmo hasn't become the target of terrorist activity. Maybe you've been watching too much 24.

This just in from Newsweek's Eleanor Clift, a frequent purveyor of political anecdotes. She bring us an enlightening one here regarding the (quote) undisclosed location (unquote) we heard lots about in the days after Sept. 11. Here's Eleanor:

Ever wonder about that secure, undisclosed location where Dick Cheney secreted himself after the 9/11 attacks? Joe Biden reveals the bunker-like room is at the Naval Observatory in Washington, where Cheney lived for eight years and which is now home to Biden. The veep related the story to his head-table dinner mates when he filled in for President Obama at the Gridiron Club earlier this year. He said the young naval officer giving him a tour of the residence showed him the hideaway, which is behind a massive steel door secured by an elaborate lock with a narrow connecting hallway lined with shelves filled with communications equipment. The officer explained that when Cheney was in lock down, this was where his most trusted aides were stationed, an image that Biden conveyed in a way that suggested we shouldn’t be surprised that the policies that emerged were off the wall. Cheney has emerged as the leading critic of the Obama administration on national security, saying the president’s policies are making America less safe, and if there’s another attack, it will be Obama’s fault. This is tough stuff, but as the architect of the Bush administration’s policies on war and torture, he has a much bigger legacy to protect than the president he helped steer onto the shoals.    

New York Times Reporter Robert Pear has had two really interesting healthcare stories this week, both illustrating just how rocky the path the meaningful reform will be. The first was a report about Senate Democrats who, concerned by mobilizing opposition to the President's health reform proposals, huddled with David Axelrod and Jim Messina to strategize. Pear writes: Democrats said they felt an urgent need to devise a “message” to answer Republicans assertions that Mr. Obama’s proposals could lead to “a Washington takeover of health care.” They'd been spurred into action by a memo written to GOPers by language expert Frank Luntz.

In the memorandum, Mr. Luntz said his polling and analysis had identified this as “the best anti-Democrat message”: “No Washington bureaucrat or health care lobbyist should stand between your family and your doctor. The Democrats want to put Washington politicians in charge of your health care.” Mr. Luntz advised Republicans to show they “understand and empathize” with voters’ concerns about soaring health costs. “You simply must be vocally and passionately on the side of reform,” he wrote. He urged Republicans to argue that the Democratic plan would “deny people treatments they need and make them wait to get the treatments they are allowed to receive.” Mr. Luntz recommended this language: “If you have to wait weeks for tests and months for treatment, that’s a health care crisis.”

The second article worth noting is Pear's story about how the health industry leaders that met with Obama at the White House this week claim that the President overstated their committment to reduce costs by $2 trillion by 2019. From Pear's piece:

Health care leaders who attended the meeting have a different interpretation. They say they agreed to slow health spending in a more gradual way and did not pledge specific year-by-year cuts.

“There’s been a lot of misunderstanding that has caused a lot of consternation among our members,” said Richard J. Umbdenstock, the president of the American Hospital Association. “I’ve spent the better part of the last three days trying to deal with it.”

Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said “the president misspoke” on Monday and again on Wednesday when he described the industry’s commitment in similar terms. After providing that account, Ms. DeParle called back about an hour later on Thursday and said: “I don’t think the president misspoke. His remarks correctly and accurately described the industry’s commitment.”

The Washington office of the American Hospital Association sent a bulletin to its state and local affiliates to “clarify several points” about the White House meeting.

In the bulletin, Richard J. Pollack, the executive vice president of the hospital association, said: “The A.H.A. did not commit to support the ‘Obama health plan’ or budget. No such reform plan exists at this time.”

Moreover, Mr. Pollack wrote, “The groups did not support reducing the rate of health spending by 1.5 percentage points annually.”

He and other health care executives said they had agreed to squeeze health spending so the annual rate of growth would eventually be 1.5 percentage points lower.

Listen: Your Gaggler has long been a fan of NPR's sharp, witty weekly news quiz Wait Wait Don't Tell Me. There's almost nothing I'd like more than to have Carl Kasell's voice on my home answering machine. If you haven't discovered the show, this week would be a good time to tune in: Presidential pal and Senior Adviser David Axelrod will be playing "Not My Job", a game where highly qualified people are asked about professions that have absolutely nothing to do with them. I'm looking forward to it, but it will be hard to beat the 2006 episode where Obama's Senate Office provided Wait Wait with a tape of a phonecall where the then-Senator apologized to a young journalist (who he'd mistaken for a student) for "messing up his game" in front of a lady the reporter had tried to impress. Or Obama's own very funny appearence in 2005. If you listen to the Wait Wait year end special, you can hear that, along with a hilarious Huckabee appearence.

Watch: The 60 Minutes interview with Robert Gates where he says he doesn't really like his job much.

Wait, in Breathless Anticipation: for the new, sexy-looking, revamped Newsweek, which will hit stands Monday.

CIA Director Leon Panetta has written a memo to his staff pushing back against Pelosi's claims that the agency misled her. The memo has the feel of a pep talk, giving confidence boost a demoralized agency. Interestingly, the White House has yet to weigh in.

Politico's Glenn Thrush has the memo:

There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I’m gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.

Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.” Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.

My advice—indeed, my direction—to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.

We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is—even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.

Hot on the heels of Obama's decision to oppose the release of those detainee abuse photos, the White House has just released a statement from the President outlining his decision to revive and modify the Military Commission process used to try Gitmo detainees. He's playing defense in the statement, knowing he's about to face a barrage of criticism from the left for what is easily construed as an about face. In his campaign, Obama had said that military courts martial or federal courts were more appropriate avenues for trying the prisoners. In today's statement, Obama clarifies that his opposition to the commissions in the past was specific to their construction under the Bush Administration's Military Commissions Act. Here's part of the statement:

Military commissions have a long tradition in the United States. They are appropriate for trying enemies who violate the laws of war, provided that they are properly structured and administered. In the past, I have supported the use of military commissions as one avenue to try detainees, in addition to prosecution in Article III courts.  In 2006, I voted in favor of the use of military commissions. But I objected strongly to the Military Commissions Act that was drafted by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework and undermined our capability to ensure swift and certain justice against those detainees that we were holding at the time. Indeed, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay had only succeeded in prosecuting three suspected terrorists in more than seven years.

Obama is instructing the Pentagon to seek rule changes. Statements obtained through "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment will be banned and the hearsay provisions will be altered so that the objecting party won't have the burden of disproving its reliability. Detainees will also have more freedom in choosing counsel. "These reforms will begin to restore the Commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law," the President's statement says.

ABC's Jake Tapper asked a "White House Official" about this statement regarding the Hamdan verdict made by Obama in August 2008:

That the Hamdan trial – the first military commission trial with a guilty verdict since 9/11 – took several years of legal challenges to secure a conviction for material support for terrorism underscores the dangerous flaws in the Administration’s legal framework. It’s time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice. (Emphasis added.)

Tapper writes: "A White House Official says that the President has "always a role for commissions, properly constituted" and the August statement was not meant to preclude them." 

Critics have already starting pounding the President on this decision. Per the NYT:

The executive director of Human Rights First, Elisa Massimino, called the commission system of trying war crimes cases irredeemable. “Tinkering with the machinery of military commissions will not remove the taint of Guantánamo from future prosecutions,” she said. The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Anthony D. Romero, said he was preparing an advertising campaign that will call the use of an inferior legal system to try detainees “the Bush Obama doctrine.”

Predictably, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham are pretty happy about the move. No word yet on indefinite detention. Gibbs danced around the issue when asked at today's briefing.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that the fresh, new face of the Democrat party, Senator Arlen Specter (hat tip to POTUS for that line), has been meeting with organized labor groups to develop an alternative to the Employee Free Choice Act, or card check bill. He said yesterday that prospects were "pretty good" that a compromise would be reached that would allow workers to unionize more easily. Unions have been waiting for years for the right moment to push on card check. After the 2008 election, many felt this year was it, and that Specter would provide the critical 60th vote. But in March, Specter announced that he'd oppose the bill, leaving chances for its passage at almost zilch. Specter did say back then that he could possibly support an alternative bill, but since joining the Democratic party, unions have stepped up the pressure. Complicating matters for Specter is the emergence of Rep. Joe Sestak as a likely primary opponent, and one who unions could easily throw there support behind if they aren't getting results from Arlen.

Almost as soon as the President took office, pundits began whispering about likelihood that Democrats in Congress would end up being the biggest thorn in his side. Jonathan Chait over at The New Republic wrote a blistering critique of the ability of Congressional Democrats to govern effectively in April. Chait wrote: "At a time when the country desperately needs a coherent response to the array of challenges it faces, the congressional arm of the Democratic Party remains mired in fecklessness, parochialism, and privilege. Obama has made mistakes, as did his predecessors. Yet the constant recurrence of legislative squabbling and drift suggests a deeper problem than any characterological or tactical failures by these presidents: a congressional party that is congenitally unable to govern.....Even when they control the White House and both branches of Congress, Democrats have not displayed the parliamentary-style cohesion Republicans managed under Bush." Whoa. Harsh. Chait uses recent legislative history to argue that despite their flaws, Congressional Republicans are disciplined, so GOP Presidents rarely watch their plans come assunder at the hands of their own party's legislators. Dems on the other hand won't let little things like party loyalty or effective governance get in the way of a good fight.

There's been a few moments in his young Presidency where Obama has received some Democratic pushback, but on the big issues, Dems have pretty much toed the line. (WIth the possible exception of Evan Bayh, the former bright young thing in the Democratic Party who was readily eclipsed by Obama's rising star. Jealous much?) Yesterday, however, your Gaggler noticed perhaps the strongest signal yet that some House Dems don't intend to let the popular President have things his way. The House voted on a bill providing $96 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It passed 368-60. Only 9 Republicans voted against it; 51 Democrats said no. It's a victory for bipartisanship on the one hand, and an indicator of Democratic unrest on the other. Although the President has announced a plan to withdraw combat troops by 2010, bitterness and suspicion about the war linger in Congress. Even some Democrats who voted for the bill did so just to give the President a chance to alter course in Iraq and Afghanistan - but that doesn't mean they'll be doing that again.

The bill did not include the $80 million that the President requested to facilitate the closure of Guantanomo Bay. It did contain language that prevents the President from moving those detainees to American soil before he's announced a plan of how to deal with them over the longer term. The Senate has approved the funding, but slapped on a similar stipulation about a plan for detainees. 

The effervescent Roberta McCain, 96 year old mother of former Presidential candidate John McCain, was on The Tonight Show last night. Both your Gagglers spent a good portion of their recent lives following John McCain around the country, and can personally attest to the fact that the elder Mrs. McCain is dynamic and endlessly entertaining. (That, and she's got a pretty enviable wardrobe for a woman in her 90s. This Gaggler sure hopes she can still wear pumps sixty years from now. But I digress.) Asked about Limbaugh, she replied that her brand of Republicanism has nothing to do with what he represents. "I don't know what the man means. I don't know what he's talking about," she said, adding she thinks GOP Chair Michael Steele was right (yes, right, don't hear that very often...) to label Limbaugh as an entertainer, and was horrified that the party made him back away from that comment. "I don't know what he is. But he does not represent the Republican Party that I belong to," Mrs McCain said. Gee. Those McCain women sure are feisty lately.

Limbaugh's response? " McCain's mother is dumping on me!" he said today. "She is absolutely right. The Republican Party she belongs to gets shellacked, election after election." Really? I sort of thought the Party Rush belongs to hasn't been doing that well either.

Who would have thought that in mid-May 2009, the names "Rove" and "Cheney" would appear so often in my email news alerts? Weird. Here are the latest tidbits:

CIA Denies Cheney's Request to Release Memos: According to MSNBC, CIA spokesperson Paul Gimigliano said this today: "The process for Mandatory Declassification Review is governed by Executive Order 12958, as amended. That Order excludes from review information that is the subject of pending litigation. The two documents that former Vice President Cheney sought contain information that falls into that category....For that reason -- and that reason only -- CIA did not accept Mr. Cheney's request for a Mandatory Declassification Review. The Agency simply followed the Executive Order. This request was handled in accordance with normal practice by CIA professionals with long experience in information management and release. It was for them a straightforward issue"

Karl Rove Will Be Questioned on U.S. Attorney Firings: The Washington Post is reporting that Connecticut Prosecutor Nora Dannahey will question Rove tomorrow about his role in the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys. Dannahey is heading up the ongoing investigation into whether Justice Department or White House officials obstructed justice in relation to the sackings.

Remember the "war on drugs"? You know, that 80's relic that assumes its more beneficial to lock users up in overcrowded prisons than to rehabiliate them? (Unless you're a really weathly dude who just snorts at parties sometimes, in which case, carry on.) Yeah, that old thing. Well, Obama's recently appointed drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske says he's done with the term. He gave his first interview since assuming office to the Wall Street Journal yesterday, and told them that, "Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them...We're not at war with people in this country." Kerlikowske hopes that the Obama administration will deal with drugs as a public health issue, not just a criminal justice one. He certainly doesn't support legalizing drugs, but wants to see policies that focus as much on demand and treatment as they do on law enforcement. He supports needle exchange programs, calling them "part of a complete public-health model for dealing with addiction." Kerlikowske has been criticized for being too lax on drugs during his time as Seattle's Chief of Police, but Tom Coburn was the only Senator to vote against his nomination.

Nancy Pelosi has been engaged in an uncomfortable dance around her knowledge of detainee torture over the past few weeks. In the latest installment of her awkward twisting routine, Pelosi now says that the CIA mislead her during briefings. "We were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used," she told reporters at a presser today. This, after weeks of saying she was never briefed about waterboarding. She also informed reporters that her top national security adviser learned that prisoners were being waterboarded in a February 2003 briefing. Pelosi says her response was to let Jane Harman, a longtime Pelosi frenemy who replaced the Speaker as the top Dem on the Intelligence Committee, take the issue up with the Administration. She also reiterated her call for an independent Truth Commission to delve into who knew what when, who did what to whom, and who said any of this was OK in the first place. 

Pelosi's statements today must be like nails down a chalkboard for the White House. Obama has made it clear he wants to move past this issue, and has given the idea of a commission a cool reception. But try as he might, it continues to make headlines - with a little help from Dick Cheney. Like him or loathe him (either way, he really doesn't care), the once media-shy Cheney has effectively kept this issue in the news. Obama has other priorities now, both ones forced upon him - like the economy, the ailing auto industry and Afghanistan/Pakistan - and ones he's actively seeking to address, most notably healthcare. The last thing he wants is for his agenda to be derailed by a prolonged, convoluted debate of the culpability of Bush-era officials (on both sides of the aisle) with regards to this messy, unpleasant yet ultimately profound issue. But he might not get a say in it.

Obama may be ready to move on, but a lot of his voters aren't. Many are eager to see officials held to account for their actions. So far, Obama has made clear his personal stance against torture, but has been pushing off real litigation. That's not going to be enough for some. If torture is part of Bush's legacy, how it is dealt with could well be Obama's. And if Obama is serious about restoring America's image in the world, he's going to need to show that when people undermine American values - like humane treatment of prisoners - they can't walk away from their actions, even if they've been voted out of office. Yes, an independent commission will be distressing and unsavory, and it will keep torture in the headlines. But that's happening anyway. The country isn't moving on. Perhaps Obama's best move is to support an independent commission, effectively handing over the torture issue. This helps remove him from centerstage in this debate, freeing him to carry on with his agenda. And, perhaps most significantly, history will show that his administration actively dealt with another problem handed to him, this time one of the most important ethical issues of our day.

After Roberts Gibbs was grilled by reporters over the President's decision not to release the detainee abuse photos earlier today, the President himself made a statement this afternoon. He reiterated his concerns about the safety of troops and echoed much of what Gibbs said at the presser. He said that, in this instance, the Pentagon had not attempted to conceal or justify these wrongful actions. "I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib," Obama said. "It's therefore my belief that the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals. In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."

Obama also alluded to Gibbs's obscure argument that releasing the photos would discourage documentation of further abuses. "Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse," he said.

This is rocky terrain for the President. Just a couple of weeks ago he was heavily criticized by conservatives for his decision to release the OLC memos regarding interrogation techniques. Today's announcement (which is a reversal of the Administration's previous decision not to fight the court order demanding the photos be released by May 28) has angered the civil liberties and rights activists. Moreover, as CBS's Mark Knoller pointed out at the briefing, it contradicts a statement Obama made on his second day in office. He said: "I will hold myself, as President, to a new standard of openness.  Information will not be withheld just because I say so."  Sorry sir, but it looks like you're saying so.

Former FBI Interrogator Ali Soufan (who was profiled by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff a few weeks ago) testified on the use of torture before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee today and stated that the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques are "slow, ineffective, unreliable, and harmful to our efforts." Soufan was able to obtain valuable intel using techniques labeled the "informed interrogation approach", which are consistent with the Army Field Manual. His testimony is fascinating.

Soufin was the agent who first interrogated Abu Zubaydah, the man now famous for being waterboarded 83 times. Zubaydah had been badly wounded in the struggle to capture him and was almost immediately taken to a hospital. It was there that Soufin began his interrogation, and gained "important, actionable intelligence" within the first hour regarding the role Khalid Sheikh Mohammed played in the 9-11 attacks. Committee Chair Sheldon called this "one of the more significant pieces of intelligence information we've ever obtained in the war on terror."

Soon the CIA-CTC was brought in, and a private contractor instructed them to subject Zubaydah to harsh interrogation techniques. Michael Isikoff wrote that: "Agency operatives were aiming to crack him with rough and unorthodox interrogation tactics—including stripping him nude, turning down the temperature and bombarding him with loud music." Soufan told the committee that  Zubaydah "shut down." Later, Soufan interrogated the man again, using Army sanctioned methods, and Zubaydah disclosed information about the alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. According to Soufan, the contractor soon reasserted control, ordering the use of "enhanced" techniques and Zubaydah shut down again. Worried, Soufan objected to his FBI superiors, and was soon ordered home by Director Mueller, who also decreed that FBI personnel should no longer participate in CIA interrogations. (More after the jump)

The White House announced today that the President has decided to oppose the release of photographs allegedly depicted the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. military personnel. According to a statement from the press office, Obama isn't comfortable releasing the photographs, believing they have the potential to endanger troops and jeopardize national security. After meeting with his legal team last week, Obama instructed his counsel to object to the release. He informed General Odierno of his decision yesterday. From the statement:

The President would be the last to excuse the actions depicted in these photos. That is why the Department of Defense investigated these cases, and why individuals have been punished through prison sentences, discharges, and a range of other punitive measures. But the President strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing US forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. 

At today's briefing, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was hammered with questions from reporters about whether Obama, who has argued for more transparency in government investigations, had reversed his position. Gibbs said that Obama had not been pressured by the military. He then pursued a strange and convoluted line of argument, saying that releasing the photographs woud "provide a disincentive for detainee abuse investigations." Say what? According to Gibbs, a public release of the photographs adds nothing to the investigation. He seemed to be arguing that if the military believes that every time a photograph of abuse is taken it will eventually be released to the public, they'll be less inclined to take photos. Asked if the photographs would help enhance public understanding of the issue, Gibbs replied "the President doesn't believe that the release of these photos adds to that in any way." Rather, Gibbs believes they add a "sensationalizing portion" to the investigation. OK. Your Gaggler is sure the ACLU will buy that line....(not.)

Then, the press conference descended into a bizarro-world, with a paternal Gibbs confiscating the cell phone of a reporter after it rang repeatedly. Then someone else's cell phone went off. There was laughter and shenanigans. It was weird. Finally, as Gibbs walked out, he told the reporter whose cell phone was now sitting somewhere in the press office "I have a message for you...your mom called."

Governor Sarah Palin is the latest politician to mint a sweet book deal. She's signed a deal with Harper Collins who will co-release the book with its subsidiary, Christian publishing house Zondervan (the company that published Rick Warren's mega-seller "The Purpose-Driven Life"). Reporters have been chattering about the inevitability of a Palin book for months. The deal was negotiated by DC lawyer Robert Barnett, whose literary client list includes Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The financial arrangements haven't been disclosed, but your Gaggler is thinking big bucks. (And probably more than Bush scored.) 

Palin, who will work with an as yet unnamed writer, has agreed to talk about the Katie Couric interviews, Bristol's pregnancy, family, religion and politics.  "There's been so much written about and spoken about in the mainstream media and in the anonymous blogosphere world, that this will be a wonderful, refreshing chance for me to get to tell my story, that a lot of people have asked about, unfiltered," Palin told the Associated Press. "Being a voracious reader, I read a lot today and have read a lot growing up. And having that journalism degree, all of that, will be a great assistance for me in writing this book, talking about the challenges and the joys, balancing the work and parenting, and, in my case, work means running the state." Barnett says the book will be explore the melding of her roles as soccer mom and political operative.

Although Palin has never written a book before, having done so is almost a requirement for a presidential bid these days, and choosing Barnett to negotiate is perhaps an interesting sign. In terms of style, Palin says she enjoyed Katherine Graham's prize winning bio "Personal History" and just finished reading Clinton's "My Life". The book is slated for release in 2010. There will be several new Palin books on the shelves by then, including one from Gaggle pals Shushannah Walshe and Scott Conroy, former TV embeds who traveled extensively with Palin during last year's campaign.

This Sunday, May 17, is the five year anniversary of the first gay marriage license issued in Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to allow same sex partners to wed. Since then, over 10,000 gay and lesbian couples have taken marriage vows. (The first gay couple married in Massachusetts - Susan Shepard and Marcia Hams - will celebrate their five year anniversary on Sunday too.)  Although Massachusetts has a reputation for liberalism, the path to gay marriage was a tough one, which ended in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. In November 2003, when the court ruled to allow gay marriage, only 50 members of the state's 200-strong legislature supported the move, and barely a majority of voters were in favor. But today, a poll sponsored by Hattaway Communications and grassroots advocacy group Marriage Equality Works shows that a decent majority Massachusetts residents now support it.

Lake Research Partners, who conducted the survey, asked 600 Massachusetts residents whether they would vote for or against a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Fully 62% of respondents said they would oppose such an amendment, up from 52% in a similar 2005 survey. Interestingly, the poll found that many residents supported marriage equality because it promoted traditional values like commitment and responsibility. This finding will surely come as a suprise to anti-gay marriage advocates who argue that it undermines the foundations of the family.

Respondents were asked "Do you agree or disagree that the following outcome has surfaced because gay and lesbian couples can legally marry:
Marriage encourages responsibility and commitment, which are important values for a strong society. It’s better for society that more couples are taking responsibility and making long-term commitments to each other." Fully 74% of people agreed with that statement. Overall, Massachusetts folks seemed proud of their state, with 60% saying that gay marriage had helped the state live up to its values of equality and fairness. They also tend to believe the rest of the country should acknowledge their laws: 70% of respondents thought that gay and lesbian couples married in Massachusetts should receive all the same federal benefits as other married couples. In terms of demographics, younger, more educated, less religious people were more likely to be supportive of marriage equality, and women were slightly more supportive than men.

Doug Hattaway, CEO of Hattaway Communication, explained to your Gaggler that the results shouldn't be dismissed just because they come from a reliably blue state. Massachusetts has a significant Catholic population that is often socially conservative. Achieving marriage equality wasn't a walk in the park to begin with, and there were repeated attempts to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage following the Supreme Court's 2003 ruling. "Our side had a pretty hard mountain to climb," Hattaway said. But attitudes slowly changed. When the last constitutional amendment was offered in 2007, 151 of the 200 legislators voted to defeat it. Hattaway noted that no state legislators had lost their seats as a result of opposing the constitutional amendment.  

The poll isn't reliable indicator of national attitudes towards gay marriage - consider the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Nor does it gauge the depth of emotion around the idea of same sex marriage. Oddly enough, while the issue often gets treated as a hot button one, Hattaway says that one of the difficulties marriage equality proponents have in making their case is that many people don't really care deeply about it because it doesn't affect them. It's not until they're forced to deal with it that their opinions really develop. What this poll suggests is that once made legal, attitudes towards gay marriage soften over time. 

A coalition of left-leaning advocacy groups and unions is stepping up the pressure on Tim Pawlenty to certify the results on Minneosta's Senate Race and to seat Al Franken if the Minnesota Supreme Court rejects Norm Coleman's appeal. They've unveiled a giant billboard in St. Paul which implies that T-Paw is more concerned about his future as a national GOP figure than his constituents in Minnesota. Americans United For Change sent around a photo of the billboard this afternoon:

The Washington Post has a fun story today about the surge in Obama-related tourism in the Windy City. Calling him a "one man stimulus" package, the Post reports that:

Chicago's tourism office has trained 30 volunteers to lead Obama tours. On Saturdays starting next month, a greeter will be posted in Obama's former Hyde Park neighborhood to direct walking tours that will also include Frank Lloyd Wright's Robie House and the University of Chicago.It is impossible to quantify the Obama effect in a city so large and touristed, but at least 15 Chicago companies that conduct tours for conventioneers, students and tourists have added Obama stops or an entire Obama tour to their offerings.

For $25, one tour group will even take you past the now-defunct ice cream parlor where Barack and Michelle first kissed, as well as the basketball court where Michelle had her brother Craig play against her new boyfriend for the first time. 

The President has gotten pretty good reviews for his speech at the White House Correspondents Association dinner on Saturday night. Your Gaggler for one thought the POTUS was pretty darn funny. (Although I think I laughed hardest at Wanda Sykes' nipple riff.) Around the blogosphere, it seems that Obama's shoutout to GOP chair Michael Steele was the biggest hit, which made your Gaggler think that there may soon be a run on these shirts:

Our favorites this morning from around the web:

Obama and aides play favorites for Olympics
Chicago isn't the only U.S. city vying for the Olympics, but top White House adviser Valerie Jarret is heading a push on behalf of the POTUS to bring the 2016 games to the Windy City. (Politico)

GOP: Just don't pick a bad nominee
Even before Obama names a nominee to the Supreme Court, Republicans are looking deeply into the names already floating around. Taking a cue from the all-around embarrassing nomination of Robert Bork in 1987, one GOP senator plans to preempt Obama from making an unacceptable choice. (Washington Times)

Washington devising a fix for media
Can Washington really help an ailing news industry? Several senators think so, and are making it their crusade to push legislation to change the business model of the country's biggest media organizations. (NPR)

Pay no attention to the lobbyist behind the curtain
The White House has set up barriers against lobbying for the $787 billion stimulus package. Now, lobbyists that had success under past administration are trying to restrategize. One method: sidestep yourself and send your client to make their own case. (AP)

Today saw a meeting at the White House that healthcare reform advocates in the 1990s could only have dreamed about. The President stood alongside representatives of health insurers, unions, pharma, doctors and hospitals to announce this unlikely coalition has pledged to reduce the growth of health care costs by 1.5 percentage points each year between 2010 and 2019. The White House estimates that this will cut spending by over $2 trillion dollars. POTUS outlined the circumstances that forged this unprecedented alliance:

"What's brought us all together today is a recognition that we can't continue down the same dangerous road we've been traveling for so many years; that costs are out of control; and that reform is not a luxury that can be postponed, but a necessity that cannot wait.  It's a recognition that the fictional television couple, Harry and Louise, who became the iconic faces of those who opposed health care reform in the '90s, desperately need health care reform in 2009.  And so does America." 

This is surely an excellent signal that healthcare reform is not only possible but likely this year. It sends a message to Congress that the President is serious about spending some political capital in order to get this done amid multiple other crises, and that the likelihood of a united front of stakeholders stonewalling reform entirely is low. Previous opponents of reform are clearly now eager to be part of an effort at shaping it. (Read my profile of Chip Kahn, the guy who thought up Harry and Louise in the 90s but supports reform now here.) But don't start counting chickens just yet. The announcement today was awfully vague about the mechanisms that will be used to lower costs. That's symptomatic of almost all aspects of health reform: It's when policymakers start putting flesh on the bones of a healthcare plan that the fireworks start. Getting agreement on broad principles of reform - like lowering costs, expanding coverage and encouraging preventive care - is the easy part. Figuring out how exactly to do that is where the wheels can fall off.

The President is off to a good start. With the White House Forum on Health Care earlier this year and today's meetings, he's gotten stakeholders to publicly commit to reform and start conversations with each other about it. It might just be the most promising news on healthcare for decades. But it's possible that the villains of the 1990s - especially the insurers - want to be part of the President's gang because they know reform is coming and they'd rather be, as the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon put it, at the table than on the menu. At this stage, their participation doesn't signal that they'll actually support meaningful reform. It simply means they'll be able to lobby for their interests from inside the tent.

One reason for the insurers to be at the table is to argue against the idea of a public plan. Sure they want uninsured people to be covered, but they want to be the ones doing the covering not the government. Growing the number of people insured means more premium income for insurers. A public plan would not only limit their access to this new revenue stream, but it would likely attract many of their members aswell, jeopardzing profits and forcing a realignment of premiums. So while today's developments are certianly positive for reform advocates, the fun and games have barely begun.

Our favorites this morning from around the web:

The next chapter in California's marriage debate
Even as same-sex marriage gets the nod in a growing number of states, the issue remains most contentious in California. As 18,000 formerly-married couples wait, a panel of judges will rule by the end of the month whether November's Prop 8 was constitutional for voters to shoot down. (NPR)

Smile for the cameras, Mr. Justice
Supreme Court justices have historically opposed the court allowing cameras to film oral arguments, but none more so than retiring justice David Souter. With him gone, proponents in congress hope to finally make ground on the issue. (Politico)

Unemployment not going anywhere
Christina Romer, Obama's senior economics adviser, said Sunday that the downturn and unemployment numbers are not inextricably linked. She thinks the economy will turn up later this year, but the percentage of jobless people will continue to climb. (NY Times)

On America's reputation, the administration's next tough call
On the issue of torture, the next big choice for Barack Obama is whether to release more photos of detainees being interrogated that, Sens Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham think, will have the same negative effect on America's image as the Abu Ghraib abuse photos that surfaced in 2004. (Time)

With the mountain of issues piling up on the President's plate right now, among the words he'd least like to hear are probably these four: "don't ask, don't tell." President Clinton learned the hard way that this issue has the potential to derail agendas and stoke culture wars. Robert Gibbs confirmed in January that it's Obama's intention to end the policy, but amid significant economic and international challenges, it simply isn't a priority. General Jones recently told the Washington Post he'd advised Obama to avoid the issue for now. But the White House might not get to dictate the timing on this one. There's a small storm brewing in the blogosphere and on cable TV over Dan Choi, an officer in the National Guard who received notice that he'll be discharged after admitting he is gay on the Rachel Maddow Show in March. Choi, who recently returned from a tour in Iraq, is a fluent Arabic speaker - a skill the military needs and sorely lacks.

The administration surely wants to avoid a politically costly battle over Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Although the tide of public opinion has turned -  a CNN poll in December found that 81 percent of respondents think openly gay people should be able to serve - the military heirarchy is still powerfully opposed. But maybe the Administration can satisfy gay advocates and mollify generals in one move. Dr. Aaron Belkin argued in the Huffington Post yesterday that Obama could simply sign an executive order directing the military to stop investigating the sexual orientation of members, effectively rendering the policy inactive. Over time, the military would become accustomed to openly gay members thus making the policy easier to repeal in the long run.

Riffing off that idea, Tim Fernholz at The American Prospect suggests Obama could suspend Don't Ask Don't Tell for a specified period while the policy is reviewed. This would buy time for a decision to be made, and allow all sides to feel heard. Fernholz writes:

Say that he signed an executive order halting all investigations and prosceutions of soldiers for their sexual orientation over a six-month period while -- you know Washington would love this -- a blue ribbon commission looked into the effects of the policy. Given that all evidence indicates that no harm and great benefit comes from allowing gays and lesbians to serve, and that public opinion is on the side of this measure, it's not hard to predict what the outcome would be. But a symbolic delay would help defuse the politics of the situation while preventing further discharges.

Your Gaggler is unsure about how useful a prolonged Washington debate over the issue would be. People who feel strongly about about gays in the military - either for or against - are unlikely to change their mind, and the current policy is about as close to a middle ground as is possible on this issue. For vehement advocates of either position, there really isn't a compromise. You're in or you're out. So, it's possible that a six month long debate would just become bitter, each side would hunker down, and regardless of the outcome, the pros and the antis would end up more hostile to each other than when they started. Perhaps the best solution is the Australian method - just rip the bandaid off.

 In 1992, the Australian Armed Forces changed their policy to allow openly gay men and women to serve. The decision met with some resistance at the time, but it was hardly a major national controversy. Eight years later, Belkin's think tank, the Palm Center, released a study which found "that the full lifting of the ban on gay service has not led to any identifiable negative effects on troop morale, combat effectiveness, recruitment and retention, or other measures of military performance." In the Australian experience, repealing the ban was, in the words of Navy Commodore Gates, a "non-event". Servicemen didn't rush out the door, recruiting didn't suffer, and, at the time of the study, only 5% of all complaints involving sexual misconduct or harassment related to sexual orientation. Maybe the Aussie example shows that Washington (and Arlington) just makes a much bigger deal out of this than needs be. 

Our favorite bits of news this morning from around the web:

Obama's deficit economics look a lot like McCain's
President Obama decided to tackle wasteful spending this week, proposing $17 billion in cuts from the federal multi-trillion dollar budget. It's a small, largely symbolic move that makes him oddly resemble candidate McCain. (Slate)

Calif heading quickly into the red
With the state's deficit already large, a new analysis shows that California -- with a $38 billion shortfall -- could be broke as early as this summer. (LA Times)

Report shows Pelosi briefed on waterboarding
The back and forth continues about how much Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew, and when, about the torture techniques used on detainees at Guantanamo. Now, a Director of National Intelligence report shows Pelosi was indeed briefed early and in full. (Washington Post)

New timers in Senate pose challenges for Obama
On paper, Obama might have the numbers in the Senate to squeak through a bold agenda, but what the legislative body lacks is the institutional memory. With the majority of senators being new to the job, few have the experience of brokering contentious deals. (Bloomberg)

More Americans to start looking soon for personal assistants
In a speech Thursday, Michelle Obama expressed gratitude for her "blessed life," arguing that more people should be able to take sick days and have a staff like she does. (Wouldn't that be nice?). She ended by calling for more family-friendly policies. (AP)

Barack Obama has had a busy week, with all that diplomatic wrangling and stuff. But behind the scenes, his staff has been getting ready for Obama’s big debut on the Washington dinner scene. On Saturday, Obama will speak at the White House Correspondents Association’s annual dinner. It’s an event that most presidents have used to poke fun at the reporters who cover them—and, as Bill Clinton famously did, at themselves. Some people think it’s a silly event—your Gaggler won’t lie and say she’s not looking forward to it—but one thing is for sure: No president can afford to show up unprepared. It’s a moment where people judge whether the Commander in Chief has the ability to be funny or not.

With all that pressure, presidents have been known to recruit outside help in prepping their speech. Clinton had a joke writer and was rumored to have solicited help on occasion from some of his comedian friends in Hollywood. George W. Bush, and his wife, Laura, had assistance from a GOP speechwriter who had written jokes for everyone from Ronald Reagan to Arnold Schwarzenegger. No doubt Obama has the few names of funny people in Hollywood who would be willing to help him out, but according to Obama aides, the president isn’t bringing in backup. He’s sticking with his usual team of writers, including senior adviser David Axelrod and speechwriter Jon Favreau.
 
According to aides, Axelrod is considered Obama’s go-to guy for jokes, in part because he knows the limits on what his boss can get away with. As a senator, Obama went outside his inner circle just once for jokes to use at a roast. He wasn't thrilled with the results and ended up not using most of the material. Instead, Obama has relied on Axelrod, who has written some of his boss's best zingers. That includes many of the jokes Obama used during last fall’s Alfred E. Smith dinner in New York. That’s not to say Axelrod hasn’t come up with a dud or two. “Ax is good at coming up with jokes, both good and bad,” says White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Asked about his role, Axelrod downplayed his position as chief funny guy, describing it all as a “collaborative” effort with Favreau and other staff. But, he allowed, “I’ve been in this business for a long time…and sometimes (jokes) come easy.”

The new Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee, Alabama conservative Jeff Sessions, has been asked an assortment of questions about what qualities make for a good Supreme Court Justice over the past few days, and his responses have been somewhat unconventional. He told Fox News yesterday that could theoretically vote for a pro-choice nominee, if he was satisfied with their interpretation of Roe Vs. Wade. "If they are faithful to the law, then we can get along pretty well," he said. This morning Sessions said that being openly gay isn't a disqualifier for a position on the land's most important bench. "It depends on their personal ethics and standards and their legal skill and ability. I don't think a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se for the job," Sessions said on MSNBC's Morning Joe. These are hardly ringing endorsements of gay or pro-choice candidates. And if you read between the lines, it sounds like he'll only support a candidate, gay or straight, who believes that the legality of abortion is a state issue. He certainly seems focused on ensuring that the nominee follows the law "faithfully" and refrains from "activism" - both of which are conservative codes for overturning Roe v Wade. Still, for the Alabaman to make those allowances is big step that indicates some openness towards the Administration, and one that will surely rile Christian conservatives. 

Perhaps a more significant statement though was when he told the Associated Press Wednesday that he was not inclined to filibuster Obama's nominee (although he didn't rule it out entirely). Sessions said that the bipartisan Gang of 14 approach, which helped avoid filibusters of judicial nominees in the 109th Congress, had set a "standard" that Senators should try to adhere to, except in unusual circumstances. While this statement is easier to make at a time when Republicans in theory lack the requisite votes to filibuster, Senate Democrats aren't the most disciplined bunch and their newest member is hardly the most reliable vote. So Sessions's apparent aversion to judicial filibusters should be a heartening sign to the Administration, provided Obama sticks by his promise of not selecting a "bomb thrower". But as is often the case, what happens on TV talk shows and the Senate floor could well be two very different things.

Our favorite bits of news this morning from around the web:

Senate discusses journalism's future
Usually we like to keep the intersection of politics and journalism right here at the Gaggle. So when the senate starts discussing the future of the media, we take note. (AFP)

Arnold entertaining the idea of straying from cigars
Increasing public support for the legalization of marijuana has led Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to lead a study on the substance's impact on the
state. For an ailing economy, a robust market could also be just what the doctor ordered. (NY Times)

Mining desperately for sympathy
A vast collection of West Virginia residents who oppose coal mining wrote an unusual plea to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson this week: "You are our last hope for justice at this point.” (Grist)

Religious mix-ups
Although he consistently denied it, Barack Obama was accused during his campaign of being untruthful about his religious identity. Now, complicating things, church documents show that Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was posthumously baptized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Chicago Tribune)

Send mail soon, seriously
The U.S. Postal Service is close to $2.3 billion in the red. Despite an increase of the price of a first class stamp next week to 44 cents, some postal analysts think the service could be broke by the end of the year. (NY Times)

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn met with the President in the Oval Office this morning, reportedly on Coburn's request. One of the most conservative members of the Senate, Coburn ended up being a somewhat of a mascot for bipartisanship during last year's campaign, with both Obama and McCain using him as an example of how they each could work with folks whose political philosophy that differed significantly from their own. Obama and Coburn's friendship is an unlikely one, which both men say is borne of mutual respect. In a March interview with The Oklahoman newspaper, Coburn said he received many angry letters from consitutents for hugging the President after his speech to the joint session of Congress earlier this year. "You need to separate the difference in political philosophy versus friendship. How better to influence somebody than love them?" Coburn told the paper. "We’re very good friends. We’re totally different, but we respect each other immensely, and we have a personal relationship that’s outside our politics. Who else does he have on my (Republican) side that he has a relationship with?"

But so far their friendship hasn't meant much in terms of GOP support for the President's initiatives. Coburn himself was a vocal critic of the stimulus package. Perhaps this meeting signals that Coburn wants to work with (influence?) Obama on two of the most important fights likely to arise this year: a Supreme Court nomination and health care reform. Coburn sits on the Judiciary committee, and the timing of the meeting ensures that talk of SCOTUS nominees will be high on the agenda. (Interestingly. Obama has yet to talk to the new Ranking Member on Judiciary, Jeff Sessions, who assumed the leadership position after Specter's defection.) Just as fascinating will be their chat about health care, a passion of Coburn's who is a licensed ob-gyn doctor. Coburn opposes the inclusion of a public plan in any reform package, which was a critical element of candidate Obama's proposal to expand coverage and tamp down on costs. The White House hasn't released any details on the meeting yet, but the flies on the wall will certainly have a valuable perspective on the likelihood of Obama receiving some or any Republican support in these looming battles.

** UPDATE ** Gibbs said at today's briefing that Obama has spoken with Sessions about SCOTUS nominations.

Our favorites this morning from around the web:

To banks: If you go out on a limb, then stay there
Bailed out banks that received TARP money are now eager to give it back to free themselves from compensation restrictions. The government says fine. But they'll also have to forgo cushy backing by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. (AP)

New shuttle program earth bound?
President Bush expressed plans several years ago to ramp up space research with a new module to replace the space shuttle. White House sources say Obama plans to review the merits of the program this summer. (Denver Post Wire)

The morphing of former rivals
Barack Obama drew a clear line between himself and rival Hillary Clinton during the campaign. Now, observes a Politico writer, the new president has abandoned many of the convictions that differentiated himself from her. (Politico)

Hiring amid the firing
Unemployment might be high and rising (though more modestly than before), but part of any recession is robust hiring -- like the kind taking place in hospitals, schools and municipal departments. (NY Times)

Following on the leaks to the New York Daily News, Brand X has a full excerpt of the new book by Elizabeth Edwards, where she writes about her reaction to her husband, John, and his affair with Rielle Hunter. Edwards doesn’t name Hunter, describing her only as a “female videographer,” and says that although the former senator admitted the affair long before it became public knowledge, he wasn’t as truthful as he could have been. She writes:

Like most wives — or husbands — in my position, I wanted to believe his involvement with this woman had been as little as possible. A single night, another opportunity, but that was it and he had wanted away from her.... It turned out that a single time was not all it was. More than a year later, I learned that he had allowed [the woman] into our lives and had not, even when he knew better, made her leave us alone. I tried to get him to explain, but he did not know himself why he had allowed it to happen. In months of talking with him, I have come to understand his liaison with this woman, if I have, not as a substitute for me. Those with any fame or notoriety or power attract people for good reasons and bad. Some want to contribute and some want to take something away for themselves. They flatter and entreat, and it is engaging, even addictive. They look at our lives, which from the outside in particular are pictures of joy and plenty, and they want it for themselves.

The lingering question for months has been whether the Edwards are still together. The answer, it seems, is yes. Elizabeth addresses it vaguely in the book. (“There is still a great deal of sorting through to do,” she writes. “We both understand that there are no guarantees, but the road ahead looks clear enough, although from here it looks long.”) But that answer wouldn’t do for Oprah, who asks Edwards point blank in an interview set to air Thursday if she is still "in love with" her husband. “That’s a complicated question,” Edwards says, according to a transcript of the interview obtained by the Associated Press. Edwards tells Oprah she has “no idea” if her husband is the father of Hunter’s baby. Asked if their marriage is “day by day,” Edwards was slightly more hopeful than that. “Neither one of us is out the door so I guess it's day by day, but maybe it's month by month," she says.

There are very few things that political reporters relish more than a spot of Kennedy family intrigue. Your Gaggler is no exception, which is why I rushed to the Vanity Fair website as soon as I found out that those lucky ducks had an excerpt of Edward Klein's forthcoming book "Ted Kennedy: The Dream That Never Died". While it's not particularly saucy - which is to be expected given the ailing Senator's age and health - Klein got some fabulous scoopage on Caroline Kennedy's decision to withdraw her name for consideration for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. Remember all the speculation about what precise event prompted the dropout? Well, Klein has some answers.

Caroline is a favorite of Teddy's, and it was his desire to see her assume the family's political mantle. Klein quotes an anonymous adviser as saying, "He felt it was very important to have a Kennedy in the Senate after he was gone, and when Hillary [Clinton] announced she was leaving the Senate to become secretary of state, Ted thought that Caroline should take her seat. He put it to Caroline almost like a last wish, and Caroline felt that she couldn’t let her uncle Teddy down." Caroline was miffed that Governor Paterson didn't immediately succumb to the romance of the Kennedy family name, Klein reports, and she called powerful DC friends to kvetch. Klein writes "This was a side of Caroline that few people had ever seen, or even suspected. According to one veteran lawyer who spoke with her, Caroline sounded like the old Bobby Kennedy—loud, harsh, and grating." Whoa. She apparently felt humiliated that her pedigree along with her professional creds weren't enough to automatically seal the deal. But she pursued the seat regardless, that is, until her family intervened. (MORE AFTER THE JUMP.)

Mark Leibovich profiles Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in the NYT today. It's an interesting study of the pragmatism of the White House (specifically Rahm Emmanuel) and the refreshing openness of LaHood himself. He tells Leibovich "I don’t think they picked me because they thought I’d be that great a transportation person," adding there were three reasons he was selection: bipartisanship, friendship and Congressional ties. The friendship piece refers to Emmanuel, a close friend of LaHood who openly wanted him in the Administration in some capacity. Obama told LaHood as much. Their closeness makes LaHood effective in this role, which he appears to have no particular passion for. He can pick up the phone anytime, and enlist the White House head honcho's help in combating obstructionists.

So far, the "bipartisan thing" hasn't really borne fruit. LaHood's long list of GOP pals hasn't done the White House that much good, at least where votes are concerned. Leibovich reports that LaHood considers his inability to garner Republican votes for the stimulus package "a personal failure" but that some GOPers on the Hill believe his presence in the cabinet has fostered goodwill. Your Gaggler thinks the jury is still out on that one: The GOP doesn't appear any more inclined to support the President's initiatives than it did during stimulus negotiations. If anything, as the SCOTUS fight approaches and the energy debate winds its way through the Hill, antagonism seems to be rising.

Your Gaggler thought it interesting though that LaHood seemed to have so little zeal for his portfolio. While Transportation might seem an agency of lesser importance, and thus easily given to Republican as a gesture of goodwill, transport is a critical part of the stimulus package, important to U.S. energy consumption and a favorite of the Vice President. But should Democrats hope his enthusiasm grows? Um, it depends:

When asked if he could foresee disagreeing with the administration on anything, Mr. LaHood shrugged, and eventually shook his head. “I’ve never been passionate about any particular issue,” he said. “I’m not going to sit around agonizing. The answer is, probably not.”

Our favorites this morning from around the web:

Prince Charles channels Obama
The British prince is far from being a tech savvy leader like Barack Obama, so to push his passionate cause -- environmental conservation -- he's been hiring the American web aces that helped get the American president elected. (Time)

Is the recession suffocating innovation?
U.S. thinkers haven't stopped coming up with new ideas for gizmos or marvels, but tight credit and business cutbacks have slowed the pace of bringing the latest American innovations to fruition. (AP)

Among conservatives, many are aimless
More voters now say they are conservatives than say they are Republicans, which one columnist says is a great starting point for a party pondering how to rebuild. (Wall Street Journal)

Obama's former pals may block the playground
Even though Obama appears to have a sizable mandate of votes in the senate, his former colleagues who are more centrist have begun pushing back on the size and price of the president's proposals. (NPR)

Special French talents
Just like a hangover, one way to get through a tough recession is to eat and sleep it off. A new study shows that the French excel at both activities more than any other country in the world. (AP)

Given all the hyperbolic chatter in the last few months about the imminent demise of the GOP (yes, I'm exaggerating...), The Daily Best decided to ask a bunch of prominent conservatives how to revitalize their ailing party. While most offered several paragraphs of analysis or prose, former McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt, in his characteristic straight-shooting, laconic style, offered just three short sentences. In the world according to Schmidt: "Politics is cyclical. Republicans will return to power. The only question is how long the march back will be." Time will tell, but Schmidt's words might end up being the most prescient of the bunch.

John Edwards: That’s someone we haven’t seen or heard from in a while, but chances are, we’re going to be talking about him a lot this week. On Sunday, the onetime Democratic presidential hopeful and former senator confirmed reports that federal investigators are looking into his use of campaign funds in relation to payments made to Rielle Hunter, the former campaign videographer who had an affair with Edwards. His political action committee paid a firm affiliated with Hunter more than $100,000 for video services, but as the Charlotte Observer reported yesterday, the inquiry could go deeper into “a cluster” of different non-profit groups affiliated with Edwards that haven’t been subject to the same rules of transparency, including one committee that raised almost $3.5 million from a single donor. For his part, Edwards denies wrongdoing and says he’s cooperating. “I am confident that no funds from my campaign were used improperly,” Edwards said in a statement yesterday.

But that’s not the only reason Edwards will be in the news. In a bit of either lucky or unfortunate timing—you be the judge—the former senator’s wife, Elizabeth, is out with a new book this week that talks about her husband’s affair with Hunter. According to ABC, the book’s publication was pushed up a week after excerpts appeared in the New York Daily News, and she’s set to appear Thursday on Oprah. In the book, Elizabeth calls Hunter “pathetic,” and writes that after she learned of the affair, a few days after he declared for president in 2006, she wanted her husband to quit the race. “He should not have run,” Elizabeth writes.

Jack Kemp, former GOP Vice Presidential Candidate and pro footballer, died this weekend at his home in Bethesda, Maryland. Newsweek's Eleanor "I think you're Swell-anor" Clift has written a column about him, in which she wonders if the GOP might be in a better place now had voices like Kemp's not been marginalized. She writes:  

Before there was John McCain, there was Jack Kemp, every Democrat's favorite conservative and a thorn in the side of the GOP. At the height of Reagan mania in the eighties, Kemp was pushing his party on civil rights and immigration at the same time he was one of President Reagan's principle foot soldiers on the push for tax cuts that would become the pillar of Republican politics......Kemp often said he had more interest in ideas than in partisanship, a formula that made him popular with Democrats but created friction inside his own party. When Republicans made a centerpiece of opposing immigration policies, Kemp dissented. He would have been a natural ally for President Bush, who took on his party to push for immigration reform, but by then Kemp was off the Republican radar, disparaged as a RINO—Republican in Name Only. He took being sidelined in stride, an attitude he credited to his career in pro-football. Asked in 1970 what qualified him to be a member of Congress, he said, "Pro football gave me a good sense of perspective to enter politics: I'd already been booed, cheered, cut, sold, traded and hung in effigy." 

Read the whole piece here.

Say what you will about George W. Bush: The guy liked to read, regularly devouring massive biographies of Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Lyndon Johnson and other public figures who, coincidentally, all had in common the fact that they had to make tough decisions while in office. As president, Bush even picked up a novel on occasion, including The Stranger by Albert Camus—prompting many reporters, including this one, to wonder, “Hmm.”

So far, reading du jour for President Obama has been thick briefing books. But everyone needs an escape. Over the weekend, we learned from his interview with the New York Times that Obama recently started reading Joseph O’Neill’s Netherland, a novel about a recently emigrated Dutch banker in post-9/11 New York who copes with marital strife by playing cricket. (That’s more culture than what his Secretary of State has been getting lately. In another piece published in the Times this weekend, Hillary Clinton says she hasn’t watched any movies or read any books in the last three months.) Here's what your Gaggler is wondering: Is Obama's reading list as powerful as an Oprah book club endorsement? We couldn't help but notice that Team of Rivals, Doris Kearns Goodwin's book about Abraham Lincoln, has seen a surge in sales since Obama cited it as one of his favorites during the campaign.

Our favorite reads this morning from around the web:

Prosecuting Bush's team? Maybe. Convicting? No way.
Could top Bush Admainistration officials still be prosecuted over the torture memos? Yes. But even as some Democrats smell blood, convictions of people like Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft and Tenet seem much less likely. (NY Magazine)

Fears of a pandemic
Top global health officials expect the swine flu will begin to mutate and infect animals, which humans consume, with the virus. A pandemic, they say, is on the way. (NPR)

A swine by any other name
Word of the swine flu spread last week faster than the flu itself. As it continues, those trying to stop it are having a much more trivial and quirky disagreement: what's the most politically correct thing to call it? (New Yorker)

America's new "lawn ornament"
The Smithsonian in Washington has chosen an architect for the newest museum, the African American History Museum, to be built on the National Mall. A Slate slideshow explores what it should look like. (Slate)

Who knew the White House would be so exciting?
Barack Obama's mother-in-law, Marian Robinson, relucantly moved into the White House to look after her granddaughters and keep them grounded. She's finding that (surprise!) the White House is a lot more fun than she thought. (NY Times)

Well, technically no: Your Gaggler officially blows at basketball. But, Mr. President, we’ll take you at skee ball anyday. Here’s video of Obama shooting hoops earlier this week at the White House with the UConn Lady Huskies, who won the NCAA national championship a few weeks ago. And, yes, viewers, you are seeing it correctly: Obama sinks every basket.

John Dickerson has an interesting piece over at Slate talking about the odd position President Obama finds himself in when he praises a Republican only to have other Democrats go after him (or her). The example he uses is Charlie Crist, the Republican governor of Florida, whom Obama praised earlier this year for standing up to his party and supporting the stimulus package. Crist, who is considering a U.S. Senate run, is now being attacked by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as a spineless politician who runs when problems get tough.  So who is he: A guy who rises above politics to do the right thing or an opportunistic politician?

This is a quandary that faces almost every president. You arrive in Washington and try to woo members of the opposite party, but the lawmakers most likely to work with you are moderates who happen to be on the target list for one of the political party committees. It’s super awkward, as George W. Bush learned plenty when he would invite Blue Dog Democrats to the White House to discuss common goals, like military issues, only to campaign against them a few weeks later on behalf of the GOP.

But this could be more of a problem for Obama, since he made the idea of rising above politics as usual in Washington a pinnacle of his campaign.

Our favorite nuggets this morning from all over the web:

Let the guessing games begin
The coming weeks will bring lots of speculation over who might be tapped by Barack Obama to fill the court seat vacated by David Souter. By our measure, the Associated Press has the first list, and thinks it'll probably be a woman. (AP)

Opinions hard to capture from military
The military's 'don't ask don't tell' policy on homosexual members could be on the verge of change. But opinions on it among members of the armed forces have always been mixed, and quite hard to capture. (NY Times)

Obama's EPA putting the breaks on approved energy projects
To the thrill of environmentalists, the Environmental Protection Agency has been halting permits for projects -- many of them related to fossil fuel energy production -- that the Bush Administration had formerly green lighted. (Washington Times)

British troops call it quits
Six years into the war in Iraq, British troops ended combat operations this week in the country, handing over control of Basra to U.S. forces, rather than the Iraqi Army. The opposition leader to Prime Minister Gordon Brown vows that an investigation into Britain's involvement will follow. (The Guardian)

Military using 'friend' as a verb
Economic downturns have always been good for military recruitment. Now, the army in particular is finding social networks like Facebook to be key tools in spreading the military's message. Oh, and the Air Force Twitters too. (AP)