Innumerable policy shops and interest group around DC have already put out strategic blueprints for a policy agenda in the new administration. But if President Obama's staff is committed to new and innovative ideas outside the traditional beltway parameters, as expressed during his campaign, he ought to take a look up at some proposals coming from up North.

MIT's Center for International Studies, where I've recently began to hang my hat, has put out a very succinct briefing book on some familiar and some fresh foreign policy ideas. Some of the more provocative and notable ones include:

• Richard Samuels's proposal on Asia to forgo a democracy alliance that contains China for a more inclusive Asian security arrangement modelled on the OSCE, ASEAN, and six-party talks, with the interim being filled by a revitalized US-Japanese relationship;
• Barry Posen's suggestion to name the first European Supreme Allied Commander of NATO to limit free-riding and thrust greater responsibility and pride on European militaries and their publics;
• Fotini Christia's three-staged strategy to salvage Afghanistan beginning with negotiations with the Taliban to split their fractious ranks;
• Peter Krause's serious steps to win "the war of ideas" including tripling the number of annual fulbright students and reconfiguring Al-Hurra to a C-Span-like model;
• Sarah Zuckerman's approach to consolidate Plan Comumbia's real though less visible gains by maintaining but redirecting funding away from aerial spraying and military units that continue to abuse human rights;
• Paul Staniland's advice to stifle the grand shuttle diplomacy impulse (much to Richard Holbrooke's chagrin) for more subtle local policy initiatives in Kashmir to reach a settlement.

The entire set of proposals is worth reading. Do not let the brevity deceive you -- each of these authors have eschewed the lengthy academic paper format to meet the needs of their target audience. It goes to show that people outside Washington are seriously trying to contribute to the conversation about America's national security challenges. It remains to be seen whether those inside the beltway will listen.

--Sameer Lalwani

My New America Foundation colleague Daniel Mandel spends the wee hours of the morning every work day assembling an often amazing, comprehensive roster of some of the best articles on the American economy.

I have his permission to forward this daily email to those who would like to have it. I will assemble a listserv and blind copy to those interested in it.

If you would like to receive this daily email, send me a private note at "steve@thewashingtonnote.com" or "clemons@newamerica.net" and just say Subcribe/Econ List. I will then send it out to those who are interested after he sends to me.

Here was Daniel Mandel's email today of the "Top Thinkers on the Global Economy":

30 January 2009

GDP Declines 3.8% in Q4
Calculated Risk, 30 January 2009

A proposal to prevent wholesale financial failure
Lasse Pedersen and Nouriel Roubini, Financial Times, 29 January 2009
Bank regulation, such as the Basel accord, ignores systemic risk since it analyses the risk of each bank in isolation, write Lasse Pedersen and Nouriel Roubini.

Deflation is the wrong enemy
Samuel Brittan, Financial Times, 29 January 2009
A sustained period of falling prices has sometimes been associated with falling output, but not always, writes Samuel Brittan.

Why this hysteria about sterling is misplaced
George Magnus, Financial Times, 29 January 2009
Sterling may decline further, mercifully. But it is hysterical to imagine that a debt default and currency crisis are likely, writes George Magnus.

Health Care Now
Paul Krugman, New York Times, 30 January 2009
Why has the Obama administration been silent about one of the key promises during the campaign -- the promise of guaranteed health care for all Americans?

Cleaner and Faster
David Brooks, New York Times, 30 January 2009
The Democrats have created a stimulus package that is a sprawling, undisciplined smorgasbord. By trying to do everything all it once, the bill does nothing well.

Social Security on the First Date
Ramesh Ponnuru, New York Times, 30 January 2009
Real cooperation between Democrats and Republicans on Social Security could pave the way for bipartisan bliss.

Time to put middle class front and center
Joe Biden, USA Today, 30 January 2009
For years, we had a White House that failed to put the middle class front and center in its economic policies. President Obama has made it clear that is going to change. And it's why he has asked me to lead a task force on the middle class.

The GOP's Unanimous Vote on the Stimulus Bill
Eugene Robinson, Washington Post, 30 January 2009
Republicans should beware the fate of those who fail to recognize a new political era.

Democratic Stealth Care
Kimberley A. Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 30 January 2009
With the nation preoccupied by the financial crisis, Democrats have been quietly qorking nationalize health care.

Sovereign Debt Risk Looms Large This Year
Ulrich Volz, Wall Street Journal, 30 January 2009
The U.S. shouldn't consume all the available lending.

'Think Long' to Solve the Crisis
George P. Shultz, Wall Street Journal, 30 January 2009
It's the only way to sustain lasting benefits from the stimulus.

Loan Modification Can Stop the Foreclosure Crisis
John Conyers Jr., Wall Street Journal, 30 January 2009
Change bankruptcy law to keep people in their homes.

A free pass for the indispensable man
Jonah Goldberg, Chicago Tribune, 29 January 2009
Obama and pretty much the entire Democratic Party insist that they speak for the little guy. But it appears they fight for the big guys.

Old ways cloud the dawn of a new bipartisan era
Editorial, USA Today, 30 January 2009
House stimulus vote shows parties aren't serious about collaboration.

Opposing view: GOP has a better plan
John Boehner, USA Today, 30 January 2009
Democrats' bill, crafted without us, is unworthy of bipartisan support.

Opposing view: History repeats itself
Steny Hoyer, USA Today, 30 January 2009
Once again, Republicans choose confrontation over cooperation.

Just how much is $350 billion?
Brad Setser: Follow the Money, 30 January 2009

Any Lessons for the Stimulus from World War II?
Brad DeLong, 29 January 2009
Paul Krugman pounds his head against the wall.

Fed Watch: More Will they or Won't They or When Will They
Mark Thoma: Economist's View, 30 January 2009

Blanchard roundtable
Free Exchange, 30 January 2009
Noted economists reply to this week's Economics Focus column by Olivier Blanchard, the IMF's chief economist.

Let me know by email if you would like to receive this resource on a daily basis.

-- Steve Clemons

Below is a statement from Christina D. Romer, Chair, Council of Economic Advisors on the Fourth Quarter 2008 Advance GDP Estimate:

Real GDP fell at an annual rate of 3.8% in the fourth quarter of 2008. This was the largest one-quarter fall since 1982 and the second consecutive quarter of real GDP decline. A substantial increase in real inventory investment (from a large negative number in 2008Q3 to a small positive number in 2008Q4) mitigated the overall decline somewhat. Real final sales, GDP less the change in private inventories, declined at an annual rate of 5.1%. The large decline confirms the evidence from other indicators, such as payroll employment and the unemployment rate, that the U.S. economy continues to contract severely. Aggressive, well-designed fiscal stimulus is critical to reversing this severe decline and putting the economy on the road to recovery and improved long-run growth.

The decline in GDP was spread throughout the economy. Personal consumption expenditures declined at an annual rate of 3.5%, which was similar to the fall in the third quarter of 2008; these falls were the largest since 1980. Nonresidential fixed investment fell 19.1% and exports fell 19.7%. The decline in motor vehicle output was particularly severe, accounting for 2.0 percentage points of the overall fall in GDP of 3.8%. This widespread decline emphasizes that the problems that began in our housing and financial sector have spread to nearly all areas of the economy. Immediate action to support both the financial sector and overall demand is essential.

-- Steve Clemons

(Did not run into David Corn today; photo courtesy of the News Hour with Jim Lehrer)

The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb dubbed my post about David Corn, policy, and my constantly running into him as perhaps one of the most self-absorbed blog posts he's ever read. I've probably written some others over the past four and a half years that beat that one -- but his point is probably on target, regrettably.

I was actually trying to be humorous -- and as I've reported on this blog before, I'm lousy at jokes and not that good at humor. I am envious of my friend and former Newt Gingrich aide Robert George who blogs at Ragged Thots as he has real stand-up comedy skills. I just don't.

But the real reason I wrote about the David Corn stuff was that I wanted to share some of the references about Ben Affleck and Gaza, as reported in the Washington Post -- and wanted to use that Mary Ann Akers clip as a way to lead into a separate subject on John Kerry's discussion with Ben Affleck about the US economy. Circular reasoning, I know -- but that was what was going on in my head.

So, apologies to those who were ticked by the self-indulgence of that blog post... I thought at the time that there were more reasons for writing in the style that I did. . .but sometimes, one just belly-flops and does something over the top and silly.

The bigger point I was trying to make is that substantive policy discussions can occur at the most vapid-looking parties.

And by the way, I didn't see David Corn today. ;-)

-- Steve Clemons

The howls of outrage emanating from European capitals following the Russia-Ukraine gas row have led some to conclude that Europe will move quickly to diversify its natural gas supply at Russia's expense. In fact, it is more likely that Russia's aggressive move will reinforce Europe's internal divisions and yield strategic dividends over the long-term.

The Europeans have known for years that they are dangerously dependent on Russian gas. Nevertheless, Europe continues to import one quarter of its gas from Gazprom.

The centerpiece of Europe's energy security strategy is the Nabucco project, a proposal to bring Central Asian gas directly to Europe through a pipeline from Turkey to Austria via Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. Ministers from these countries met in Budapest this week to discuss the 2,112-mile, $10.7 billion project. While the conference's concluding document supposedly sets the project on the path toward completion in 2019, many obstacles remain.

The biggest unresolved question is, who will supply the gas? Uzbekistan has pledged its allegiance to Russia, Turkmenistan has huge reserves, but remains under Russia's grip at least for now, and Azerbaijan - thought to be the most reliable potential supplier - is supporting Russia's competing pipeline as well. Iran has been excluded for political reasons, and Iraq is unstable.

Furthermore, key disagreements among the transit and consuming countries persist. Last week, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan threatened to halt cooperation on the project unless Brussels opened the energy chapter in its accession negotiations. Even Hungary, which would clearly benefit from having an alternative supplier, is hedging its bets - agreeing to cooperate with Russia on its competing South Stream pipeline.

Finally, even if these and other numerous obstacles were overcome, Nabucco's capacity would only be 31 billion cubic meters (bcm) per year, a fraction of Europe's annual appetite of 500bcm. Therefore, even under the best-case scenario, Russia will continue to supply a large portion of Europe's gas.

This vulnerability provides Moscow with a crucial geopolitical weapon, but at this point the weapon is a blunt one because 80% of Russia's exports to Europe go through Ukraine. That means that Russia cannot shut off Ukraine's gas without assuming the political and economic costs of leaving other European countries cold as well. For that reason, Russia is pursuing a divide and conquer strategy to maximize its leverage and flexibility.

Russia plans to build several more pipelines aimed at specific markets. The Nord Stream will go under the Baltic Sea directly to Germany, and the South Stream will run under the Black Sea to Italy via Bulgaria. In addition, a third pipeline called the Blue Stream already runs directly from Russia to Turkey, and plans are underway to extend it to points further southeast.

While each of these projects has its own difficulties, Prime Minister Putin is wiling to devote immense resources to win this new "great game." Putin has held talks with Iran and Qatar about forming an OPEC-like cartel for gas, and last summer's war with Georgia left little doubt as to Russia's willingness to use force.

The bottom line is that whether or not the Nabucco pipeline is built, Europe will remain uncomfortably dependent on Russian gas for the foreseeable future.

--Ben Katcher

(Steve Clemons and Ben Affleck -- and a glimpse of David Corn mostly eclipsed by Susan Eisenhower's hair)

Unlike "Roger" in Michael Moore's Roger and Me, I really like David Corn -- and I have no problem seeing him unlike the elusive and never reachable Roger. In fact, I am running into David Corn everywhere, constantly. . .to the point where I feel like one of us is stalking the other.

David Corn is a big time blogger, pundit, and hard-hitting wonk at some of DC's coolest parties. He is the DC Bureau Chief for Mother Jones and used to hold the same position with The Nation. He's a regular on all the MSNBC news shows -- particularly Countdown. I attend the same, often glitzy gatherings he does and then get in deep conversations about Gaza, or the need to engage Hamas, or why Scowcroft, Nixon and Hagel would be the foreign policy progressives of our time (David would probably cough when I mentioned Nixon).

David Corn was on a panel with me recently when we both spoke about the media, bipartisanship and foreign policy for Search for Common Ground. He was at the Maureen Dowd party I enjoyed so much and which swept much of the Maureen Dowd-hating universe my way (some of them regular TWN readers). Corn was at the Huffington Post Inaugural bash and at the Google/YouTube Party.

I event sat next to David not too long ago at a Jackson Brown concert at the Warner Theater -- complete coincidence.

More recently, we both went to a Center for Democracy in the Americas reception for the opening of the new movie Che with Benecio del Toro -- and waited for him, until Benecio stormed out, pissed off that he thought he had been sandbagged with a Washington Times reporter. del Toro did not know that David Corn and I would have been worth having some margaritas with to get the real Che story told right. (By the way, the film is being distributed by Film on Demand...it's four hours long and worth it....so enjoy in your own home).

And then a day or so after, I ran into David on the street as I left an interview with Al Arabiya (I was the first American to interview in their DC studio after the network scored its White House interview with Barack Obama Monday evening this week). And then I walked David over to the White House, where he was going to go show his face more often.

And then I saw this note in "The Sleuth" column of The Washington Post identifiying David Corn and myself as the "wonkiest of wonks" in Washington. This actually made me happy.

And then the columnist, Mary Ann Akers, disclosed that we were talking to Ben Affleck for a really long time about a lot of stuff -- the economy, Affleck's new documentary on Nick Kristof, the Middle East, and the like. There were about 50 people standing around us, and Susan Eisenhower was in on the discussion too.

I'm not going to comment on exactly what Affleck said -- but I want to say that he impressed me with his passion and the level of detailed understanding that he had about the dilemmas we face in the Middle East. He has his views -- and he's not shy about broadcasting them, but he also listens to alternative takes. I think Ben Affleck can be an important voice on the need to approach many of the country's foreign policy problems without the kind of biases we have had before.

And though I'm surprised that I'm saying this, I hope that Affleck finds a way to continue to engage DC on this foreign policy stuff. He likes Obama, knows Rahm Emanuel well. He has channels and needs to be careful of mixing industries and hurting his brand -- but I can attest to the fact that his head was clearly packed with the right detail, logic, and context to make very reasoned, balanced arguments on the Middle East -- way better than the standard fare I hear from seasoned Middle East peace business practitioners.

The picture above was taken at the Google/YouTube-Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Inaugural Party by one of the many dozens huddled around trying to listen to the 20 minute conversation -- and the clip below ran in the Post. I won't comment on the content of what Ben was reported to have said as we said a lot -- and this clip makes it sound like a lot of attitude packed into a bumper sticker line -- and what Affleck spoke about that night was reasoned, complex and made a lot of sense. I hope that Rahm Emanuel did listen a bit if they were in fact discussing these kinds of foreign policy issues.

From The Sleuth at the Washington Post:

Grande Finale of Inauguralpalooza: God, Gays and Gaza

The fifth and final night of inaugural partying was like a cork popping off a champagne bottle. The inner party animal in thousands of revelers came out.

But this being Washington, there was just as much energy put into celebrating as there was debating what Barack Obama will do now that he's president - namely about the Middle East and the economy.

At the Google party, the hot ticket of the final night, Ben Affleck, who became usual suspect No. 1 on the inauguration party scene, was engaged in rigorous conversation with a few of Washington's wonkiest wonks (including liberal journalist David Corn and Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation).

Affleck was railing about the Israeli invasion of Gaza. And, thanks to his special access, he said he has already registered his concerns with the highest echelons of the Obama administration. He said he gave White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel an earful about Israel at a private dinner the night before.

It pays to have an agent who is the brother of the new White House chief of staff. Affleck's agent is Ari Emanuel, the model for obnoxious Hollywood super agent Ari Gold in the hit HBO show "Entourage."

Later, Affleck was spotted having an intense chat with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) about the economy.

Real policy talk at DC parties. It can happen.

-- Steve Clemons

The week that former US Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad was leaving the United Nations, I asked him to share his thoughts about American diplomacy, the UN as an institution, nation building and our brewing problems in Afghanistan at an event at the New America Foundation.

This relatively short 11-minute discussion was separately recorded and includes the following questions:

What does Khalilzad think of the United Nations as an institution?

Does the UN help or harm American interests?

What boxes didn't Khalilzad get checked off during his tenure?

What does Khalilzad think about nation-building today, particularly looking at Afghanistan today and a piece he wrote in 2005 for National Interest on nation-building there?

What does he think about changing the equilibrium in the Middle East?

How would he approach Hamas?

What was the back story on the Israel/Gaza ceasefire resolution?

I think it's a fascinating exchange as was the longer program and hope some of you find it of interest.

-- Steve Clemons

In the period between President Obama's November 2008 victory at the polls and his taking office on January 20, 2009, members of Obama's transition team began talking to military planners about various options that might be available for dealing with Somali pirates.

In my estimation, this is smart planning by the Obama team. It's always smart to have serious options and gamed-out scenarios for brewing national security problems.

But the source recounted to me that those asking for the development of these option plans seemed more focused on whether a low-cost, low loss-of-American lives action could be quickly taken in a strike against pirates because of the need to demonstrate that Americans could still strike hard and achieve their military and political objectives.

The source worried that in my source's opinion, there was perhaps not enough consideration of what it might be like to potentially open yet a third active military front in that region.

This is very interesting to me because after Obama's election, I believed that Obama would have to find a small country to bomb, or find a way to flex his military muscles as a way to ward off accusations of being "appeaser-in-chief" when opening negotiations with Iran, Syria, and other problematic countries.

His tough-edged team of Robert Gates at Defense, Jim Jones at the NSC, and Hillary Clinton at State seemed to take down a notch the need for credential building, but I still worried a bit that Obama might do something rash early on in his administration, like John F. Kennedy had done, to prove that he had a hard side.

Since the Israel invasion of Gaza, I sense that this desire to start a conflict, even a small one using special force units, has dissipated -- but still could happen. And frankly, the Somali pirates are a problem that may need to be dealt with in such a way.

While I hope that Obama is not eager to execute any of the options that may have been prepared for him by the military and intelligence bureacracies on the pirates, this could still take place soon.

I was surprised to see this report that Japan, largely absent from global affairs as of late, is going to get in to action in sea lane protection off the Somali coast -- throwing some of their military capacity into the Somali pirate problem.

Japan rarely moves unless it senses America will too.

-- Steve Clemons

Michael Lind, now my colleague at the New America Foundation but eleven years ago the Washington Editor of Harper's Magazine, wrote a great article in August 1998 titled "Washington Meal Ticket: How to Buy a Senator's Smile."

After the major round of ethics reform legislation Congress had passed back then after a spate of scandals, I was the off-the-record "Deep Throat" source that gave Michael lots of ways that lobbyists and influence peddlers could get around the law. . .and thus make a Senator smile.

"Pay for play" has been part of Washington since Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison were wrestling over where to site Washington, DC -- and probably before then -- but that doesn't make it right.

Republican Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ) is now trying to raise the issue again -- linking the Blogojevich "pay for play" scandal to what happens every day in Congress with those who make campaign contributions and hope for special treatment from their legislators.

It's also very cool that he is in part spreading the word through Facebook, where i just got a note from him (or his team).

This from a Roll Call article by Tory Newmyer today:

Facing a surprisingly tough re-election challenge in the closing days of his 2008 campaign, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) called on a well-established network of his earmarking beneficiaries to bail him out. And the defense industry contractors, several of whom had pulled down millions of dollars in Murtha earmarks in the 2009 defense spending bill, responded by flooding his coffers with what amounted to rescue cash.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who is pushing a rules change to clamp down on lawmakers fundraising from earmark recipients, said recent revelations about the extent of the practice highlight the need to restrict it.

"Pay to play is rampant in the earmarking process, and it needs to stop," he said.

Apparently, rules changes that Jeff Flake has proposed would ban Members from "proposing earmarks if they received campaign contributions from anyone related to the company getting the earmark, including lobbyists, company employees and political action committees." (Roll Call, 27 January)

I admire Flake for throwing himself at this brand of corruption. But as a realist in these matters, while I think we need to keep filling in the loopholes, I'm sure Senators and House Members will still be smiling in 2020.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest post by former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy James Glassman. I interviewed Jim Glassman, who also previously served as Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, in a short exchange for The Washington Note here -- and this is a longer video clip of James Glassman's presentation at the New America Foundation on the subject, "Public Diplomacy 2.0."

These views are James Glassman's alone. He is the highest-ranking official in the Bush administration to appear on Al Jazeera. I appear on Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and Al Hurra frequently -- and do recommend that President Obama appear as well on all of those networks.

A note from James K. Glassman:

President Obama deserves congratulations for his interview on Al Arabiya, a network that has shown responsibility and professionalism, lately in stark contrast lately to Al Jazeera.

As someone who has dealt with all the major Arabic language stations, I suggest that his next interview should be on Radio Sawa, the U.S.-taxpayer-funded radio network that is aimed mainly at young people, with a mix of music and public affairs. It's the largest single Arabic-language net in the Mideast and has a big audience in some critical markets, including the West Bank, where it's broadcast on five separate FM stations.

Next, he should do a call-in show, "Roundtable With You," on Persian News Network, a U.S.-funded satellite stream in Farsi that reaches more than 28 percent of Iranians each week. PNN is the best way directly to reach the Iranian people.

And before his administration starts what everyone expects will be diplomat-to-diplomat contact, Obama should go to the Iranians themselves, who LIKE us.

By the way, in appearing on PNN (as he did in appearing on Al Arabiya), Obama would not be breaking new ground, but he would have a huge impact. President Bush appeared on Al Arabiya several times, dating back at least to 2004. He also gave a Persian new year's greeting in 2008 on PNN.

I tried mightily, and to no avail, to get President Bush to go on "Roundtable With You," but perhaps the White House was right, and it would have been a risk taking unfiltered questions.

But there would be little such risk for Obama. So, two quick hits: Sawa and Persian News Network.

After that, perhaps Al Jazeera and Alhurra.

And one small suggestion to a man who knows that words count: Don't use the phrase "Muslim world." The implication is that all societies with Muslim populations -- from Indonesian to Yemen to India to France -- constitute a monolith.

That is simply untrue, and unconstructive.

Use the term "Muslim societies."

-- James Glassman

My New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force colleague Daniel Levy, a former Israeli government negotiator who was at the table whenever any key progress was made in Israel-Palestine negotiations and then wrote the Israeli draft of the well-known Geneva Initiative, believes that there is no credible path forward on Israel-Palestine issues and the broader Middle East without generating a formula that ends the isolation of Hamas and tries to get all stakeholders in the eventual outcome to wrestle towards a new and stable equilibrium -- that will hopefully leave a secure Israel and a viable Palestinian state.

But the Israel-rejecting Hamas that has become in the eyes of many aggrieved Palestinians, sick of Occupation and its toxic dynamics, a legitimate vehicle for their interests in fighing the Israeli forces and expansion of Jewish settlements is not an easy organizational creature to deal with -- whether one wanted to or not.

This problem of not knowing who to speak to even if one wanted to was also part of the IRA problem in negotiations between Northern Ireland and England.

Levy, though, has an interesting idea. Get Hamas to look more like the IRA.

I submit it here for consideration because it is an approach I had not thought of before -- and may be something that Presidential Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell may be considering (though he won't be talking to Hamas of course, not directly). I just know that a lot of folks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt follow this blog -- and of course Daniel Levy's writing and thinking.

From The Guardian today:

Mitchell may have already spoken to Hamas on an earlier mission. He visited Gaza and there is speculation that Hamas representatives were present at some of the meetings.

Daniel Levy, who worked for the Israeli government and was involved in the various peace initiatives, said: "The issue, certainly at this stage is not one of US direct engagement with Hamas, but a recognition - even if undeclared - that Hamas will have to be brought into the process, either in the context of internal Palestinian reconciliation or in their own right."

In Northern Ireland, a distinction was drawn between the political wing of the Republican movement, Sinn Fein, and its military wing, the IRA. The same might be done with Hamas's political wing and its armed militia, the Izz-Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades, Levy said.

I think that the isolation of Hamas needs to end to if we are going to get to serious negotiations that produce any different endgame -- but talking to Hamas and appeasing them are different matters.

We will see what form of engagement George Mitchell organizes in the region and which proxies he works through in dealing with Hamas -- but it's time to realize that the notion that we can prescribe a winner in a Palestinian civil war or that we can choose the winners over the losers in Palestine without undermining the winner is folly.

This approach of promoting a Sinn Fein like approach to dealing with Hamas deserves some discussion.

Mitchell knows this, but I fear many around Obama are advising him to turn the much weakened Mahmoud Abbas into a latter day political winner with American gifts showered on him to trickle down to his people. The time for that approach is long gone.

-- Steve Clemons

No Team of Rivals on the economics side.

The deep ideological divide that is emerging in the economics profession between those who worried about manic neoliberalism and Bob Rubin-style turbo-charged tilts towards an increasing unregulated finance industry is not hitting the Obama administration - because it is only hiring one side of that divide.

As best I can tell Obama is stacking his team with those who George Soros disdainfully calls "market fundamentalists."

Liaquat Ahmed metaphorically profiles the Rubin-led financial ideologues in his Depression-focused new book, The Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke the World.

George Soros has told me that there is a big difference between them, but honestly, I'm still straining to see the the difference between Hank Paulson's views and those of Lawrence Summers, though i know Summers is working hard to revise his vies.

But take a gander at Joe Stiglitz's comments on the nation's financial crisis. His candid comments near the end of the piece that the U.S. must do something to better align the interests of failing financial institutions with American priorities and needs makes sense -- and his prescriptions make sense. . .but they are starkly different than what we are hearing from Obama Land right now.

Interestingly, I learned recently -- and this is a bit of a counterpoint to my argument -- that Lawrence Summers called Stiglitz privately to get some counsel on what was going on. Summers apparently made clear that he didn't want to be making the call to Stiglitz -- but had to. In other words, there is someone above Summers who wants diverse inputs into his economic policy thinking. The problem is that this interest in diversity is completely missing on his actual team.

There were names here and there who might have kept some balance between those who could think through the micro-economic dimensions of economic policy and the macro types who helped contribute to today's problems -- but Obama's selections have mostly been the latter type of Robert Rubin acolytes. I would count Council of Economic Advisors Chair Christina Romer in that mix as well as both National Economic Council Chair Lawrence Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Today, we hear the news that former Hamilton Project Director Jason Furman (good guy -- and friend of mine) who also served as Obama's campaign senior economic policy director is going to be one of the National Economic Council deputies. The other is McKinsey Global Institute director and former Goldman Sachs alum Diana Farrell, who admittedly is also a friend but tilts towards market fundamentalism like all of the others on the Obama team.

Obama has essentially brought in the same crowd of people or ideological fellow travelers who helped hatch the Clinton era manic finance fest that the Bush administration made worse.

Labor must be freaking out.

Obama chose in his decision for Commerce Secretary not to run with Leo Hindery, a Democratic CEO, who has vast experience in the broadband and telecommunications field but who helped animate many of John Edwards' progressive campaign ideas on rewriting America's domestic economic social contract.

Skipping over Hindery may have been the work of some others close to Obama who worship at the alter of Robert Rubin. And they too are part of the increasingly ideological incestuous pool of thinking on economic policy.

Now, word is that outgoing Symantec CEO John W. Thompson may be the next Commerce Secretary. I know Thompson only at a distance and have nothing good or negative to say about him -- other than it's great he knows something about American technology and high wage jobs given his deep roots in Silicon Valley.

But he should also know that while many IT software firms produced vast wealth in the middle of the internet industry bubble, the American job base did not get a high wage job trickle down from those sectors, at least not to the degree that was expected.

In fact, Silicon Valley -- while clearly a revolutionary place -- mimicked much of the pattern of Wall Street. Another go-go bubble with a few getting vastly wealthy while the rest of the country chugged along in the real economy, detached from the growth and gains of those sectors.

I realize that this is a bit of an overstatement unless acknowledging the many efficiencies American and global society absorbed from the IT boom, but still -- my point is that Obama has no one on board who essentially is considered an economic heavyweight who thinks that America's domestic covenant, or social contract, with its citizens must be redesigned.

Wait, there is one person -- former Economic Policy Institute labor economist Jared Bernstein, but he is assigned to Vice President Biden -- not to President Obama's economic slots.

Obama and Rahm Emanuel have hired a group of people who are going to make the rich stay rich -- and who are not designed to really change things for the middle class or the struggling lower end.

After all, it was they who said that the economy was booming, that offshoring was great, that manufacturing was not important, that those CEOs deserved that high pay and little could be done about it, and the reason that the middle class was being left behind is that they were becoming less globally competitive and/or they didn't have the educational background or fortitude to keep pace with the highest end earners.

John W. Thompson looks interesting - but at this point, he's not being considered as a core part of the "economic war room team" -- but I hope if he is good and reads this blog post that he will get in there and demand his seat at the table (if nominated and confirmed) and that he will take his Commerce Secretary job seriously. Few have in recent decades.

Thompson is an entrepreneur, an African-American, and a former "Bush Ranger" -- yep, it's all part of the bipartisan thing. . .but what is most important is someone who can get our "winner takes all economy" to really help all boats rise again. My choice would have been Hindery -- but if Thompson is going to get the job -- he must take on the cause of seriously wrestling with Obama's manic neoliberals to help promote American high wage jobs.

Here is an interesting profile and Q&A of Thompson that a friend just sent me from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.

Because while business is important to have in the room -- so too must people think about how the whole operation -- not just capital works. That means workers, families, technology, firms, and government. Hilda Solis from Labor should be in there too -- but Labor always seems to be just outside the door when the big economic guns are making their plans.

-- Steve Clemons

Ann Lewis, who has been one of the nation's leading activists for women's rights, and a long time adviser to and confidante of Hillary Clinton has just initiated a new non-profit organization called "No Limits."

The group was inspired by comments that Hillary Clinton made at the 2008 Denver Democratic Convention and may do much to keep a solid infrastructure in place of many of those who led 18 million people to vote for Hillary in that primary.

From the organization website:

Inspired by Hillary's speech in Denver, when she said "With our ingenuity, innovative spirit and creativity, there are no limits to what is possible in America," we formed No Limits so that we can continue working together on the issues that are important to us.

No Limits is a new community dedicated to speaking up, sharing ideas and solving problems in our communities, our cities, our states, and our world. It is about empowering one another through our common experiences to address the challenges before us.

I think that capacity building, community infrastructure building across the country are vital activities given the economic crisis that is hitting the country. Lots of folks are going to need support.

So, I support this and other such causes and think Ann Lewis will do well giving Hillary's national base and those who believe in her some new and important tasks.

-- Steve Clemons

The Editorial Board of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has published an familiar attack on the military and political authorities that kept Guantanamo buffered from normal American legal processes.

In a piece, titled "Guantanamo justice, evidence appalling", the Jay Bookman on behalf of the editors writes:

Army Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld is a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and a prosecutor with well over a hundred criminal jury trials under his belt. In May 2007, he was assigned to prosecute Mohammed Jawad, a prisoner held at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo. It was a job that Vandeveld accepted and pursued eagerly as a patriotic American.

However, as he looked into the specifics of the case assigned to him, the colonel became appalled. In fact, what he found should appall all Americans of good conscience.

He learned that Jawad, held in Guanatamo since 2002, had been arrested in his native Afghanistan at the age of 15 or 16 and charged with throwing a hand grenade that injured two U.S. soldiers. But in the six years Jawad had been held, the military had made no attempt to examine or even compile evidence against him. Vandeveld discovered scraps of supposed evidence scattered in desk drawers, bookcases, tossed on empty desks or even thrown into a locker and forgotten. The story he tells makes it clear that the military had no real interest in Jawad's guilt or innocence. In effect, the fact that Jawad was there was considered proof enough that Jawad belonged there.

The most damning piece of evidence against the Afghan teenager was a handwritten confession supposedly obtained by Afghan police before Jawad was turned over to the Americans. But Vandeveld's faith in that document was shaken when he discovered that Jawad was functionally illiterate, meaning he could not have written or even read that statement. Furthermore, the confession was written in Farsi; Jawad speaks only Pashto.

The statement also quotes Jawad as confessing to have acted alone. Yet two adult men were also arrested by Afghan police for that attack; they too reportedly confessed.

This young man should be released, but ironically is being held yet another 120 days under Obama's executive order to stall the military commissions.

I agree with the AJC editors in their kicker line:

But for now, Mohammed Jawad, supposedly one of the "worst of the worst," remains in Guantanamo. In his statement, Vandeveld urges that Jawad be released not just for his own sake, but "for our own sense of justice and perhaps to restore a measure of our own basic humanity."

-- Steve Clemons

Interesting exchange with Madeleine Albright on US foreign policy over at National Journal:

NJ: What do you foresee as Obama's biggest foreign policy challenge?

Albright: Well, it's hard, I have to tell you, because there are some very, very serious issues out there, and I sometimes say it's kind of like, "what's the worst place in the world today?"

I do think that Pakistan has everything that gives you an international migraine. I mean, it has nuclear weapons, extremism, poverty, corruption and a very weak government in a very, very difficult area. I think that's a tough one. I think Iran is difficult. I think the Middle East is difficult.

President Obama is the kind of person that will be able to deal with these very difficult issues. And he knows they're difficult. My sense in my discussions with him is that he's going into this with very, very open eyes, no rose-colored glasses, just very determined to put America back where it belongs, which is in a leadership place with a respect for other countries.

-- Steve Clemons

I am standing down my protest against the lack of innovation and change in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's anachronistic and ineffective website.

Earlier today, I threatened to create a new Facebook page titled "1,000,000 Strong Against the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Bad Website" if we didn't get some kind of nod that something new and more effective for users was being cooked up.

We got the nod. Change is on the way.

To his credit, Committee Chairman John Kerry also thinks that upgrading the site is a key priority, according to staffers with whom I have spoken today.

I want to thank new Senate Foreign Relations Committee Communications Director Frederick Jones for reaching out. I'm not going to quote his words other than to say that he intimated that he and the entire staff of the Committee are on the same page as I am regarding upgrading and enhancing the functionality of the site. He said it is a "top priority."

A new webmaster has just started with the Committee and will be working on improving the web operation, but it can't happen overnight (unless one happens to be working for the President on these sorts of things).

Many thanks to the Committee staff for connecting with the public on this. And The Washington Note looks forward to providing the first links to the new improved site as soon as it is ready to be unveiled.

-- Steve Clemons

It may take an Act of Congress to overhaul that Senate Committee on Foreign Relations website, but the Senate desperately needs to do it. With all due respect to the webmaster on the Committee and to Committee Chairman John Kerry and Ranking Member Richard Lugar, the SFRC website sucks!

I have been looking at this site for years and years, and it just doesn't change. This is the way the site looked during the 2005 John Bolton hearings - and it is probably the way it looked in 1995.

In contrast, the State Department has given its website a spiffy new look. So, to the White House which has imported those sweeping blues from the Obama campaign site.

Maybe Joe Biden wanted to get into the Executive Branch so badly because he wanted to escape his bad website on the Committee he previously chaired. (joking)

I once compared what one could then surmise about the executive skill sets of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in how they deployed their resources as legislators. I was surprised to learn then that now President Obama had not chaired a European Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but found that Clinton had been active during her presidential campaign efforts in chairing a number of hearings of the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health of the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. Clinton's hearings were all posted as digital video clips on the site.

Compare the Environment & Public Works Site to the Foreign Relations Committee site.

Something has to be done.

To give some credit, it is great that the Committee and John Kerry have arranged for live, real-time viewing of hearings over the website, but honestly -- where are the digital files for later viewing??

The hearings for James Steinberg and Jacob Lew were quite interesting. I attended and would really like to review a statement that Steinberg made, but unless the tape is hidden in a Members only, secret access section of the Committee site, that live streaming that we taxpayers helped pay for is not accessible.

So, time for an overhaul. This is a friendly nudge to friends on the Committee, both sides of the aisle, who should use the SFRC site to create a bigger platform and chamber for their work.

In fact, if I don't hear from the Committee this week that SOMETHING different is in the works, I'm going to organize a Facebook page "A Million Strong Against the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Website." Seriously. . .I will.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: This from a staff friend of mine who knows some of behind the scenes stuff on a number of cool US Senate committees

Good post today. That website has indeed remained the very same since at least 2001. What I always found the most amusing was the photos of the Members - Biden's photo was from the late 70's when he had a full head of hair, and the photos of the other Senators are also incredibly dated. Please note, however, that the Committee has no "Webmaster". The website is maintained by an early 20s staff assistant who has not been given direction by his/her superiors that the website should be a priority. Hopefully, your post will provide some motivation.

P.S. There is no secret, Members-only section. Some of us staff would also enjoy the ability to review tape of past hearings ...

-- Steve Clemons

It's here. SarahPac!

Principles Sarah Palin believes in. . .

. . .reform and innovation

. . .America's best days are ahead

. . .the fight for freedom

. . .integrity, innovation, and determination

. . .energy independence

. . .Health care, education, and reform of government

Sounds a lot like Barack Obama.

-- Steve Clemons

I was very pleased with this interview.

Just a few minutes long -- but tried most to emphasize to Keith Olbermann. . .

. . .that the interview Obama gave last night to Al Arabiya telegraphed that America actually cares about and values Muslims and Muslim lives;

. . .that unclenching fists as he did can be very smart statecraft;

. . .that we can't approach complex problems in the world with bias, stacked decks, and false choices between one side's interest and another's;

. . .that the Arab-Palestinian conflict is key and is part of an interlocking set of problems in which none can be totally siloed off from others;

. . .that while George W. Bush tried to respond to terrorism by killing terrorists (and many others), Obama understands that to beat terrorism's efforts to exploit grievances and look legitimate in the eyes of the people they are trying to reach, Obama must steal the audience by seriously appealing to hearts and minds with hope, with a more sensitive posture, and with policies and a team that will change the facts of otherwise bleak and hopeless lives.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

MEDIA ALERT: Tonight at about 8:15 pm EST, I will be discussing the Obama interview with Al Arabiya on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

Hisham Melhem, Washington Bureau Chief for Al Arabiya, was trying to chase down an interview with former U.S. Senator and new presidential envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell. Pounding all of his channels, friends, networks, Melhem was informed Sunday that "something" might be in the works -- but keep expectations modest.

By Monday morning (yesterday), Melhem was told that he'd likely get Mitchell, and then later in the morning, he received a call telling him that "I'm either going to make your day or ruin your day" by what the White House was planning. And then Melhem was asked if he would like to interview President Barack Obama at 5 pm Monday -- but that the bureau would have to keep the interview secret until it happened.

The Al Arabiya Bureau Chief said that was not a problem and that he'd adjust his schedule - with enormous grin accompanying his response.

Al Arabiya is part of a major Arabic news network, considered second in global coverage to Al Jazeera, which may yet see a nod from the Obama administration down the road -- but seeing that George W. Bush may have joked and/or been serious about bombing an Al Jazeera office in Baghdad, Al Jazeera may still be too much of a leap for the bounding forward new US President.

Obama's exchange with the Al Arabiya journalist (here is transcript), which was only supposed to last about six or seven minutes got extended a bit as press secretary Robert Gibbs saw how well it was going.

This interview is the initial punctuation point in Obama's global public diplomacy. By most accounts, Obama's decision -- shocking to some, refreshing to others -- to talk to the Muslim world in his first formal, sit down press interview hit the ball out of the park.

While Al Arabiya's Bureau Chief did query Obama on which Muslim capital he would first go to in the world (I think it will be Jakarta), Obama's interview -- which Al Arabiya quickly got up on YouTube and also broadcast all around the world through their own networks -- is consistent with Obama-style Facebook political networking and activism. He is using social networks and a hybrid of new media and old media to change the diplomatic game.

It doesn't matter which Muslim capital Obama goes to now because he just reached out to the hearts and minds of Muslims in every capital and frankly, Muslims everywhere -- including inside the United States.

Obama stood by America's alliance with Israel, but said also that Israel and others would have to make sacrifices to achieve stable peace.

He is telegraphing to the Muslim world that the lives of those who live in the Middle East and who are Muslim, wherever they are, matter -- and can't be discounted. Former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton used to decry any effort at talking about the moral equivalency of a death of an innocent in Palestine or in Lebanon when compared to the death or maiming of an Israeli innocent.

Obama talked about the needs and tragedies that have befallen Palestinians and Israelis. And he offered hope to Arab citizens and talked of health care and education -- a vision of the future, that could challenge more rigid groups that have been resisting engagement with the US and Europe and who have been strident in their opposition to Israel.

Barack Obama's first moves have been uttlerly brilliant. And in his interview, most of it focused on the importance of ending the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. He acknowledged the interconnectedness of the problems in the region, but he noted how important the Middle East Peace process and crisis is.

And I think he was responding personally and sincerely to Prince Turki al-Faisal's warning in the Financial Times this week that the Arab Peace Proposal offered by King Abdullah would not remain on the table indefinitely, and that the window could be closing in the wake of the Gaza crisis. Obama was asking Prince Turki, who previously served as head of Saudi intelligence for more than two decades and as Saudi Ambassador to the US, and the King of Saudi Arabia to hang in there a bit more. Obama's messenging was subtle but clear.

Some will argue that this is not much. That this is optics -- not substantive change.

I totally disagree. Ron Suskind was on target when he reported several years ago that Bush administration officials believed that they could "make their own reality."

Presidents -- in the right period of their presidencies -- can make and shape their own reality. They do so at their peril because someone could eventually demonstrate a gap between the fiction the President is creating and the reality everyone else is grounded in.

But Obama gets to make his own reality at the moment -- and is imposing it -- in a respectful, humble, and powerful way.

His style matters -- just like Bush's swagger did -- and it is this act of humility towards the Muslim world which may animate hope in the nations around the world and in the Middle East specifically.

Everyone will have to adjust now. The Saudis will leave the peace deal on the table. The Israelis have to remake themselves -- even if Netanyahu succeeds Olmert. Hamas will have to find a way to become differently postured -- if not on Israel, then at least on some level of international acceptability with American partners. Arab stakeholders are going to have to snap out of positions shaped more by status quo thinking and inertia that things will never change and get with the Obama program.

What Obama did has provided a new punctuation point in American foreign policy, and it is not "continuous" foreign policy at all. This is a new game and a very impressive new leader.

Time will tell if Obama has inculcated his foreign policy and national security team with the same signals and messages that he brought to this important media encounter.

-- Steve Clemons

Someone just sent in this picture -- which I share today to commemorate the blanket of snow Washington got today.

The pic reminded me of the Washington National Zoo where one can watch the 'panda cam'.

And it also reminded me that my friend John Berry, who has been serving director at the National Zoo, is the new director of the Office of Personnel Management for the Obama administration.

This is good news. Congrats to John.

I'm still wondering what these pandas are doing.

Back to the real world, I will be appearing on Keith Olbermann's Countdown tonight at about 8:15 pm EST discussing with Keith the very surprising and refreshing decision by President Barack Obama to give his first formal television interview to a leading Arabic network, Al-Arabiya.

I have just spent about 45 minutes on Al-Arabiya discussing the Obama Al-Arabiya interview. Fascinating back story about how the White House moved this.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

I have only been watching the Bernie Madoff affair from a distance -- because despite the scale of the fraud, what has befallen the American and global economies and gut-punched real people's lives make the Madoff scheme sadly, almost unbelievably trivial. But I was at a dinner recently with legendary journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave where he outlined how Madoff's fraud had rippled through the wealthiest corners of the American Jewish philanthropic community -- an old story now to many -- but de Borchgrave has a way of making his commentary incredibly vivid.

Yesterday, de Borchgrave had an interesting piece on the UPI site further outlining the regulatory incompetence and negligence in the Madoff case when other whistle blowers were blowing their whistles loudly:

In 2000, Harry Markopoulos, a Greek-American leading expert on derivatives, wrote to the Securities and Exchange Commission's Boston office to inform the federal watchdog of markets that Bernard L. Madoff was running "the world's largest hedge fund fraud." He stipulated, "My name not be released to anyone other than the branch chief and team leader in the New York region, without my express permission."

Mr. Markopoulos was worried about his safety and that of his family. He said his report was written solely for the SEC's internal use." He was clearly afraid of assassination. But his red flag was only one of 28 such warnings to the SEC in the first eight years of the 21st century.

A Greek-American friend of Mr. Markopoulos, now in Switzerland, wrote in his blog, "He nailed Madoff, listing the back-door marketing and financing schemes as if he were an insider.

But the SEC did not respond. Powerful political voices ordered the SEC not to proceed. I am not naming names because libel laws mostly favor the criminal in Europe, and their names will never get past libel lawyers. The largest investors were not Jewish charities as was reported by New York newspapers, but French, Spanish and Swiss private banks."

Mr. Markopoulos predicted the implosion of all the main funds (which he named) that dealt with Mr. Madoff four years before they imploded. That nobody listened or did anything about it is an even bigger scandal.

A total mental meltdown of 3,000 SEC bureaucrats, each presumably endowed with average mental faculties, and a headquarters festooned with red flags, taxes credulity.

Amazing, and just gross negligence all around.

President Obama has said that he isn't going to enforce consequences and call for accountability in the nefarious acts done by the last administration in national security affairs. What about economic crimes?

-- Steve Clemons

Barack Obama's decision to give his first sit down, formal presidential interview with Al-Arabiya is really inspired. He is "Mr. Engagement." And this is a darned impressive move.

He is opening the door to new possibilities. I am going to scribble some more on this later, but this really needs to be seen and understood in its full context.

There is much more to do -- and this progress can also be derailed.

It is important to remember that George W. Bush in the first bit of his administration also opened the door on the Palestinian question by actually referring to Palestine by name, with no qualifiers. And then progress was frozen as the administration changed course.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

Defense Secretary Gates will be on the hill this morning testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the "hard choices" ahead for the Department of Defense (DOD) spending on big weapon systems.

Gates makes a strong case in the recent issue of Foreign Affairs on the need for balance between equipping and training for big wars -- to counter great power adversaries or rising challengers (like China, and perhaps Russia) -- versus preparing for small wars -- counterinsurgency (COIN) and stability operations. The Defense Secretary seems to be trying to split the difference in a battle that continues to be fought within DOD over whether the US military should be adapting and retraining to these new operations or stick to what the US military has historically done best. Gates writes "The key is to make sure that the strategy and risk assessment drive procurement, rather than the other way around."

Though it could be argued that scrapping some big weapons systems could be a result of economic and budgetary realities, there also might be an effort to reallocate some of that money to developing and institutionalizing these small war capabilities. Congress needs to take a hard look at these questions to determine whether having these capacities would simply make the US more prepared or increase the likelihood of engaging future conflicts with the belief that new COIN. There is some skepticism within the US military and analysts on the lessons we have learned from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Moreover, military operations are one thing but the nation-building acumen we believed we developed has been severely tested (and possibly discredited) in Afghanistan where we have arguably conflated state-building with nation-making, two very different tasks.

Specific to the focus of Gates's testimony today on big weapons systems, it would be interesting for members to raise some important questions:

• First, if big weapons systems and defense procurement are the problem in the inflated DOD budget, then why does Gates support the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program which Congress has repeatedly rejected in the past for being a wasteful and dangerous attempt to refine mini-nukes and bunker busters? Perhaps there is a role for the RRW if it can allow the military and thus the US to sign on to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but he needs to explain this.
• Second, big weapons systems may not be useful in fighting small wars but do they not constitute the backbone of the US securing the commons and patrolling the sea lanes that prevent small wars from erupting in the first place? What happens as regional powers begin stepping up naval deployments due to a perceived US naval vacuum between the eastern coast of Africa and the Indian ocean where piracy is on the rise - does that not raise the spectre of regional conflict?
• Third, if the crux of the US's future small wars strategy is training and equipping and "building the capacity of local security forces to do the dissuading and destroying" what then is the risk of blowback or the guns turning on us down the road if the local security forces allegiances shift?
• Fourth, while striking some of the big ticket items on the DOD budget might appear to take on some service branch interests, the bigger target is the defense industry and Congressional district interests. The savvy defense industry has learned to spread the development and construction of big weapons systems across the 50 states to ensure maximum political stakeholders and support. The question armed services committee members might want to ask is whether Gates, the DOD, and the Obama administration have suited up for this necessary fight which is much bigger than meets the eye.

These questions need to be asked not as blunt political instruments but for serious engagement on the future of the US military with one of the most thougtful and seasoned veterans of the US national security establishment.

-- Sameer Lalwani

I saw this pic this morning in a friend's Facebook photos. This game is housed for future generations to glance at over at The National Museum of American History.

Intriguing and spooky at the same time.

-- Steve Clemons

Patchwork Nation is a fascinating, ongoing monitor of 11 different community types in the United States. As I understand it from one of the blog proprietors, Dante Chinni, Patchwork Nation which is based at the Christian Science Monitor has established a broad set of criteria sensitive to all sorts of economic and life shifts.

But this past week, their charts began to basically scream red -- all sorts of major shifts in the country. Read more on "Gloomy Economic Picture Worsens."

-- Steve Clemons

My colleague and friend Robert Wright, who is now launching The Progressive Realist, kind of comes off in person as a hybrid of Anthony Perkins and Garrison Keillor -- but focused in a folksy but serious way on America's as of late unenlightened and reckless foreign policy course. When you push Bob to the edge as I have now and then, he's capable of a Dick Cheney-like posture and growl.

We were out fishing for bass one day at the Airlie Conference Center, and he just wasn't catching anything. I can't help it if someone who sounds like they should be able to fish just can't. I kept reeling in the decent sized bass and chose not to feel guilty. Actually just before the Cheney-esque growl Bob gave me that day some years ago, we had just been in a session together where Bob was outlining quite brilliantly the "increasing lethality of hatred" -- sort of along the lines of Bill Joy's dystopic look at a bleak future for mankind in which small groups of people had greater capacity to create events that had mass impact.

I was thinking then about how the foreign policy course America had taken had ruptured the mystique of American power in the world, and that the nation was well on its way to seeing its power and position implode. The economic panel that followed us saw the future as quite rosy, no trouble on the horizon -- and I couldn't quite believe that some of the leading economic minds in the country didn't recognize that at some point there would be a point of tragic but necessary arbitrage between the world's geostrategic mess and the global economic picture.

Bob and I were on the same side -- but we both felt like growling.

Beyond the folksy veneer though, Robert Wright is one of our nation's leading public intellectuals and entrepreneurs -- and TOMORROW, he is launching a new "meta-blog" called The Progressive Realist.

If you have never checked it out before, take a look at the Bloggingheads beach spot inside the New York Times web universe. Some great exchanges there, frequently.

I heartily subscribe to several versions of realism, particularly progressive realism - but also subscribe to Anatol Lieven's depiction of "ethical realism" and Michael Lind's essays on "American internationalism."

Robert Wright also launched the very successful BloggingHeads.tv and is author of Non Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny -- as well as a Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation.

The Washington Note will be one of the feeds into Wright's new portal into progressive realism, and we wish Bob and his team great success and many avid visitors.

-- Steve Clemons

New looks to government websites do not necessarily portend better foreign policy.

But that said, the State Department's just revealed new website looks great. It looks more high energy and seems to telegraph "engagement." I like it.

I'm not generally a sentimentalist about this kind of thing -- but folks do know that I enjoy the allure of a good cocktail party and a sharp looking website so discount as you like. That said, this entire site seems more welcoming, less hawkish and severe, and more vibrant than the website it replaced.

I ran into someone very close to Obama recently and congratulated him/her on the post he/she had achieved and said that you'd have an avalanche of problems and crises on your desk everyday. This person responded, for now, all we can do is really fiddle with "the optics."

At least, they are starting somewhere.

But to the designers of this new Department of State website, congratulations. Great job.

-- Steve Clemons

Jim Lobe has just confirmed that outgoing Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs and Deputy National Security Adviser for Global Democracy Strategy Elliott Abrams will be joining the Council on Foreign Relations team in February.

Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, reportedly considered and declined a possible role as one of several Obama administration envoys to the Middle East.

Now, it is vital to keep Haass exactly where he is -- because the only thing worse than hearing that Elliott Abrams will be joining Max Boot and some others on the CFR payroll is learning that he might have become President of the organization as well.

We look forward to some good, principled foreign policy debates with Ambassador Abrams after he lands.

To Abrams' credit, I hear that he throws a great Passover seder and does invite others with whom he doesn't necessarily agree on Middle East issues and national security policy overall. I think that this kind of reaching out is important -- and credit where credit is due.

-- Steve Clemons

(photo credit: Jon Taplin's Blog)

In the book, America and the World: Conversations on the Future of American Foreign Policy, which is an April-May 2008 rolling conversation between former national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft with Washington Post national security columnist David Ignatius, Brzezinski says this:

I think it was too bad that we cut off International Military Education and Training (IMET) for so many years [with Pakistan]. We didn't have the opportunity to train these younger officers. We have a specific problem, which is the Pashtun area and the frontier area, the sanctuary for Al-Qaeda. We have to deal with it, but we have to be very prudent so as not to galvanize Pakistani politics into irrational anti-Americanism, some of the makings of which are already underway.

To the extent that we have to act, we should act discreetly and avoid publicizing what happens. My guess is if we do that, the Pakistanis in power will see their interest is also in not publicizing it. But if we start boasting, as we are lately, we will make it increasingly impossible for any Pakistani government to accept our actions.

Public emotions will surface. The army may be resentful. And then the consequences are unpredictable. We can probably handle the problem in Afghanistan for quite a while, since we still have some residual sympathy from the help we gave the Afghans against the Soviets. But if the turmoil in Afghanistan spills over into Pakistan, I think we'll be faced with an altogether unmanageable situation. Unmanageable if we get more involved and bogged down, and unmanageable if we abruptly terminate and leave. (empasis added)

So I would say prudence, prudence, prudence over again, and let the Pakistanis sort out their problems. Stop lecturing them on democracy, and be sensitive to their historical geopolitical interests. And emphasize that they have a kind of friend in Afghanistan, which gives them strategic depth vis-a-vis India. But at the same time, we should be careful not to make the Afghans think they're going to be the satellites of Pakistan, which is a difficult game.

Beyond that I simply don't advocate any political activism regarding Pakistan itself. (pp. 107-108)

I think that Brzezinski's impressions of Afghanistan were accurate in April-May 2008 and prescient today. There probably was some residual sympathy among the population for the U.S. -- but that now seems to be gone or has dramatically withered.

Former Bush administration State Department Policy Planning deputy director Kori Schake said as much in her contribution to a 5-part snapshot titled "How Not to Lose Afghanistan" that appeared in the New York Times today.

Schake, who used to advise both the Rudy Guiliani and John McCain presidential campaigns but was in my view a closeted realist in those camps, wrote:

More American troops isn't enough to succeed in Afghanistan. What else needs doing depends on why you think the Taliban have gained ground in the past 18 months.

Is it because we have too few troops to hold areas that have been cleared of Taliban influence? Is it because Afghans are fundamentally sympathetic to Taliban aims? Or are Afghans so downtrodden from the terror and distrustful of American staying power they won't stand up and help?

Schake is asking exactly the right question -- which many advising Obama seem to not be investigating vigorously. Why are the Taliban succeeding so dramatically in the assessments of Afghans? And what has happened to the residual support that Brzezinski hoped would hold us over?

Unless we get that question right, Kori Schake is absolutely right that throwing more troops into the situation is wrong-headed and potentially counterproductive.

The Obama connected contributors to this piece offer depressingly dim visions of what a US policy course towards Afghanistan should be comprised of.

First, Brookings scholar and Obama transition team figure Bruce Riedel advocates in his contribution to the New York Times Afghanistan roundtable more troops and more roads -- but mostly more troops. He barely touches anything beyond a troops-focused lens through which to approach Afghan stability.

Second, Center for A New American Security Senior Fellow John Nagl, famous for the understudy role he held working with General David Petraeus on counter-insurgency thinking and who is rumored to be among potential successors to Kurt Campbell and Michele Flournoy at CNAS (who are both becoming senior Obama administration officials), thinks we need to see force deployments upwards of 600,000 to make a real counter-insurgency effort work in Afghanistan.

Nagl and the entire CNAS team are deeply wired into Obama Land -- and his primary focus in dealing with Afghanistan is militarily oriented -- first a pumping up of US and NATO forces and a huge buildup of Afghanistan's military. Virtually nothing else discussed.

The strongest critic of this approach, embraced by Obama's advisers, is Andrew Exum, a soldier who served in Afghanistan in the US Army between 2002 and 2004. Exum is the author of This Man's Army: A Soldier's Story from the Frontlines of the War on Terrorism and edits the counter-insurgency blog Abu Muqawama.

Exum suggests that the absence of a coherent, multi-faceted strategy for stabilizing Afghanistan is quickly dooming the operation in the guts, minds, and hearts of European allies. He notes that few of our forces speak Dari or Pashto, which is undermining the effectiveness of our counter-insurgency efforts. And he says that given current trends, anything that might look like success in the long run may cost several thousand more American lives and another trillion dollars added to our long term bills. He appropriately asks whether the cost of that kind of "succeess" is worth it.

I would add that that would not be something I could ever define as "success."

Kori Schake rejects the notion that more troops would be effective without attaching a benchmarkable plan to bolster governance in the country. She argues that poppy farms aren't expanding in the conflict zones but rather in the areas of the country that are stable but corruption-ridden.

Schake seems reluctant to endorse any deal-making with the Taliban, which my colleague and Second World author Parag Khanna says will be necessary particularly given the Taliban's deep social roots in Pashtun and Punjabi realities.

Khanna suggests the boldest vision for approaching Afghanistan: a focus on cross-border military management between Pakistan and Afghanistan which seems highly unlikely to me at this time -- but at least is an interesting and novel suggestion. More importantly, Khanna appropriately depicts this as a double bubble problem. If one squeezes militants on one side of the border without dealing with the other, they'll simply balloon to the less vigorously secured region.

Khanna states that we need provisional reconstruction on both sides of the border -- with particular emphasis on hospitals, schools, roads and power generators. And he says we need the active support of the Chinese, Arabs and Turks in making any stabilization plan work.

Parag Khanna and Kori Schake -- neither of whom is excessively close to the Obama team (though I just learned that Khanna did play a role under Riedel on South Asia policy) -- seem to have the most interesting and compelling analyses and prescriptions of the Afghanistan problem.

Obama is running on a path in his stated Afghanistan policy that has very high risks for his presidency and for the nation. We need a new Bonn Conference -- of the sort that former US Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad and former Presidential Envoy James Dobbins pulled off which brought together the various powerful kingpins in the region -- those allied with us and those not.

Dobbins has stated that the Afghan reconstruction and stabilization effort was the most comparatively under-resourced of all such US foreign policy efforts since before the Marshall Plan, and thus the challenge of a similar approach when trust has been eroded and America so badly underperformed makes the problem much worse today than in 2002.

But throwing more troops into this mess is the kind of mistake that the previous administration would make -- and Obama needs to show that he has learned something of those mistakes we are not trying to move beyond.

-- Steve Clemons

I found the video above on the IDF Spokesperson's Unit YouTube Channel. I can't get the sound to play, but the text on the screen says it all.

I want to be clear that I am not posting this video to support the Israeli position, but to show that the IDF is serious about using YouTube as a medium of public diplomacy.

Yigal Schleifer over at Istanbul Calling has an interesting post on the role of new media in conflict zones and as public diplomacy tools.

Schleifer also links to Riyaad Minty's piece over at Al Jazeera English, which explains how the Israeli government uses Twitter and YouTube to disseminate its message.

----Ben Katcher

This is a very strong and important CBS segment by 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon. that looks in a serious way at the prospects for a two state solution between Israel and Palestine.

The primary interviewee in the piece is former candidate for Palestine president Moustafa Barghouti. It's well worth watching.

I have higher confidence in the possibility of a two state solution than Barghouti seems to have, but the focus on the unchecked spread of Israeli settlements is overdue in the mainstream American media.

For those interested, here is a guest blog post by Barghouti at The Washington Note at the time of Israel's recent incursion into Gaza. And here too is a short video interview I did with Barghouti in July 2008.

-- Steve Clemons

Editor's Note: Thanks to Michael Shtender-Auerbach at Social Risks for sending this my way.

I occasionally write for the CNN.com website and just noticed that Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry is now doing so too.

In a great piece applauding President Obama's early executive orders to move forward vigorously the closing of Guantanamo, Kerry outlines what the failure to respect human rights means for national security.

In his article, John Kerry writes:

Torture plays directly into a central tenet of al Qaeda's recruiting pitch: that everyday Muslims across the world have something to fear from the United States of America.

From Morocco to Malaysia, people regularly hear stories of torture and suicide at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and other overseas prisons. The result has been a major blow to our credibility worldwide, particularly where we need it most: in the Muslim world.

Once permitted, torture and lawlessness are not easily contained. Coercive interrogation techniques found their way from high-level terrorists at Guantanamo to low-level detainees at Abu Ghraib.

Years later, images of abuse there remain fixtures across the Arab and Muslim world. And as John McCain has argued, the use of techniques like waterboarding leaves its scars on a democratic society as well.

Torture elicits lies -- not just from those experiencing it, but from those who seek to conceal it. After years of Orwellian denials and legalistic parsing, what a relief it was to hear our new attorney general-designee finally acknowledge what we know to be true: that yes, "waterboarding is torture."

As we move forward, President Obama is wise to "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" -- but the American people should know that closing a prison conceived outside the rule of law will not be easy.

Reclaiming Guantanamo and its inhabitants into our legal system from what former Vice President Dick Cheney called "the dark side" will be an enormous challenge and a thicket of thorny legal and policy issues.

However, we are already seeing the international system reorganize itself around an America that is willing to be a moral leader.

No matter when Guantanamo finally closes, there is progress in the right direction with an end to secret prisons and extraordinary rendition as well as a comment to prohibit torture techniques.

But it will take a very long time for those aggrieved -- and who had hope in the moral enlightenment of the United States -- to fully trust that this black period is over.

In fact, I don't fully trust the US government on this front either. We need to see practices and habits of action and performance fill in the foundation of rhetoric.

-- Steve Clemons

I just received a press note from the Franklin & Eleanor Roosevelt Institute encouraging me to watch and listen to the comparison above of Barack Obama's rhetoric and that of Franklin Roosevelt. I did.

There are many lines that can be reached for and compared to the lofty rhetoric of many of America's past leaders -- but I thought Obama's speech was conservative in tone, careful, overly cautious perhaps. He called on Americans to prepare for troubled times and to work together. But I felt when I heard it that Obama's was a Hoover-style speech, not a Rooseveltian address.

Herbert Hoover promoted caution, thrift, sacrifice. . .Roosevelt set a vision and horizon for Americans to reach beyond their challenged circumstance.

Even Bill Kristol found the Obama address one that resonated with themes in Roosevelt's rhetoric -- both drawing on Thomas Paine.

I have high hopes for Obama -- but the country is coming apart economically -- and this is a time to work hard but also to reorganize and generate a new national vision.

I'm glad others see vision where I missed it in Obama's national address.

-- Steve Clemons

Blurring edges is not necessarily an exclusively neoconservative trait, but Scott Horton reports it is something that began to really irk New York Times editors about seemingly hurried columns that Bill Kristol rushed to them.

Horton reports that Kristol's ideology and pro-Iraq, pro-Palin, pro-more wars stance was a net positive for the paper's op-ed page, but lousy fact-checking was what did him in.

And then there was this, as reported in Horton's interesting Daily Beast column today:

Tough as this was for Kristol's promoters, he might still have survived as a columnist had it not been for an attitude of casual and reflexive disloyalty he publicly displayed towards The Times itself. A good example came in an appearance with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show on October 30. Here's the way Editor and Publisher described it:

"Appearing once again on The Daily Show, Bill Kristol, Jon Stewart's favorite whipping boy ('Bill Kristol, aren't you ever right?'), on Thursday night defended the McCain-Palin ticket, at one point informing the show's host that he was getting his news from suspect sources. 'You're reading The New York Times too much,' he declared. 'Bill, you WORK for The New York Times!' Stewart pointed out."

That, apparently, was the last straw for the Gray Lady.

Despite the pink slip, all the news for Kristol is not so grim. The Washington Post has just announced that it will publish Kristol on a monthly basis. Has the Post made itself into the remainder bin for neocons?

Why are any of the majors publishing Kristol on a continuous basis when he has his perch at the Weekly Standard?

-- Steve Clemons

Neoconservativism existed before Bill Kristol, but before him none had figured out how to market the brand and go viral.

Some may argue that Kristol's neoconservative policy work never actually did go viral, but they'd be wrong. His thinking animated much of Washington, and a rather small group of thinker/activists commandeered the helm of America's foreign policy establishment and changed the course of the nation and American history.

It took quite a while for a counter-force of intellectuals and policy practitioners, spread across numerous think tanks, academic institutions, Congress, and even some inside the Bush administration to nudge the neoconservatives from their privileged spot.

My work has been focused on taking that helm away from him and his group of acolytes and making clear that neoconservative hubris and recklessness undermined this nation's place in the world and have sabotaged its power.

Bill Kristol has written his last column in the New York Times today in which he marks "the end of the conservative era."

I always find Kristol essays worth reading -- whether they are promoting Sarah Palin populism or trying to make the case for yet another war. It's good to know what one's rivals are thinking.

Kristol ends his op-ed today with:

Sixty-seven years ago, a couple of months after Pearl Harbor, at the close of a long radio address on the difficult course of the struggle we had just entered upon, another liberal president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, also told the story of Washington ordering that "The Crisis" be read aloud, and also quoted Paine. But he turned to the more famous -- and more stirring -- passage with which Paine begins his essay:

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph."

That exhortation was appropriate for World War II. Today, the dangers are less stark, and the conflicts less hard. Still, there will be trying times during Obama's presidency, and liberty will need staunch defenders.

Can Obama reshape liberalism to be, as it was under F.D.R., a fighting faith, unapologetically patriotic and strong in the defense of liberty? That would be a service to our country.

It is unfortunate that Kristol sees American power and its purpose in the world in terms of militaristic metaphors, that he still thinks that American leadership needs to be measured by its messianism, by its ability to mount a "fighting faith."

I think we need to show a bit of compassion in world affairs, to demonstrate an ability to listen, a show of humility, and need to encourage other major power stakeholders in the global system to collaboratively and cooperatively build a better order. American resources are still enormous compared on a bilateral basis with any other nation. We could be needed again if we adopt a constructive stance in the world, one that respects other powers and peoples.

America need not be shy about constructive power, but as Brent Scowcroft recently said in a forum I participated in at the Washington National Cathedral, "the nature of power is changing, and we need to understand that." Scowcroft and his panel partners, Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Ignatius, understand that -- but Bill Kristol does not.

And those other cultures, and peoples, and nations may not want to live in an American style democracy -- but nor do they want to live in a throwback caliphate ruled by bin Laden or his followers. We have so many strengths in this country that could be unleashed with a different posture, and yet Kristol and his particular branch of neoconservatives seem to be satisfied only with strident chest-thumping and the deployment of force.

And while they had the wheels of the country under their control, we saw a massive collapse of American power, prestige and moral vision.

Kristol may finally be off the New York Times op-ed page, but he'll still be in public life, and like my friend Kurt Campbell once joked, neocons never really go away.

-- Steve Clemons

A bit more than a week ago, I had a fascinating discussion with outgoing US Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad who also previously served as US Ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan. It runs about 90 minutes long - and I think is well worth listening to in total.

I refer frequently to this piece on "Ten Lessons in Nation Building" and "How to Nation-Build" by Khalilzad which ran in the journal, The National Interest.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

I will be chatting with Rachel Maddow today on her Air America Radio show on the subject of Barack Obama's foreign policy team. (airs at 6 pm EST)

Obama's visit to Foggy Bottom yesterday was so surprising, so different than President Bush, that it really caught me by surprise. His visit automatically raises the morale among foreign service officers and the many others holding up the foreign policy operations of the country -- and makes the loud statement that diplomacy -- and diplomats -- matter.

Jacob Heilbrunn has a very nice piece today online over at The National Interest titled "Raising Foggy Bottom". In this segment, which should be read in full, he suggests that Obama is "righting the balance between diplomacy and military force":

Barack Obama's visit to the formerly beleaguered State Department on Thursday to welcome the appointments of Hillary Clinton, Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell set exactly the right tone, as did his revocation of the Bush administration's ham-handed approach to the war on terror.

No, diplomacy won't solve all of America's foreign-policy problems and even playing kissy-face with the mullahs in Tehran wouldn't get Washington very far. But what Obama is doing is something else--righting the balance between diplomacy and military force, much as Defense Secretary Robert Gates has insisted upon, and something that Admiral Mike Mullen also eloquently called for at a recent Nixon Center dinner honoring him.

Key leaders in the military are resisting the militarization of foreign policy, and Obama, who called in his inaugural address for America to lead by example, is moving in the right direction.

Very, very smart move by Obama.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest post for The Washington Note written by Hillary Mann Leverett, a former State Department and National Security Council official who participated in numerous rounds of secret negotiations with Iran.

On Saturday, the New York Times and other media outlets reported on a statement from Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell that Saad bin Ladin, one of Osama bin Laden's sons, had left "house arrest" in Iran and is now in Pakistan.

McConnell's statement underscores the message of my last post -- that there have been real strategic costs imposed on U.S. interests by the Bush Administration's brain dead approach to dealing with Iran. Moreover, the poor quality of the mainstream media's reporting on McConnell's statement reflects a distorted and by-now deeply ingrained view of what happened in our interactions with Iran about Al Qaida. If incoming President Obama and his administration are really serious about putting U.S.-Iranian relations on a more positive trajectory, they must be prepared to challenge the misleading assumptions and assertions that warp public discussion of our Iran policy.

Two of these assumptions/assertions were highlighted in the New York Times article on McConnell's statement.

1. The article's authors, Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt, cite unnamed U.S. officials to claim that Iran had been holding Saad bin Ladin and other Al Qaida operatives "as a deterrent against an Al Qaida attack on Iranian soil". This claim is speculative, at best, and ignores what actually took place in U.S. discussions with Iran regarding Al Qaida during 2001-2003.

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Tehran detained literally hundreds of suspected Al Qaida operatives seeking to flee Afghanistan into Iran. Iran repatriated at least 200 of these individuals to the new Karzai government, to Saudi Arabia, and to other countries.

The Iranian government documented these actions to the United Nations and to the United States in February 2002, including by providing copies of each repatriated individual's passport. But Iran could not repatriate all of the individuals it detained; for example, the Islamic Republic has no diplomatic relations with Egypt, and Iranian diplomats told my colleagues and me that Tehran was not able to repatriate Al Qaida operatives of Egyptian origin to Egypt.

They also said that Osama bin Ladin's son, Saad, had tried to enter Iran and that Iranian security forces had turned him away. However, these Iranian diplomats expressed concern that, if Saad bin Ladin managed to penetrate the porous Iranian-Afghan border and enter Iranian territory--as he apparently did in 2003, after the Bush Administration had unilaterally cut off our dialgoue with Iran regarding Afghanistan and Al Qaida -- Tehran would encounter difficulty repatriating him to Saudi Arabia, which had already made clear it was not interested in taking either Saad bin Ladin or his father.

Instead of working to establish a framework within which Tehran could have made Al Qaida operatives detained in Iran available to U.S. interrogators -- as our Iranian interlocutors requested -- the Bush Administration insisted that Iran detain and deport all the Al Qaida figures we believed might be in Iran, without any assistance from or reciprocal understandings with the United States. (From the Bush Administration's perspective, this was meant to be a "test" of Iranian intentions.)

Later, in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration told the Iranians that the MEK, an Iraqi-based Iranian opposition group that the United States had for years identified as a foreign terrorist organization, would be targeted as an extension of Saddam's military apparatus.

However, in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, the Pentagon granted the MEK special protected status, raising concerns in Tehran that Washington wanted to use the MEK as part of a campaign to bring down the Islamic Republic. At that point, the Iranians began to view the Al Qaida operatives in its custody as a potential bargaining chip to use with Washington regarding the MEK.

2. This calls into question a second dubious assertion in Mazzetti and Schmitt's piece: that "the Bush Administration tried, at various times, to persuade the Iranian government to turn over the Al Qaida operatives in its custody, but the overtures were rebuffed".

In response to the Bush Administration's unconditional demands that Tehran turn over Al Qaida operatives we believed to be on Iranian soil, the Iranians offered a deal: to exchange Al Qaida figures they had detained for MEK cadres in Iraq.

To facilitate such an exchange, the Iranians offered to release all low- and mid-level MEK figures, to allow the ICRC to monitor the treatment of any high-level MEK figures detained in Iran, and to forego application of the death penalty to any high-level MEK figures found guilty of crimes by Iranian courts.

In the end, it was the Bush Administration, not Iran, that rebuffed a deal which would have given us access to important Al Qaida operatives--including, possibly, Saad bin Ladin.

It will take not only sustained effort but also clear strategic vision for the Obama Administration to repair the damage to U.S. interests done by the Bush Administration's mishandling of relations with Iran.

Defining that clear strategic vision will require a willingness to question the all-too-prevalent image of Iran as an ideologically-driven and categorical supporter of an undifferentiated array of terrorist groups--from Hizballah to HAMAS to Al Qaida. Fundamentally, the Islamic Republic is a state that acts on the basis of what it perceives as its national interests.

It will not revise its ties to groups that the United States does not like in response to U.S. coercion or to meet U.S. "preconditions" for serious strategic dialogue. Iran will only revise its ties to such groups when it perceives strong and positive strategic incentives to do so--incentives that are not contradicted, in Iranian perceptions, by ongoing U.S. attempts at coercion and pressure that Tehran sees as intended to undermine the Islamic Republic.

--Hillary Mann Leverett

At noon today EST, New York Governor Dennis Paterson will announce that Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand will succeed Hillary Clinton's recently vacated U.S. Senate seat. But until forty-eight hours ago, most still had their money on Caroline Kennedy, daughter of America's most iconic modern president, getting the nod.

Kennedy withdrew her name from consideration for "personal reasons." Now that she has removed herself from the race, one can hope that the media and other gawkers will leave her personal matters alone and move on. If she was in the game to get the Senate seat, her entire life was fair game -- but now that she has stepped back, I believe she has rights of privacy that should endure.

But the question that is legitimate and remains is what machinations drove Kennedy to reach for this Senate seat. What was she thinking -- and how did this fit into the game plans of two of America's biggest political kingpins, Barack Obama and the ailing Ted Kennedy? And did she end up getting derailed by the Clinton machine?

Caroline Kennedy's flirtation with this appointment animated deep tensions in American politics over the question of political aristocracy and dynasties. Names like Gore, Dole, Clinton, Bush, Salazar, Udall, Cuomo, Kennedy frequently appear in American politics because of brothers, fathers and sons, nephews and spouses building out the family political machine. It's useful to remember many decades ago, that actress and feminist provocateur Tallulah Bankhead's father, for instance, was Speaker of the House of Representatives and her nephew and grandfather both U.S. Senators. And thus while family dynasties have always been a part of the American political scene, throwing aristocracy in the face of voters reeks of the kind of nobility that Americans 'thought' they threw off in the American Revolution.

Kennedy, loved by so many because of her own good deeds for schools and social causes but also because of just being the daughter of JFK and Jackie, came close to ruining her own personal brand by appearing hungry for political appointment. Of course, she is a Kennedy -- and the Kennedy's are known for their pursuit of power -- but Caroline was supposed to be different. Her own brand seemed more pure than her family brand. So this raises the question of why she threw her hat in the ring.

Most writers limited their attention to the surface explanation she provided when she announced her interest in the Senate appointment. Kennedy said that her work for the Obama campaign stirred in her a desire to do more -- and doing more for the public was what the Kennedy family operation had always, in her words, committed itself to. She said that she was ready in this phase of her life to move to a new career and that she was comfortable moving out of the shadows and into the public spotlight -- though this was difficult to tell in her tightly scripted early press events in New York that couldn't help but remind of the over-handled, over-scripted roll out of Sarah Palin.

But other machinations may have been at play as well.

Barack Obama, who admits to a close personal friendship with Caroline Kennedy after their work together on his campaign, is probably the best political 'mergers and acquisitions' guy in the business. The story of Obama is not just that his unique brand, background and DNA charmed the nation achieving a landmark political victory. Obama has the preternatural ability to acquire political franchises and morph them together, changing their character and leadership and making them his own. Obama started with the Daley franchise in Chicago and then built into that the Daschle franchise, followed by the Kennedy franchise, and is now working very hard to absorb the Clinton political machine which is larger and more potentially dangerous to Obama than any of the others.

Obama has Rahm Emanuel, Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod managing the Chicago wing for him -- and then hired many of Tom Daschle's key people including Pete Rouse and Denis McDonough. Daschle himself is in the picture though his office is in the basement of the White House and while close to Oval office power may prefer to be closer. There is a saying that "those who supported Obama got a President and those who supported Hillary got a job" -- as many of her loyal followers are popping up with key positions throughout the government while many of those who helped Obama from the beginning of his candidacy are still in the cold. And then there is Kennedy -- and that big family brand that connects with so many in the country, particularly in labor union America. Ted Kennedy will soon die -- and Obama (and many other of the Kennedys) want to see Caroline in the political game in a high profile way to provide leadership for the tens of thousands of capable political hands that Kennedy's machine has produced to be loyal both to her stewardship of the family operation and then loyal to Obama.

Some of Ted Kennedy's loyal retainers have conveyed to me privately that the Senator -- who became the responsible flag-bearer for the Kennedy clan after both John F. and Robert Kennedy's assassinations -- believed that Caroline needed to stand up and play the role he had given his deteriorating health. But the plan Ted "may have had", they say, had little to do with the New York Senate seat. It had to do with succeeding Obama in 2016.

The game plan -- whether real or fantasy -- is intriguing. It goes something like this. Caroline Kennedy would be appointed now to the Senate. She would perform well above the very low expectations many had for her and win handily the seat in the 2010 mid-term race in which that Senate seat needs to be contested again. She would then be in place until 2016. Ted Kennedy's view "may be" that Caroline would instantly out-shine Hillary Clinton in the eyes of New York voters and in the American political scene and that in 2016, Caroline Kennedy would be 59 while Hillary Clinton would be 69.

I have no idea whether Ted Kennedy owned this narrative. All I know is that his friends and many key pillars of Kennedy Land believed that something along these lines is what animated Ted's highly strategic approach to Caroline's political future.

Now, Caroline Kennedy is out of the running for this particularly political contest -- but she may be back.

I have advocated that the Obama team offer her a high profile and distinguished Ambassadorship. Perhaps to London where her grandfather, Joseph Kennedy, once served -- or perhaps to France, which her mother loved so much. In such a spot, she'd have an opportunity to show she was more than a brand name and could contribute to the substantive interests and welfare of the United States. And then perhaps run in an election for something big -- and perhaps even win. We will always have political aristocrats in America, but the barrier that should always be imposed for those who are inheritors of political fortune is that they actually be elected -- not appointed -- to the nation's highest offices.

Caroline Kennedy may yet be a factor in American politics. Obama would love it for his own reasons -- and so would the powerful political franchise that Ted Kennedy helped build.

And while Hillary Clinton, the woman Caroline tried to succeed in the Senate, is now Secretary of State -- it is clear that Obama still has some work to do to get the keys to the Bill/Hillary political franchise -- and that this derailment of Caroline Kennedy removes for the time being a threat to Hillary's longer term political interests.

-- Steve Clemons

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with European Commission officials in Brussels last week to discuss his country's accession negotiations. The Prime Minister reaffirmed his commitment to the process, and appointed Egemen Bagis, a close personal adviser, to be his chief negotiator with Brussels.

The talks were tense at times, with Prime Minister Erdogan even threatening at one point to halt cooperation on the Nabucco gas pipeline project if membership talks were not accelerated. The importance of the project, which is the centerpiece of Europe's strategy to diversify its natural gas supply away from Russia, was underscored by the recent row between Russia and Ukraine. At the same time, some in Europe are growing increasingly frustrated with the slow pace of Ankara's political reforms.

Both Turkey and Europe would be wise to take a deep breath, temper their expectations of one another, and continue to cooperate toward an eventual marriage. Ankara cannot expect Brussels to be enthused by its modest first steps toward major political reform and Brussels must understand that a country as large, complex and with as rich a history as Turkey cannot escape from its authoritarian past without difficulty.

After sweeping into power in 2002, Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) government promised to enact a bold reform agenda and to set Turkey on the path toward EU membership. To this end, the government's initial political reforms included modifying state institutions to ensure civilian control over the military and granting greater language and broadcasting rights to the country's Kurdish minority. Brussels welcomed these reforms as positive first steps toward liberalization and as a result agreed in December 2004 to begin accession negotiations.

Since then, however, the pace of Turkey's reform program has slowed to a crawl as deep fissures within the state have come to the fore. Over the past two years, the Constitutional Court came within one vote of ousting the ruling AKP from power, the government has arrested scores of journalists, military officers and union officials as part of its ongoing Ergenekon case, and the Kurdish conflict in the southeast has deepened. Europe can be forgiven for being nonplussed.

But the appropriate response is not to question whether Turkey belongs in Europe, as Nicolas Sarkozy has done, but to make clear that Europe is prepared to help Turkey liberalize so that it can eventually qualify. Indeed, both Ankara and Brussels would do well to acknowledge that Turkey remains in a period of political transition and that enduring institutional reforms will take time to become fully accepted by all of the key stakeholders.

Civilian authority is slowly usurping the military's power - a development that in the long run is likely to lead to greater stability and democratic accountability. But in the short-run, such a seismic shift in the fabric of the state leads to conflict, instability, and stalemate.

This is evidenced by the government's recent move to adopt a more strident policy toward the Kurds, which is most likely the result of an agreement - tacit or explicit - with the military.

While European governments are correct to criticize the policy shift, the best way to put the reform process back on track is for Europe to remain engaged and to make clear that reformers will be rewarded. Whether the current impasse constitutes a speed bump or a permanent roadblock to reform will depend in large part upon whether Brussels can walk a fine line and leave the door open to full membership without compromising its core principles.

--Ben Katcher

This video above is pretty amazing. CNN's John King shows how pictures that regular folks took at the Inauguration can be synthesized into a photographic wall much larger than any single person had themselves. This is called CNN's "Photosynth."

At Arianna Huffington's festive pre-Inaugural gala, I asked John King what CNN was going to do with the famous "election wall" that was so mesmerizing during the campaign. He intimated that this Photosynth thing was coming -- but I didn't really understand what he meant.

We are seeing technology change our news world -- and oddly, CNN's ability to absorb the product from people out on the street -- at no cost to CNN -- is a lot of the way that Arianna Huffington has done it with her many thousands of volunteer writers, pundits and correspondents.

Kudos to Washington Bureau Chief David Bohrman who I hear is the management genius behind the scenes who keeps driving these interesting changes -- and anything that makes Fox look behind the times is OK by me.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

Caroline Kennedy is doing the right thing by withdrawing from her campaign to succeed Hillary Clinton in the US Senate.

Friends of hers and people that are part of the Ted Kennedy political franchise told me that her aspirations to be in the Senate had nothing to do with that job -- but rather had a lot to do with positioning to succeed Barack Obama in 2016.

This was ultimately what Ted Kennedy wanted -- but Caroline, appropriately in my view, would not have been suited for or prepared for that life.

Here was my earlier post on the subject encouraging Obama to avoid the train wreck of an embarrassing and aristocratically determined appointment by sending Caroline abroad to serve as an Ambassador in London, Paris, or elsewhere.

-- Steve Clemons

The inaugural weekend successfully diverted attention to the festivities and stunning turnout celebrating the historic circumstances of a new administration's transition to the helm of the most powerful country on earth. But as Washington, and the world for that matter, begins to climb down from this weekend's euphoria, the newly inaugurated administration will have to contend with a number of new Middle East realities on the ground that cannot adequately be dispensed with the logic and strategies of the past eight or sixteen years. New realities in turn will warrant new departures for policy.

Rhetorically at least, President Obama signalled a new direction for US foreign policy in his inaugural address, trading the usually national security testosterone and chest-thumping on counterterrorism that both parties embrace at election time for some elegant and carefully chosen words the spell out a different sort of counter-terrorism, democracy, and internationalist posture. Defeating terrorism by outlasting it rather than simply outgunning it, promoting democracy with a supportive model rather than a forward strategy, and conducting diplomacy through cooperation rather than unilateralism are certainly welcome departures.

However Josh Landis underscores, along with a number of other Middle East analysts, that the path to dealing with these agenda items requires confronting the centrality of the Arab-Israeli conflict brought home by the three weeks of violence in Gaza, rather than ignoring them as some Obama aides have suggested. This means tackling the reality of Hamas on the Palestinian political scene as Marc Lynch and Richard Murphy point out and finding ways to promote Palestinian reconciliation as Roula Khalaf and Daniel Levy have long argued.

The appointment of George Mitchell to Middle East envoy, as Amjad Atallah points out, certainly provides room for optimism but it is sobering to recall the powerful envoys with equally serious determination, networks of power, and potential that have failed - such as James Wolfensohn and Tony Blair -- when their hands are tied by political advisors in Washington.

Former Obama campaign advisor and Brooking's Middle East Director Martin Indyk provided a possible barometer for the administration's approach. Though he recognizes some parts of this puzzle that Landis, Levy, Lynch, and Khalaf draw out, including the importance of supporting Israeli-Syrian negotiations, he remains curiously silent on the pivotal role of Hamas and the current Palestinian divide. He also appears unaware of the changing nature of the Arab parties.

A second critical reality to contend with is the re-emergence of Arab and Muslim unity as Kaveh Afrasiabi suggests with Syria returning to the Arab fold and overtures of solidarity being made between the Gulf States and Iran. This throws the Bush administration's failed strategy of isolating Syria and Iran for a loop but could provide new opportunities for the incoming administration.

The final reality that the Obama administration will have to contend with is an Israeli domestic political scene whose security needs and calculations may at times depart from the US. A recent Haaretz poll indicates most Israelis are comfortable with the Gaza campaign despite the massive Palestinian civilian casualties. Regardless of whether Bejamin Netanyahu Likud party wins upcoming February 10 elections as polling seems to indicate is likely, the last two major military campaigns -- Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2009 -- led with a centrist party at the helm and these recent poll numbers broadly suggest the Israeli public at large believes in this cost-benefit ratio to meet its security needs. But the campaigns were arguably setbacks for US national security and foreign policy objectives. Though sometimes dismissed as the foolhardy gambits of rogue commanders or ambitious, capitalizing politicians, this no longer seems to be the case. Future Israeli leadership regardless of composition, will continue to deem it a political necessity to carry out similar operations in the future. One of the most difficult questions for the next administration will be whether this helps or hurts US strategic interests in the region.

-- Sameer Lalwani

That was fast. There is a brand new White House website that looks a lot like the sweeping bluish blend of the Obama campaign website that has been uploaded.

Check it out -- along with the first post of the "White House Blog."

Off to the Google/YouTube-Leadership Conference on Civil Rights ball...and then to David Frum's and Dal LaMagna's. Exhausted -- but still a great day.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest post by Amjad Attalah, Co-Director of the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force.

As Barack Obama was sworn in today as the 44th president of the United States, Israeli troops were rapidly withdrawing from the Gaza Strip after both Israel and Hamas announced "unilateral" cease-fires.

Simultaneously, Reuters was reporting that Senator George Mitchell was being strongly considered to become the next Middle East Envoy - a man of considerable gravitas who negotiated an end to the more intractable Irish-British dispute (a conflict with significant similarities with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).

I met Senator Mitchell when he led the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact Finding Committee appointed by former President Bill Clinton. He completed his work in the first five months of President Bush's presidency - and it was the closest President Bush ever got to addressing the underlying fundamentals of the conflict.

There is no doubt in my mind that had anyone else been elected to become the President, the odds are that the war in Gaza would have remained on-going, and hundreds - if not thousands - more Palestinian civilians would have lost their lives.

There is no evidence that President Obama had his aides send any messages to Israel before his inauguration suggesting that it be best that Israel finished campaigning in Gaza by today.

He didn't need to.

The concept that political disputes can be bombed into submission - that populations could be "taught a lesson" by starving, bombing, or rocketing them, left Washington, DC on Air Force One this afternoon.

Israel could have ended the bombing of Gaza at any time once it started and claimed the same "victory." We can only wish that the inauguration came sooner.

This doesn't mean that all is well, or even that the latest cease-fire will hold. But it does mean that today the world is holding its breath, waiting to find out if the United States is about to re-assume the mantle of world leader, not in bomb-dropping shock and awe excitement, but in hard headed political realism that recognizes that our physical strength is a reflection of our moral strength.

And before Obama even walks into the White House, he will already have his first foreign policy success.

-- Amjad Atallah

Update: Steve Clemons weighing in here. I just want to give public credit to Ben Smith at Politico for being the first person to whisper in my ear that this George Mitchell appointment was coming down the pike.

I talked to some senior Israeli diplomats today and yesterday -- and they say that that they greatly welcome Mitchell's appointment. And many Arab leaders I have spoken to in the last couple of days have said exactly the same. Good choice by Obama and moves beyond the polarization that has been occuring over some others who might have been named.

-- Steve Clemons

Hail to the Chief is being played for the last time for Bush as the incumbent President of the United States. That song will be Barack Obama's alone for the next four years.

The National Mall is the most full it has ever been for an event like this -- and it's 25 degrees outside. People are so excited. I was out til 3 am last night, enjoying the Huffington Post party until things shut down at 2 -- and everyone was on a high.

I spoke with Queen Noor last evening at the Arab American Inaugural Gala -- and was pleased she asked people to think of those lost and still suffering in Gaza. She was sensible and bold to remind people of the disaster there and to remind people that this enthusiasm for good had to be directed at solving problems around teh world.

Joe Biden is now walking out. What a journey it has been for him. I'm a huge fan of Joe -- and think that he is going to be a steadying and informed balancer in the White House.

And soon Obama himself will be walking out.....this is history. And now he is.

Wow.

I was speaking with Gregory Craig, close friend and confidante of Barack Obama and the new White House Counsel, and he said, "Steve, I know I'm going to lose it up there."

There are going to be a lot of tears of joy, of love of this man, and of relief that finally America has someone who looks like America in its fullest form.

Rick Warren is up next. I was feeling so good. Let's see what he does for me now -- very little applause for him.

Glad Warren is over -- very evangelical Christian. Zero outreach. Glad we can move on.

And now Aretha....always amazing. Let Freedom Ring. . .or as Wynton Marsalis and Sandra Day O'Connor said last night at the Rockefeller Foundation sponsored Kennedy Center MLK tribute, "Let Freedom Swing. . .!"

Joe Biden -- the oath. . .and now VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

I love Yo-Yo Ma, and his son Nicholas Ma, now working at McKinsey, is soon going to be playing some great role in America's diplomatic machine. He used to work at the United Nations, and I'm encouraging State Department officials to recruit Nicholas.

Wow....Obama is now President of the United States, even without the swearing in as it is just past noon.

"I, Barack Hussein Obama. . .solemnly swear. . ."

Amazing. It's done!

Now, we desperately need to get to work on real world problems. . .but I have to admit that I'm really happy that Obama is President today.

Let's hear what he says in his speech. . .

Humbled by the challenges ahead. Thanks Bush for his service (and much more applause for Bush than Rick Warren. . .)

He's calling for national resolve, a fall back on America's first principles, sacrifice, standing together. Reminding people of America's hard, and often harsh history, the battles for ideals.

Here is the entire speech that a friend just sent me:

Full prepared text of President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

The most important thing Obama's speech says is this:

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

This is worth a lot. No false choices between our ideals and our security. That needs to be said over and over again. Obama is on target here.

The speech is humble, and more a warning of tough times on their way, than it is inspiring to take America to new levels. This is a speech that is like Obama, essentially conservative and cautious, serious. And he's calling the country to stand together to deal with the really hard times ahead. I like it -- and think that this cautious Obama is someone who does want to change things, not just pretend to.

His shout out to the Muslim world will be appreciated -- and is appreciated by me. This outreached hand to Muslims has been missing from the Obama operation. So another good check mark for Obama.

Behind the scenes, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are misbehaving and engaged in escalatory snubbing. Their conduct is unbecoming -- when Obama is trying to call everyone to push the reset button, to work together again on tomorrow's problems, two of our former Presidents are acting like school children.

Obama really hit a homer by reminding people that someone is now standing before them, taking "the oath", when just a few decades ago he wouldn't have been able to be served in many of the nation's restaurants.

Powerful ending stanza:

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

I was moved by the speech. . .and most of all am thrilled that. . .

BARACK OBAMA IS THE 44TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Note to Barack Obama's speechwriters and fact checkers. Obama said:

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.

Wrong. Forty-three men, not forty-four, have taken the oath of office as President. Grover Cleveland did it twice as the 22nd and 24th President of the U.S.

The Reverend Dr. Joseph E. Lowery is giving the closing prayer -- and Rick Warren could learn some things from him. Amazing and moving message.

Lowery is the person we should have heard from when this ceremony marking the nation's most important hand off of power began.

And now, George W. Bush and family are about to fly off into the rest of their lives without the power of the presidency to wield tomorrow.

Both President Obama and Vice President Biden showed their commitment to reach across the aisle and country by escorting Laura and George W. Bush to his helicopter.

All quite beautifully, respectfully scripted.

Sent my note about the error in Obama's speech on the number of men who have sworn the presidential oath to CNN's top political producer and received this note back:

Wow, Steve. You're really a stickler... But yes - you are correct.

I hope Jeffrey Toobin, Wolf Blitzer, Paul Begala or Anderson Cooper use it -- sent it to all of them.

More soon -- I have to go do some media commentary and will be watching the Inaugural Parade from the Embassy of Canada on Pennsylvania Avenue as the guest of Ambassdor and Mrs. Michael Wilson.

All best to everyone for a new day and new start in America. As Obama said, the times ahead will be tough -- but we get to push "reset" today.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest post by filmmaker and author Eugene Jarecki. The video clip above is from a talk that Jarecki gave last Thursday at the New America Foundation on the topic, "The American Way of War."

Eugene Jarecki's 2006 film Why We Fight won the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival as well as a Peabody Award. His new book, The American Way of War: Guided Missiles, Misguided Men, and a Republic in Peril, has just been released by Simon & Schuster/Free Press.

AN ODE TO TOMORROW

Though the future is yet unknowable, let us for a moment imagine that when we wake tomorrow it will be a new day in America.

Let us appreciate the poetry that once upon a time, a one-term congressman from Illinois became President of the United States and freed four million African slaves and, 145 years later, an African American first-term senator from Illinois - borne not of the rapacious legacy of that compulsory migration but rather of a voluntary choice by two adults - should become President of that same land.

Let us imagine that a nation once built on the scarred backs of black Africans could, in arguably her darkest hour since, be rescued by the son of a Kenyan exchange student and a white American woman from Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Let us imagine that that man and woman could have met and married amid the sweltering heat of Jim Crow America and, just two weeks before the courageous freedom rides of 1961, produced a child whose very birth would seem a hopeful reminder of America's long-deferred promises - of racial harmony, of social courage, and of the power of love to free us from the shackles of our self-annihilating prejudice.

Let us imagine still that that young child should, through hard work and self-acknowledged providence, have become the figure of serenity, fortitude, vision, and grace who has stood before us for 23 long months and kept his dignity.

Let us imagine that beside that graceful man has walked his true and intrepid partner, co-parent of two confident and glowing children, who likewise has conducted herself with poise, substance, and candor -- cognizant of yet unspoiled by the toxic air of Washington.

Let us imagine that, opposite them, an opportunistic campaign of division, viciousness and ideological bankruptcy was overcome by one of decency and depth -- that an effort to appeal to our lesser selves, to that in us which is divisible, was defeated by one that appealed to the best in us, to that which is indivisible.

Let us, though, not be fooled.

Let us not allow ourselves to be lulled into false comfort.

Let us go to sleep tonight and luxuriate, yes, in one night of hopeful rest.

And let us in those hours of sleep not plumb the darkness of the cynicism and doubt that have become a national affliction.

Let us sleep not with anger but in peace, secure in the hope that our hope shall endure and even prevail.

Yet let us wake tomorrow more vigilant than ever to ensure that the new day upon us shall not become the elusive phantom of a dream.

Let us commit ourselves - each of us individually and in concert -- to whatever it will take in time, energy, and resources to demand that promises made along the way will be kept and that compromises struck will be weighed against the greater gravity of the challenges we face and, if judged inappropriate to the moment, be replaced by enterprises of greater courage.

Let us not forget that today's triumph can become tomorrow's loss if the battle won dulls our resolve to fight the larger war - a war not of bombs, machines, hubris, corruption, and shortsightedness (we've done all that) but rather one of souls, humanity, decency, justice, and, longevity.

Let us recognize that no single man - no matter how talented or well-intentioned -- can possibly be a substitute for the much-needed chorus of a democracy.

Let us recognize that for that man to fulfill his promise to realize the kind of change we seek -- in the care of our bodies, our minds, our children, our planet, our streets, our livelihoods, and our security -- that we ourselves must be the agents of such change, whose unrelenting commitment to fundamental reform will be needed to give him the fortitude to battle the disfiguring forces of Washington.

Let us not forget

a government not of men but of laws,
a government of separated powers not arrogant ones,
a government of checks and balances honored not suspended, and finally,
a nation that is ever a work-in-progress, at her best when she recognizes and seeks to mend her frailties and at her worst when she denies them.

Let us not forget that, without accountability for the trespasses of recent years - the errors and wrongdoings that have cost tens of thousands of lives and shattered millions more -- there is insufficient motivation for real and systemic change.

But of course, there will be time for all this.

For now, let us join with those around us in jubilation, with family, friend, and stranger alike, and commit ourselves that we shall all meet again -- daily, weekly, in whatever ways our waking moments allow -- to build the community, nation, and world we seek.

-- Eugene Jarecki

Josh Marshall just announced the launch of TPMDC -- another franchise in the growing Talking Points Memo new media empire.

Matt Cooper will be at the helm of the newly launched ship as editor-at-large.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Worth watching and pondering.

Andrew Golis sent a good note this morning encouraging folks to look beyond MLK the icon.

Golis writes:

. . .the flip side of being a part of the American canon is that many of the more challenging ideas that don't fit comfortably within the mainstream, have been conveniently forgotten. The result is that King has been Santa Clausified. Quotes, arguments, and ideas like the ones Jay Smooth brings us in the video above have been conveniently forgotten.

Santa Clausified. . .good term. And the other things MLK said deserve more air time.

On other fronts, I'm exhausted from the inaugural festivities and the demands surrounding them -- but this will be the most intense day yet. I've just done some modest public service work this morning and hope others consider the same.

A good place to connect your personal time to good causes is this site launched by Colin Powell and the Presidential Inaugural Committee titled Renew America Together.

-- Steve Clemons

(photo credit: Brian Greer)

"That's Obama!"

No words can say more than this picture of excitement and hope in pure form.

-- Steve Clemons

Maureen Dowd threw a "Star Spangled Banner" party -- so I wore a star spangled tie. My modest attempt at festive attire wasn't matched by anyone else there.

Maureen loved the tie and told me her sister had originally wanted everyone to come patriotically dressed. I did expect more clothing glitz from the glitterati who crammed into her Georgetown home, formerly owned by John F. Kennedy, in his carousing years -- but the people she had were really all the glitz needed.

But the real stars were in her living room -- and one corner of the party was owned by David Geffen and his boyfriend Jeremy Lingvall, who were both charming, relaxed and enjoyed talking about politics and the economy with the folks they encountered. I won't quote any of the chatter, but Geffen's understanding and framing of the economic tailspin the US has gone into was impressive when we were talking -- and if anything, I think he thinks the gloomy picture Paul Krugman painted was too rosy.

Dowd was the perfect hostess. The fanciest treats she had were pigs in a blanket -- but she knew that the real treats were face time with herself and the power guests she assembled. She constantly worked through all of the rooms of her very crowded place and kept folks moving and milling and meeting each other. She started off my part of the evening telling David Geffen, Jeremy, Larry King, myself and some others various of the sell-himself show-off lines JFK was heard by neighbors using with dates.

And then entered Rahm Emanuel, his wife Amy Rule, and three beautiful kids who Geffen's Jeremy Lingvall, a great guy, promised to romp with next time the little Emanuels were in Malibu.

While everyone who was anyone seemed to be at Maureen Dowd's super gathering, Rick Warren was not -- and given how clearly close Geffen and Rahm Emanuel are, I think Rick Warren would have had to convert to hang out in that household.

I did mention to Rahm Emanuel that Gregory Craig, Barack Obama's White House Counsel, had told me the other evening that he and the whole senior team needed to report to the Southwest Gate of the White House and report to duty between 2:30 and 4:00 pm on Tuesday, immediately after the Inaugural parade. And Rahm said "absolutely. . .have to start making phone calls."

I asked Rahm in front of the Washington Post's Al Kamen who he'd place his very first call to. Emanuel said "my mother. . .and if you believe that, you are full of (well, I'll just let that go. . .)"

And as the Hollwood A-List continued to arrive, I had the opportunity to meet and chat with George Lucas, Ron Howard, Larry David, Tom Hanks -- who pretty much stayed at the doorway.

Others at the Dowd gala were California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Anne Gust, Andrew Sullivan and Aaron Tone, Alan Greenspan, Helene Cooper, Chris Wallace, Alison Silver, Al Kamen, Janice O'Connell, Aspen Institute President and historiographer Walter Isaacson, Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough, New Yorker writer and torture policy chronicler Jane Mayer, Bob Woodward, Arianna Huffington, Tammy Haddad; Politico's Ben Smith, Carol Lee, Jonathan Martin, and Mike Allen; Chris Matthews, Margaret Carlson, 'Results the Gym' owner Doug Jefferies, Adam Clymer, Brian Williams, Anderson Cooper, Tom Brokaw, Michael Hirsh, John Harwood, Jane Hamsher, Atlantic Monthly editor James Bennet and his brother Michael Bennet (who is the newly appointed Senator from Colorado succeeding Ken Salazar), David Sanger, Diane Von Furstenberg, David Shuster and Julianna Goldman.

Best line of the evening I heard besides Maureen Dowd's tales of JFK was said to David Geffen and boyfriend Jeremy by someone who I won't name.

This person said to them, "When you guys come to a State Dinner, you don't have to come as a couple. Both of you come and you each bring a date," nodding Maureen Dowd's way.

This is going to be a much more gay friendly White House. Take that Rick Warren.

After the Maureen Dowd party that really will be considered one of the best of all parties thrown around this historic Obama/Biden inauguration, I went over to Halo where a very big festive gathering of the LGBT glitterati were having cocktails and giving lots of hugs.

At that gathering I ran into Ambassador Michael Guest and his partner Alex Nevarez. Guest resigned his foreign service position while Ambassador to Romania to protest the lack of support for domestic partners at the State Department and then helped launch the Council for Global Equality.

Others at Halo were Maureen Dowd partiers Andrew Sullivan and his husband Aaron Tone, Hilary Rosen, Lane Hudson (the man who helped out those Mark Foley emails and was pivotal in the 2006 Democratic victory that took the House of Representatives), Michael Rogers (who is the nemesis of many a closeted gay Republican -- particularly former Senator Larry Craig), and TWN reader and Democratic National Finance Chairman Andrew Tobias -- who will be honored at another Halo party tonight.

It's now Monday, and I need to wake up.

-- Steve Clemons

Last night, through a massive crowd of people that David Brock and Media Matters for America assembled for an excellent Inaugural celebration at the Hirshhorn Museum, I thought I saw Norman Lear. And a tear came to my eye.

I haven't seen Norman in a number of years -- but he was one of the founding funders of the New America Foundation, a think tank that I helped build and which is committed to pragmatic, solutions oriented policy work. Lear has started so many things -- of course, People for the American Way as well as the Norman Lear Center at the USC Annenberg School of Communications run by my pal and fellow Huffington Post scribe Marty Kaplan. And of course, he is the iconic television producer of such shows as All in the Family, Maude, Sanford and Son, The Jeffersons, One Day at a Time, Good Times, and Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman.

His overflowing life and bio are here -- but what he is mostly is a flamboyant American patriot who really loves this country -- and as a liberal, a hard-headed, never give up never surrender liberal, Norman Lear has never forfeited the flag, or patriotism, or his very public love of country.

I'm not good with emotion. Once I get emotional -- too often, a flood of tears come out. I tend to stay far away from the spirtual, the warm and fuzzy, anything that might tweak a real emotional nerve -- particularly in public.

I'll never forget when up at a home once owned by Robert Frost and now lovingly cared for and owned by Lear called "The Gully", Lear allowed me to organize a retreat of a broad cross section of policy intellectuals. After the first day of proceedings, Norman had all of us hold hands around a table and to think about what we could do to restore the health and welfare of this country.

I was gasping for air when we did this. I didn't like holding hands. I looked desperately around the circle at folks like James Steinberg who will soon be Deputy Secretary of State, and the home-schooled wunderkind Jedediah Purdy, and "public commons" crusader David Bollier, Sun Microsystems and futurist whistle blower Bill Joy, and budget and finance expert Maya MacGuineas -- and I could tell that all of them had no problem mixing a spiritual, personal, sensitive moment with their policy deliberations. USC Lear Center Director Marty Kaplan was there and I could tell he was a pro at this emotional stuff, and loving it.

But I couldn't do it. . .yet.

I protested a little -- and I said something along the lines that our future in America required more than hand-holding....and Norman Lear looked at me, smiled, and said "Steve, I want you to come hold my hand. It starts here -- we can have a tough discussion on policy, but we're going to hold hands and think about where the Almighty might be in all of this. . .This is what our country needs and then you can think your big thoughts. . ." and yadda yadda yadda.

It was one of those moments I'll never forget -- and it made me a bit more human.

I owe Norman Lear more than just being one of the three primary funders of the organization that now employs me and houses my ambitions for improving the policy decisions in the country -- but I owe him for helping me shed some of the more severe and less humanistic parts of my approach to this town and what we are all trying to achieve here.

In fact, I think that my decision to finally start this blog after two years of nudging by Josh Marshall had a lot to do with my encounters with and discussions with Norman Lear.

Norman Lear -- fully consistent with the kind of American patriot he is -- asked Keith Carradine to write a song for him called "Born Again American" to reflect a revitalization of the faith of all Americans in their country, not just those lucky enough to know Dick Cheney or to have been lifelong GOP members.

I'm still someone who is suspicious of overly emotional tributes and know that beneath the parties in Washington and the flag-waving for the ascension of a knew and very different kind of President than we have had before in Barack Obama there is screaming economy and hardship and pain at home and abroad that is always on my mind.

But one of the things I have learned from Norman Lear when jousting with John Bolton, Dick Cheney, and America's cadre of pugnacious nationalists in the struggle to get American foreign policy back on track is that I never forfeit my patriotism and I'm never shy of embracing the American flag and reminding people what it should stand for.

Thank you Norman Lear.

And thank you to those performers from all walks of life and from all over the country who performed in the video:

Keith Carradine's "Born Again American" -- produced by Norman Lear

Keith Carradine -- Los Angeles, California;
Jim Dalton -- Jefferson Memorial, Washington, DC;
Chad Van Rys, US Marine -- Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Kevin Moore II -- Venice Beach, California;
Xiao-Dan Zheng -- San Francisco, California;
Matt Thompson -- Chicago, Illinois;
Luke Buckett -- Echo Park, Los Angeles, California;
Bobby Broom -- Chicago, Illinois;
Keith Sanchez -- Austin, Texas;
Erin Dzierwa -- St. Louis, Missouri;
The Harlem Gospel Choir -- Harlem, New York City, New York;
All Saints Episcopal -- Rose Bowl, Pasadena, California;
Mu'azzin Benyoucef -- Islamic Center (filmed at Mount Rushmore, South Dakota);
Cantor Patty Linsky -- Temple Ahavat Shalom (filmed at Mount Rushmore, South Dakota);
David Hernandez -- Red Rocks, Colorado;
Tarrah Reynolds -- Brooklyn, New York;
Rev. Timothy McDonald III -- New Orleans, Louisiana;
Rev. Davidson Loehr -- Austin, Texas

Take some time and listen to Norman's newly produced tribute to the nation in the time of Barack Obama and Joe Biden that will be performed tonight in Washington, DC.

-- Steve Clemons

Well, I have made it through every corner of my schedule so far. And last night, we actually added an event -- a drop by at the "Late Night Finance Committee Party" of the Presidential Inauguration Committee at the DC Convention Center. Lots of folks there -- but the British Ambassador and David Brock's Media Matters parties were both the best in town last night. And Lori Wallach's salsa party was hot too.

>A friend of mine had his pocket packed with the hard to get invites for all of the official events in town. The most coveted thing he had was a VIP bus pass. At least for the next day or two, a pocket full of tickets like that above translates as "Obama Power."

Some of the folks who I ran into at British Ambassador to the US Nigel Sheinwald's fete on behalf of the "Illinois delegation" included incoming White House Counsel Gregory Craig, Attorney General next Eric Holder, Nobel Laureate and Energy Secretary next Steven Chu, Arianna Huffington and sister Agapi Stassinopoulos, Independent Washington correspondent Rupert Cornwell, Guardian Bureau Chief Ewen MacAskill, CBO Director to be Peter Orszag, Sidney and Jackie Blumenthal, Ken Duberstein, Paul Brownell of Dell and his wife Selina Jackson of UPS, Judy Woodruff, Margaret Carlson, Tammy Haddad, David Broder -- and of course, a lot of folks from Chicago.

And then at the Hirshhorn, David Brock on behalf of Media Matters for America pulled i an interesting crowd including long time Hillary adviser Ann Lewis, her brother Barney Frank and his boyfriend Jim, producer and activist Norman Lear, Media Matters spear-carriers Karl Frisch and Ari Rabin-Havt, Lara Bergthold, Heidi Crebo-Rediker and Doug Rediker, Susan Eisenhower, and of course -- some of the best modern art in the nation.

After 12 pm tomorrow afternoon, Monday, my twitter feeds will be appearing on a special Huffington Post front page Inaugural feed.

Best news so far about the inauguration -- yesterday it was 12 degrees and today 34 degrees. Yeah!

More soon -- off to see economist Jamie Galbraith now.

-- Steve Clemons

I've been asked by quite a few readers what I'm going to do and attend this weekend. So, I'll lay that all out here.

But first let me say that there are a lot of great gatherings in DC -- some really cool ones -- that I was invited to that I just can't attend. Netroots Nation, for instance, is putting together a great event. The Washington Film Institute is having its own big inaugural thing. And then there are a couple of LGBT Inaugural parties -- one at the Mayflower Hotel and then one at the Historical Society of Washington. And in the former home of Averill and Pamela Harriman in Dupont Circle, the Woman's National Democratic Club is having a chi chi reception that I can't quite get into the schedule this year.

And then MoveOn and a lot of other organizations are having a big giant party somewhere -- but I responded too late for it and was told that I was out of luck. The person was very friendly though and told me that though I couldn't go to the real MoveOn party, I had lots of other options for home-hosted Inaugural Party events sponsored by MoveOn members all over the country. I'm not going to hit one of these, but some of you might want to. Here's the MoveOn party tracker. (but be sure to check Pam Spaulding's sassy response to one of those local MoveOn invites. . .very snarky but shows how solid Pam's principles are when it comes to the Rick Warren deal)

But what I am doing -- though it's still in a bit of flux is the following. . .and of course, I'm always waiting for that next best thing. . .

Yesterday, I picked up my press credentials at the DC Convention Center and want to tip my hat to the smoothest, friendliest press credentialing operation I could have imagined for something this big. Everyone was great -- and I figure that these folks were volunteers. They gave me a couple of industrial type "hand warmers" -- probably something NASA developed or which bubbled out of the dual use programs at one of the nuclear weapons laboratories. But at 12 degrees farenheit, I'll take anything.

Seriously, a very big thanks to the volunteers and organizers of the press office. I wasn't made to feel awkward at all that I was more journoblogger than journalist.

Then I started the weekend off with a joint MLK Day/Inaugural "drink all their surplus wine party" at the home of former National Telecommunications Infrastructure Administration Director Larry Irving and his diplomatic communications consultant spouse Leslie Wiley. Met a lot of cool folks there including the former Chief of Staff of the US Information Agencey Iris Burnett -- whose husband Dave snaps Obama photos sort of like this.

Great party. Leslie and Larry had one of those fancy, engraved invites from Obama and Biden to attend and participate in the Inaugural -- but as Larry Irving told me, the invite got them "zilch." It's an invite to stay home and watch on TV (which perhaps we all should do).

But here is how the rest of TWN's Inaugural period looks like at the moment. . .

1. On Saturday, we will be attending a party honoring the Illinois Delegation hosted at the home of British Ambassador to the United States Nigel Sheinwald. I've heard from quite a few folks that this one of the tougher events to get in to. . .so many thanks to my friendly readership at the UK Embassy. Check out the Embassy blog.

2. Media Matters for America chief David Brock is hosting an Inaugural bash at the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden Saturday evening -- and I'll be there (not in the cold garden).

3. Fair trade crusader and Public Citizen Global Trade Watch Lori Wallach is having a Latin-themed house party up in Adams Morgan tonight, and that too will get some of our attention tonight. Wallach was a close advisor to actor and filmmaker Stuart Townsend in the making of his interesting feature film, Battle in Seattle. One of the coolest evenings I had this past year was one spent with Wallach and Stuart Townsend when I helped host a premier screening of his film. And then we all went to hang out with Jackson Browne who sang his Cuba song that night.

That should get us to Sunday morning.

4. I'm going to do some Canadian and British TV punditry in the morning -- and then go running in the frigid weather in Rock Creek Park with some others who want to have a Martin Luther King/Inaugural celebratory run. I'm being dragged into it -- and will be suffering.

5. Then there is a brunch in honor of UT Austin/LBJ School economist James K. Galbraith, author of The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too at the home of Janine Wedel who has been writing about the informal, in the shadows power networks of the neoconservatives. Wadel's book will be out this next year. Galbraith, son of the late Harvard economist and close JFK adviser John Kenneth Galbraith, is also the academic colleague of James Steinberg who will be the next Deputy Secretary of State.

6. And then Sunday evening, I am going as the date of a friend to the Georgetown home of Maureen Dowd who is having a very high sizzle celebratory affair to commemorate the Inauguration. Very excited about that one.

7. And then Sunday, I'll be out to hear Bruce Springsteen and others on the Mall. . .at least for a few minutes depending on the temperatures. Don't look for me. I'll be completely buried in scarves and jackets...and am thinking of wearing heated goggles...

8. On Monday, Martin Luther King day, I'll be doing something in the morning as a gesture to public service. I haven't figured out what I am going to do -- but I was impressed with a gesture by the Obama Presidential Inaugural Committee and Colin Powell to encourage people to go to this website to look at various volunteering opportunities they might get involved with. I recently attended a news conference with Colin Powell who helped launch USA Service -- sort of a hybrid of Craigslist and Meetup.com.

9. I'll be doing an Inaugural/MLK celebratory LGBT brunch on Monday at the home of some cool friends.

10. Then, a very cool new thing started by Council on Competitiveness guru Chad Evans and Paul Soulellis titled "The Inaugural Salon". Chad Evans is one of the smartest guys I've ever met -- and he can write perfect script backwards -- like Da Vinci. This "Inaugural Salon" is billed as a "gathering on the eve of change" and will be taking place at Sweden House in Washington. I think some tickets for participation may still be available.

11. And then the Rockefeller Foundation is hosting several of us from The Washington Note at a Wynton Marsalis concert at the Kennedy Center's Eisenhower Theater. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is also playing a role in the event titled "A Celebration of America" -- and this ticket looks like one of the most sought after during the weekend. Good music and in a warm venue! Then there are cocktails and treats after, but I'll have to be running off to. . .

12. The Arab American 2009 Inaugural Celebration at the Fairmont Hotel sponsored by the Arab American Institute and Foundation run by Jim Zogby will be one of the cooler and funkier pre-Inaugural deals in town. I will be there for a while -- and think that it would be wise of the incomning Obama administration upper echelon to make sure that they reach out to this community that got far too much abuse and mistreatment during the campaign. I hope Mazen Asbahi will be there.

13. And then there will be the high sizzle pre-Inaugural Ball Countdown Party at the Newseum sponsored by Huffington Post, the Atlantic Philanthropies and the Musk Foundation. Sorry, I can't get anyone tickets (have had a flood of requests) -- but I will be there for lots and lots of this party. I think it looks to be one of the very best. . .

15. Early in the morning on Tuesday, I'm off with my press passes to see what I can see at both the Lincoln Memorial opening ceremonies and then will be at the Swearing In. I haven't figured out yet whether I will really be able to cover both -- as the National Mall is long and will be filled with millions of people and lots of security zones. I may have to choose -- and will just see how it goes. Once I'm nearly frozen or done with the ceremony that most of you will see better on C-Span, CNN or MSNBC, I'm off to. . .

16. The Canadian Embassy on Pennsylvania as a guest of Ambassador Michael Wilson who has the most coveted little party gathering on the parade route. The Embassy, which will be backed with DC notables who want to stay warm and yet close to power, will have great treats, hot chocolate and a 2nd floor viewing deck from which the parade can be closely and easily observed.

17. Then I was supposed to stop by Verizon's offices for a drop-by open house also on the parade route, but they invited me, said I could get credentials and then I goofed and forgot to get them. So no Verizon drop by's this year. Regrets to Link Hoewing.

18. I will be stopping by both Google's offices and the Ploughshares Fund, run by Joe Cirincione, Naila Bolus and Terri Lodge -- all doing great things in nuclear non-proliferation and crisis reduction areas. They have offered strategically vital open houses to provide warmth for those who have to walk the several miles back from the parade route to their DC homes. Thank you!

19. And then I'll be taking a nap, perhaps blogging, or thawing in front of a fire.

20. And then Tuesday night, I'll be at the non-traditional Inaugural Ball hosted by Google/YouTube and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights at the Andrew Mellow Auditorium on Constitution Avenue. That will be fun. . .

21. And if it gets a bit old or I get tired, I may hit two other late night gatherings -- one on the right and one on the left. . .

a. On the right side, Danielle Crittenden and her spouse David Frum will be hosting in their pretty magnificent home. . ."The Counter-Inaugural Ball". Frum has just launched his new effort to re-engineer, redirect, and revitalize Republicanism with his group blog, New Majority. I plan to stop in there and check in with their two labradors, Copper and Chester, and their young daughter Beatrice who I am sure is already well on her way to becoming a smart, dad-frustrating progressive activist.

b. On the left side of town politics, I hope to be stopping by the heated roof deck of progressive philanthropist and former Tweezerman tycoon Dal LaMagna who along with DC socialite Juleanna Glover is having an Inaugural "midnight breakfast" gala. Thank god Dal leaves across the street from my house -- where I will then collapse and think about policy proposals jumping over fences. . .

And then that's about it -- but I may try to squeeze a few more things in here and there, and hey if Joe and Jill Biden call and ask my partner and me to ride around in the limo with them, I may have to let the David Frum and Dal LaMagna gatherings go.

For those of you in DC (or even outside) who want a good roster of what is up and what is formally sponsored by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, this is a great site. And here is the Inaugural Blog.

I'll be doing a lot of updates during the weekend over Twitter and Facebook -- and my updates will run regularly on Huffington Post's twitter feed as well.

There are many serious problems going on around the world -- and I will be digging into policy areas during the next several days as well.

I have an overdue commentary on America's foreign policy czars who will be deployed to the Middle East and South Asia that will be up soon, so don't think that what is really going on in my mind as I flit from one party to another is distant at all from the tragedy in Gaza and the continuing crises in America's foreign policy portfolio.

I hope folks will share what they are doing this Inaugural weekend in the Comments Sections.

Stay warm and safe if you are trying to do the Obama/Biden Inaugural in person and real time.

-- Steve Clemons

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar (R-IN) submitted quite a number of written questions (pdf here) to Hillary Clinton to answer as part of the process of the Senate considering her nomination as Secretary of State.

I've always been impressed by Lugar's shrewd sense of the geostrategic order and what the opportunities for action and change are -- and aren't. During the first round of Petraeus/Crocker hearings about the surge in Iraq, it was Lugar's opening statement that was the most compelling critique of the Bush administration's absence of strategy. In fact, it was Lugar who essentially implied that the surge was more tactic than strategy and demanded to know more about the other moving parts of America's foreign policy game plan in the Middle East.

If folks have time, they should read through this instructive document as it provides a quick and comprehensive lesson in American foreign policy and national security issues.

The Cuba questions posed by Lugar interest me today. He had several, and I'll provide Senator Lugar's questions and Hillary Clinton's responses here (page 58-59):

Cuba

101. The fiftieth anniversary of the Cuban Revolution on January 1, 2009, presents an auspicious moment to reexamine the contentious US-Cuban relationship. Please provide your views on reviewing all elements of Cuba policy.

There are many ways that we can send a message to the Cuban people that the United States intends to play a positive role in their future. President-Elect Obama believes the Cuban-Americans especially can be important ambassadors for change in Cuba. As such, he believes that it makes both moral and strategic sense to lift the restrictions on family visits and family cash remittances to Cuba. We do not currently have a timeline for the announcement of such a new policy, and the Obama-Biden Administration will consult closely with Congress as we prepare the change.

President-Elect Obama also believes that it is not time to lift the embargo on Cuba, especially since it provides an important source of leverage for further change on the island.

102. Despite the official embargo, agricultural trade represents a significant area of interaction between the United States and Cuba. Since the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSRA) of 2000 lifted sanctions on sales of agricultural commodities and medicine, the U.S. has become Cuba's most important food provider, although many restrictions and licensing requirements remain in place. Please provide your view on expanding trade with Cuba.

We anticipate a review of U.S. policy regarding sales of agricultural commodities to Cuba and look forward to working with members of the Committee and other members of Congress as we move forward in the consideration of appropriate steps to take to help advance U.S. interests and values in the context of relations with Cuba.

103. The United States has pursued cooperation with Cuba in drug interdiction on a very limited case-by-case basis. Please provide your views on a broad formalized agreement or Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Cuba in order to improve coordination of anti-drug efforts and provide for exchange of information.

Given the threat posed by narcotics trafficking, it is important to cooperate with Cube where such cooperation is effective in stopping trafficking.

104. Cuba has been on the State Department's State Sponsors of Terrorism list since 1982. Please provide your views regarding why Cuba should or should not remain on the State Department's State Sponsors of Terrorism list.

We anticipate a review of US policy regarding Cuba and look forward to working with members of the Committee and other members of Congress as we move forward to the consideration of appropriate steps to take to help advance US interests and values in the context of relations with Cuba.

105. Please provide your views on US-Cuban cooperation on energy security and environmentally sustainable resource management, especially as Cuba begins deep-water exploration for potentially significant oil reserves.

We anticipate a review of U.S. policy regarding Cuba and look forward to working with members of the Committee and other members of Congress as we move forward in the consideration of appropriate steps to take to help advance US interests and values in the context of relations with Cuba.

First of all, Senator Lugar's questions themselves imply a plea for a common sense pivot in US-Cuba relations. He acknowledges that 50 years of contentiousness have not produced policy results that seem impressive. Without showing all of his cards, Lugar seems to be telegraphing that the time has come to end the last place in the world where the Cold War is still raging.

Kudos to Lugar for doing this.

On Hillary Clinton's front, her answers were conventional and largely unimpressive in a geostrategic sense -- with the single exception that she has promised a "full review" of US-Cuba relations.

In answering Lugar's first Cuba question, Clinton missed an opportunity to frame US-Cuba relations in a broader geostrategic setting.

Because George W. Bush strangled contacts too tightly, even right wing Cuban-Americans are asking for parts of the embargo to be lifted -- and recently most Latin American states including Mexico and Brazil asked the US to end the embargo of Cuba. Clinton didn't need to agree with these appeals -- but not to look at the echo effects of US-Cuba relations elsewhere in the region, and the world, was an error.

Also, Hugo Chavez and Venezuela have been attempting to ideologically succeed Castro and essentially to colonize the Cuban people as part of his platform. I have been to Cuba -- and the Cubans generally detest Chavez's pretensions about them and their country. Clinton should have given some hint that she is aware of the competition with Chavez in Latin America and that the easing of sanctions and the promotion of people to people exchange could be a smart strategy similar to what the US has done with other Communist countries, particularly Vietnam.

I hope someone in the press corps asks Hillary Clinton and/or Barack Obama whether they "feel" it is constitutional and morally acceptable to distinguish between different ethnicities and lineages of AMERICANS.

Clinton and Obama both support lifting restrictions on "Cuban-Americans" who want to travel back and forth between the US and Cuba. I find this discriminatory and repulsive. It was wrong for any US President to ever impose opportunities for some classes of Americans divided from others. But essentially, can either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama face the cameras and say YES, I favor a discriminatory approach to travel.

As Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has repeatedly said, it is a human right to travel -- and he will not abide by a US government that tells any US citizen where he or she can travel. Communist governments are the ones that are supposed to be about restrictions on freedoms -- not the United States of America -- and yet that is what Hillary Clinton is promulgating.

And on the question of lifting or maintaining the embargo, I think Hillary Clinton's answer is wrong-headed and divorced from the simple truth that it doesn't matter except that it harms American interests and leverage. 183 other nations have voted against the United States in the United Nations on the embargo. Cuba is enjoying investment from abroad -- and more of our allies are reestablishing and beefing up their diplomatic missions there. To have leverage in Cuba, America needs to be engaged.

Hillary Clinton would be wise to listen to Brent Scowcroft's words on the US-Cuba embargo:

My answer on Cuba is Cuba is not a foreign policy question.

Cuba is a domestic issue.

In foreign policy, the embargo makes no sense.

It doesn't do anything.

It's quite clear we can not starve Cuba to death.

We learned that when the Soviet stopped subsidizing Cuba and they didn't collapse.

It's a domestic issue.

I am glad to see that Hillary Clinton may be deferring on some questions, particularly the question of Cuba's status on the US roster of state sponsors of terrorism, until a "full review" of the relationship is done. It is great to hear that something comprehensive may be ordered -- so as to move this relationship forward.

But essentially -- as Secretary of State and Barack Obama's most important envoy -- it is essential that Hillary Clinton realize that Cuba should no longer be treated like a domestic policy problem of this country and be dealt with as a realistic foreign policy challenge and opportunity.

Cuba is actually the lowest hanging fruit for America to quickly make progress with and show a different side to America's character and a willingness to end the Cold War once and for all.

Clinton can improve her grade a lot by seeing and speaking to this opportunity.

-- Steve Clemons

Later today, I will post video here at TWN from a presentation author and filmmaker Eugene Jarecki made at a meeting I hosted under the auspices of the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program. Jarecki made the homage to Eisenhower film, Why We Fight and authored the book, The American Way of War: Guided Missiles, Misguided Men, and a Republic in Peril.

One of the things that Jarecki said near the end of the Q&A session in response to a question about the Israel-Gaza war was:

As a son and nephew and grandchild and cousin of those lost in the Holocaust, this is a hard one for me. (pause) But I have to say. . .that I think that Israel through its actions in Gaza is undermining its own project in the Middle East. . .

Jarecki was anguished when he said this -- and the moment was powerful, revealing and human. We aren't seeing enough of that introspection from those who are connected to this conflict and what Aaron David Miller calls "the much too promised land."

Today's New York Times has a powerful editorial, the bottom line of which I think is basically an instruction to Israel: "enough already."

From the Times piece:

We agree that Israel had to defend itself against Hamas's rocket attacks. But we fear the assault on Gaza has passed the point of diminishing returns. It is time for a cease-fire with Hamas and a return to the peace negotiations that are the only real hope for guaranteeing Israel's long-term security.

We are encouraged that a cease-fire finally seems to be gaining traction. Although not much detail is known, reports have focused on an Egyptian proposal for a phased-in truce, followed by a pullout of Israeli forces and the reopening of border crossings to ease the economic blockade of Gaza.

The sudden diplomatic activity came as Israel unleashed its heaviest shelling of Gaza neighborhoods, including a hit on a United Nations compound where hundreds of Palestinians had taken shelter.

Israeli officials acknowledge that the 20-day offensive has not permanently crippled Hamas's military wing or ended its ability to launch rocket attacks. It is unlikely that Israel can achieve those aims militarily any time soon. The cost in human life and anti-Israeli fury would be enormous. Already more than 1,000 Palestinians have died in the densely populated Gaza Strip, where an always miserable life has become unbearable. Thirteen Israelis have died.

I agree with most elements of the kicker line in the piece, which reads:

President-elect Barack Obama says he will work for a peace deal from Day 1. We hope Israel picks a new leader in elections next month who is truly committed to a two-state solution. With the support of the new American president, he or she must make an early downpayment on peace by ending settlement construction, cooperating seriously with Mr. Abbas and improving the lives of all Palestinians in the West Bank and in Gaza.

This makes sense for the most part -- with the exception that any approach to the Middle East peace process must eventually involve all of the substantial elements of power in the region and that we have to suspend the illusion that Israelis and Palestinians can ever responsibly negotiate a stable outcome without other neighboring powers deeply engaged as stakeholders and guarantors of the outcome.

-- Steve Clemons

I will be regularly posting clips called "What the Right is Saying" and "What the Left is Saying" from time to time -- particularly when there is a point either side is making that reasonable people could scratch their head and say, 'hey, that makes some sense. . .'

From RedState.org's Morning Briefing:

Tim Geithner Did What Leona Helmsley Did. She Went to Jail. Will He Go to Treasury?

Geithner is allegedly a brilliant career bureaucrat. He's a political insider with his own ties to Obama, as Obama's mother once reported to Geithner's father. Having never worked in the private sector, he has cooked his personal books like one of the Wall Street swindlers Team Obama routinely excoriates.

Let us assume the oh-so brilliant Geithner - who does his own taxes because he is so smart - did innocently forget to pay the employer's share of taxes related to an employee. That could happen; the Democrats sank Linda Chavez' nomination as Labor Secretary over less.

Even so, there is the matter of Geithner's own taxes. The International Monetary Fund sent notices to Geithner making clear he was responsible for his payroll taxes. He had direct knowledge that he was responsible, but he still refused to pay. He even accepted reimbursement from the IMF for those taxes and signed certifications that he'd paid them.

When he finally decided to pay, Geithner paid only enough to avoid potential criminal liability for failure to pay taxes. He willifully shortchanged the tax system even though he'd already been reimbursed for the taxes. There is no issue of mistake here. Geithner knew he had a tax obligation, took steps to pay his taxes, and deliberately paid only so much as to avoid criminal liability, but not so much as to pay his entire obligation.

Compare Geithner's treatment by the media to Sarah Palin's treatment.

-- Steve Clemons

Barack Obama is about to become the 44th President of the United States and like most Presidents, he will begin (if he hasn't already) to read as many profiles and biographies of great leaders as he can pile on his night table.

Or Lincoln's.

Obama will try to understand how they processed complex challenges and look for templates of analysis, decision and action that might be relevant to his own life and new daunting responsibilities.

On Monday night, I attended the Nixon Center's annual dinner honoring Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen who reflected on an assessment that Richard Nixon made of Eisenhower about the question of military power.

Admiral Mullen stated:

President Nixon, in his memoirs, recalled that same kind of surprise during a discussion on national security in 1951, when then General Eisenhower emphasized the political and economic facets of foreign policy rather than the military.

"This impressed me," wrote Nixon, "because then, as now, it was unusual to hear a military man emphasize the importance of non-military strength."

This is one of many passages in which American presidents have struggled with the efficacy of American military power and have tried to think through the best strategies to achieve America's national security and global objectives.

Admiral Mullen wafted into his Nixon-Eisenhower comment through the portal of late 18th century British statesman Edmund Burke and added his own name to that of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others who have asserted that America's most significant security threats can't be met by even the most richly endowed military machine. Other parts of the diplomatic and civil society establishment must be key parts of the American action plan.

Mullen stated in his interesting address:

The use of military means to achieve political ends is a thread of a rich discussion, one that reaches back through the ages. It was certainly so even in the winter of 1775, as Edmund Burke spoke on the floor of parliament at a time when England decided to send an army and a navy to put down the American rebellion.

Although Burke wasn't exactly espousing our independence in his speech, he did question his government's reliance upon military force in preventing it.

"Those who wield the thunder of the state," Burke said, "may have more confidence in the efficacy of arms.

"But," he continued, "My opinion is much more in favor of prudent management than of force, considering force not as an odious, but a feeble instrument in preserving a people as spirited as this."

Had Burke's contemporaries listened to him, perhaps things might be a bit different on this side of the ocean. But what about today?

I can only imagine his surprise if he were to hear our Secretary of Defense calling for more assets for our Foreign Service, USAID, the Departments of Agriculture, Justice, Commerce, and other non-uniformed implements of power and influence.

Surprised as well, perhaps, to hear someone actually wearing the uniform, standing before you tonight, telling you the same thing - much as I did back in 2005 as the head of our Navy.

President Nixon, in his memoirs, recalled that same kind of surprise during a discussion on national security in 1951, when then General Eisenhower emphasized the political and economic facets of foreign policy rather than the military.

"This impressed me," wrote Nixon, "because then, as now, it was unusual to hear a military man emphasize the importance of non-military strength."

So at the very least, I know I'm not the first. And I hope I'm not the last.

Barack Obama, at least as things stand now, has continued to characterize Afghanistan as the war America should morally wage and which is the good war in contrast to Iraq, "the bad war."

Obama has also repeatedly stated that he wants to increase the size of the American military by about 90,000 active duty troops. Although America's defense expenditures are greater than all other nations in the world combined -- and yet Americans do not feel safe -- Obama wants to pump up the manpower and resources available to the Pentagon without demanding a serious management review.

Resources can't be the problem -- mismanagement must be, and yet the President elect has hardly touched this issue.

Today, America's power in the world is wielded both by the size of the Pentagon and by the size of its national debt. This is not a healthy posture for the country and not sustainable.

Obama would be wise to read up on Eisenhower, on Nixon, on Edmund Burke and others -- and realize that for him to be a truly great leader, he must get out of today's intertia-drive decisions that lean too much towards military answers to problems -- and that are leading the US to greater calamity, global irrelevance, and impotence.

-- Steve Clemons

I just learned that John Shattuck, President and CEO of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, will be shifting from his current duties to assume the helm as president and rector of the Central European University in Budapest, Hungary.

I find this interesting and important news because this university, established in large part through the support of George Soros, has been a powerhouse in training many people to become the clerks, and policy analysts, and political organizers and agitators, and bureaucrats of open societies in much of Eastern Europe. Soros and his philanthropic work and allies have played a vital role in the transformational development of illiberal regimes into more liberal ones. And where impunity and strongly consolidated, anti-democratic power preserved its interests in the former USSR, Soros' CEU trained graduates are the most likely political rivals to abusive, undemocratic power.

Ever since George W. Bush launched a crusade to democratize much of the Middle East and other parts of the world by force, sometimes with sanctions and sometimes guns, I have struggled with the question of how to get "transformational diplomacy" right.

Condoleezza Rice in a January 2006 speech at Georgetown University admitted that America needed to "enhance [its] ability to work more effectively at the critical intersections of diplomacy, democracy promotion, economic reconstruction, and military security."

Rice also said, concluding her remarks, that "America has come a long way and America stands as a symbol but also a reality for all of those who have a long way to go, that democracy is hard and democracy takes time, but democracy is always worth it."

I think Soros and Rice would agree on her conclusion -- but as to what democracy looks like and how to inspire and animate the spread of democracy and healthy, liberal civil society -- there would be much dispute. My own feeling is that Soros has always understood "transformational diplomacy" and how to engineer a political ecosystem in which democratic process might take root more than most democracy promoters in the US government.

But now John Shattuck, former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor in the Clinton administration, will be taking the helm of this educational institution -- which has been a primary driver of the talent needed to transform political systems.

I had some contact with Shattuck in the 1990s when I worked in the US Senate on foreign policy -- and was intrigued with his decision to leave the Kennedy Library Foundation and move to Hungary to run a university -- and so called him.

Shattuck, who also teaches international relations at Tufts and who has been a Vice President at Harvard, asserted that we are at an exciting pivot point in the development of many transitional societies and have an opportunity to reintroduce what democracy really means -- not just ballotocracy -- but rather established rights of minorities, functioning courts, support of civil liberties and freedom of expression, and self determination. Shattuck thinks that the stress of a global financial crisis and the chastening of the old frameworks of power have presented a new opportunity to promote rule of law, genuine democracy, and economic progress in the developing world.

The Central European University has students from more than 100 countries and is a European/American hybrid institution that attempts to inculcate students with the tools used to achieve an open society -- and to systematically prepare future change agents to understand what the real building blocks of democratic transition are. There are students not just from Eastern Europe, Russia, and the Caucasus, but also North Africa, South and Southeast Asia, and Latin America.

Parliament members, Justice Ministers, United Nations representatives, and countless number of civil society leaders in Eastern Europe were trained at CEU and have made a difference in their countries in ways far more rooted in their respective countries, and organically grounded, than the militarized model in nation building