Better late than never:

NYTimes:

President Obama on Tuesday blamed a “systemic failure” in the nation’s security apparatus for the attempted bombing of a passenger jet on Christmas Day and vowed to identify the problems and “deal with them immediately.” [. . .] Mr. Obama said a preliminary assessment already has made clear that there was a breakdown in the intelligence review system that did not properly identify the suspect as a dangerous extremist who should have been prevented from flying to the United States.

“A systemic failure has occurred and I consider that totally unacceptable,” Mr. Obama told reporters [. . .] The president said he has ordered government agencies to report back to him on Thursday about what happened and said he would “insist on accountability at every level,” although he did not elaborate.

The President's words are welcome.

Speaking for me only

Today President Obama announced the nomination of Ann Tompkins for U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina. She's a partner in the law firm Alston & Bird.

A few weeks ago, Obama nominated Thomas G. Walker to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina. He's also a partner at Alston & Bird.

Open Secrets says Alston & Bird is a lobbying firm that made $8.1 million in lobbying fees in 2009. Here are their health care clients. [More...]

TPMDC:

The drumbeat started early in the process - no matter what the final health care bill looks like when it reaches President Obama's desk, it will do more for Americans than ever before. [. . .] Leadership and the White House want a bill, and the message machine will be cranking up into high gear to push the historic nature of the legislation's basics.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs [. . .] - and Peter Orszag, and Nancy-Ann DeParle, and on - tell reporters and voters to "keep in mind" that once the legislation is passed more than 30 million people who never had health care will have it [. . .]

What they DO NOT say - that the 30 million people getting insurance do not get it because of the Mandate, or the Exchange, or the Excise Tax. What they do not seem to get is that they will NEVER get 60 votes in the Senate for their "health care reform." Strip down the bill for reconciliation and we can insure 30 million Americans. Stick to selling the capitulation - and Obama and his Village Blogger pom pom waving cheerleaders will end up with nothing.

Speaking for me only

Being President of the United States at any time is probably the most difficult job in the world. Becoming President after the worst President in history left the nation in shambles puts Barack Obama in the position of being able to say his job is as difficult as any person's since FDR. That and 3 dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Let me put it bluntly, saying the job is hard at this point will do no one a bit of good - politically or otherwise. Ezra Klein tries anyway:

Noam Scheiber compares the task facing deficit hawks in 2009 to the task facing deficit hawks in 1993 [. . .] As Noam [. . .] explain[s], one of the difficulties facing the Obama team is that it was a lot easier to see how to kick-start the economy in 1993 than in 2009. [. . .]

And it's a lot easier to see how to kickstart the economy now than it was in 1933. You see, Keynes had not yet been proven right. More . . .

President Obama's speech in Oslo is justly winning some good reviews. The problem of course is that the speech is not one that should be delivered by the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize at the awards ceremony. Jon Chait wrote:

I’m not a big fan of political speeches in general, but I thought President Obama’s Nobel acceptance speech today was unusually good. [. . .] After again acknowledging that he doesn’t really deserve the award-- [. . .] Obama set out his foreign policy worldview.

As someone who agrees with President Obama's foreign policy worldview (including his Afghanistan policy), it just is jarring to me to see the Nobel Peace Prize cheapened in this way. The Peace Prize is supposed to be for great accomplishments in advancing peace or great advocates for peace. It is rare that a President of the United states, due to the nature of the job, can even be considered for the award. It is obvious that President Obama is not worthy of the award (and I say that largely with a sigh of relief -- at this time, I do not want a President worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.)

I again want to be clear - I think the President made the best of a bad situation. My criticism is solely directed at the Nobel Prize Committee.

speaking for me only

Through no fault of his own, President Obama is obliged to participate in a travesty of a mockery:

Nine days after announcing a major intensification of the war in Afghanistan, President Obama arrived at Norway’s City Hall Thursday to formally accept the Nobel Peace Prize during a series of events to commemorate the award created 108 years ago by Alfred Nobel. “The goal is not to win a popularity contest or to get an award — even one as esteemed as the Nobel Peace Prize,” Mr. Obama said, when asked by a reporter here whether he believed his honor was premature. “The goal is to advance American interests, make ourselves a continuing force for good in the world — something that we have been for decades now.”

He added, “And If I’m successful in those tasks, then hopefully some of the criticism will subside, but that’s not really my concern. And if I’m not successful, then all the praise and the awards in the world won’t disguise that fact.” Mr. Obama flew here overnight from Washington with his wife, Michelle, and a small group of friends and relatives.

(Emphasis supplied.) What can President Obama do? The fools on the Nobel Committee have caused this travesty, not Obama. It is their fault, not Obama's. His statement was just right imo. Hopefully it makes it into his speech.

Speaking for me only

This should be interesting:

President Obama on Thursday will talk about his decision to send 30,000 more troops to fight the war in Afghanistan when accepting his Nobel Peace Prize. [. . ] "The president will talk about what it means to receive a Nobel Peace Prize in the wake of his Afghanistan decision," the aide said. "He will also focus on ways in which the international community can more effectively prevent needless conflict and promote peace across the globe."

(Emphasis supplied.) That reminds me of that SNL skit -- "What Were They Thinking?"

Speaking for me only

Who'da thunk it?

There was something interesting OMB Chief Peter Orszag said this morning in his comments at the National Press Club. He pointed to Paul Starr's recent piece which argued that the Public Option has gotten much more press attention than it deserves relative to the importance of the 'exchanges' in terms of creating competition and reducing costs. [. . .] Orszag's only explicit reference was to the over-focus on the Public Option. But that point only makes sense in the concept of the policy critique. So I suspect this reference may tell us more about White House thinking than people realize.

Shorter Josh Marshall - the Obama Administration opposes the public option. I am shocked I tell you. Shocked!

Speaking for me only

The Village Blogs have adopted Jacob Weisberg's clarion pom poms in arguing that President Obama is having the most transformative first year any Democrat has had since FDR. This strikes me as a ludicrous claim. Chris Bowers discusses Nathan Newman's much more reasonable claim that President Obama has achieved small progressive victories. Chris makes the salient point that Newman's list of achievements are largely a part of a temporary stimulus bill, not lasting, transformative change. I want to add a point I have made before - the biggest change in the first year of a Democratic Presidency since FDR was President Bill Clinton's revamping of the U.S. tax structure. Clinton has been labelled by these same pom pom wavers as an incrementalist, small bore President, but they always ignore, as they must, the most important progressive accomplishment of the past 40 years - the raising of taxes on the well off and the lowering of the tax burden on the less well off enacted by President Clinton. I'll repeat from my earlier post on the subject here:

We are so screwed:

This recession has taught us that we can’t return to a situation where America’s economic growth is fueled by consumers who take on more and more debt. In order to keep growing, we need to spend less, save more, and get our federal deficit under control. We also need to place a greater emphasis on exports that we can build, produce, and sell to other nations – exports that can help create new jobs at home and raise living standards throughout the world.

This is insane. Either Obama is a fool or he is listening to fools. If he really believes this and acts in consistent fashion, the country will soon see 13% unemployment, the Democratic Party will be doomed to defeat and Obama could well be a one term President. My gawd, Hoover could not have said it better.

Speaking for me only