ObamaHood.org

POSTED AT 11:23 AM ON DECEMBER 13, 2008 BY ED MORRISSEY at HotAir.com

The categorical denials coming from Barack Obama on the Rod Blagojevich pay-to-play scandal took another hit today from the Chicago Tribune.  Two sources confirm that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s new chief of staff, had a number of conversations with Blagojevich chief of staff John Harris to discuss acceptable candidates to fill the rest of Obama’s Senate term.  These conversations got captured by federal wiretaps and will likely be reviewed by a grand jury looking to indict people on corruption charges:

Rahm Emanuel, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick to be White House chief of staff, had conversations with Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration about who would replace Obama in the U.S. Senate, the Tribune has learned.

The revelation does not suggest Obama’s new gatekeeper was involved in any talk of dealmaking involving the seat. But it does help fill in the gaps surrounding a question that Obama was unable or unwilling to answer this week: Did anyone on his staff have contact with Blagojevich about his choice for the Senate seat? …

One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps.

Another source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor’s administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris. The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win.

Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.

Sometime after the election, Emanuel called Harris back to add the name of Democratic Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan to the approved list, the source said.

As I wrote this week, no one would be surprised to hear that Emanuel and Obama had enough interest in the latter’s replacement to get in contact with the man who would normally make that appointment, Governor Blagojevich.  After all, the composition of the Senate matters a great deal to Obama, who needs to ensure that his agenda gets the most support possible in the next two years.  Given the corruption in Illinois politics, it might make it even more important to get involved in the process early to avoid getting someone who would embarrass the administration at a later point in time, especially with Patrick Fitzgerald’s years-long probe into Illinois politics still ongoing.

However, Barack Obama and his team chose not to give that honest and common-sense explanation.  Instead, they issued categorical denials that Obama and his staff had contacted Blagojevich or his staff about the succession.  It’s a mystifying claim, and one that will apparently get proven false fairly easily.  Now, instead of just saying that contact existed but that no one had tried making deals, they have thrown away their credibility on a very foolish point — which will lead to the conclusion that Team Obama has something very significant to hide.

Now it comes down to the Watergate question for both Emanuel and Obama: What did they know, and when did they know it?  Did Emanuel’s conversations with Harris or anyone else involve discussions of quid pro quo?  Team Obama will deny it, but they spent all of this week denying any conversations took place, and only the most gullible will believe denials from this point forward.  The wiretaps will go to the grand jury, and we will see whether Emanuel got himself caught in Fitzgerald’s nets.

If he did discuss quid pro quo and didn’t report it to the feds, Emanuel may or may not have committed a crime, but Obama will have no choice but to fire him.  And axing a Chief of Staff before even taking the oath of office does not lend much confidence in either the competence nor the honesty of the new President.

Update: Here’s what Obama said in his December 11th statement:

I had no contact with the governor’s office. I did not speak to the governor about these issues, that I know for certain. What I want to do is to gather all the facts about any staff contacts that may have taken place between the transition office and the governor’s office, and we’ll have those in the next few days and we’ll present them. But what I’m absolutely certain about is that our office had no involvement in any deal-making around my Senate seat. That, I’m absolutely certain of, and that would be a violation of everything this campaign has been about. That’s not how we do business.

So Obama said in one part that he himself hat no contact with the governor’s office or the governor regarding the appointment, which makes sense, because he’s got other issues to handle. He then claims that his office “had no involvement in any deal-making around my Senate seat.” If that’s true, then what was Emanuel discussing with Harris — and how did Blagojevich know that they wouldn’t give him anything but their appreciation? From the complaint, it doesn’t sound like an assumption Blagojevich made. (Hat tip: HA reader David M)

Don’t look right at her!  Hillary Clinton was announced as Secretary of Snake. Today, we have launched our Hillusa: Secretary of Snake Campaign. Just as we have and continue to use the Obama Hood Cartoon we will get this to the masses. I encourage anyone with their own blog to download the image and post. Make sure to use tags that say Hillary Clinton Secretary of State + Secretary of Snake. If you don’t have your own blog, you can post it on forums. This campaign will be centered around this image appearing in search results for Hillary as Secretary of State.

“If you would like other sizes of the image, email contact@obamahood.org. “

By MIKE ALLEN at Politico.com:

It’s finally official: President-elect Obama will appear with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in Chicago on Monday as he names her secretary of state, a remarkable reunion of once-bitter rivals.

The news conference at a Chicago hotel is scheduled to begin at 10:40 a.m. Eastern.

Also attending will be Robert M. Gates, President Bush’s Defense Secretary, who will remain at the Pentagon. Clinton and Gates are part of a national security team stocked with some of the best-known names in government. The officials said that Obama is also naming Eric H. Holder Jr., the former number-two-official at the Justice Department, as attorney general; Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as secretary of Homeland Security; Susan E. Rice, the Obama campaign’s senior foreign policy adviser, as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser.

The “Team of Rivals” war cabinet is very experienced and will have great credibility with the military and with allies abroad, but it constitutes several distinct power centers that could lead to clashes in tough times.

Obama’s transition team gave the green light to Clinton’s nomination after lawyers worked out a remarkable agreement addressing potential conflicts of interest for former President Bill Clinton, who has extensive financial ties abroad.

Most remarkably, the former president agreed to release the long-secret list of 208,000 donors to his presidential library and foundation. As one of nine concessions, he has promised to put out the list by the end of the year.

“It speaks to President Clinton’s willingness to do more than what’s asked of him,” said a Democratic official familiar with the protracted negotiations between Clinton emissaries and Obama transition aides.

The agreement was negotiated by Cheryl Mills, Robert Barnett, Bruce Lindsey and Doug Band on the Clinton side and John Podesta and Todd Stern on the Obama side.

Here’s the full text of the internal guidance about the agreement:

“At the request of President-elect Obama, and to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest between the work of President Clinton and the service of Hillary Clinton should she be nominated and confirmed as Secretary of State, President Clinton is taking the following steps above and beyond the requirements of current laws and regulations.

— The Clinton Foundation will publish the names of everyone who has contributed since its founding in 1997 (this year).

— Should Senator Clinton be nominated and confirmed as Secretary of State, during her time of service, the Foundation will also publish the names of everyone who contributes going forward on an annual basis.

— The Foundation will separately incorporate CGI [the Clinton Global Initiative] from the Foundation; President Clinton will continue to host CGI gatherings, such as the one in NYC and its meetings for college and university students, as Founding Chairman of CGI. 

— Although President Clinton will continue to invite participants to CGI events (which involves normal registration fees), he will not solicit ’sponsorship’ contributions for CGI.

— CGI will also not host annual events outside the US and CGI will not solicit or accept foreign government contributions.

— Given the extensive and life-saving work of the Clinton Foundation’s HIV/AIDS Initiative which can and should continue, the Foundation will continue to fulfill its commitments funded by foreign governments (including, among others, Sweden Norway, France, Great Britain). In the event an existing contributing country chooses to substantially increase its commitment, or a new country, or government-owned entity, decides to contribute, the Foundation will share such proposed contributions with the State Department ethics officials. State may also share the issue to the WH Counsel’s office for review. To whatever extent there are conflict of interest concerns raised about such potential contributions related to Senator Clinton’s service as Secretary, they will be conveyed to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation for appropriate action.

— Same procedure to be followed for any foreign country contributors to CCI [Clinton Climate Initiative], CGSCI [Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative] and CHDI [Clinton Hunter Development Initiative]. 

— Regarding President Clinton’s private work, during her tenure, President Clinton will share proposed hosts of speeches with the State Department ethics officials for their review, and as appropriate for review by the White House Counsel. Again, should there be conflict of interest concerns related to the Senator’s anticipated service as Secretary, they will share those concerns with Senator and President Clinton for appropriate action. 

— During her tenure as Secretary of State, should she be nominated and confirmed, President Clinton will share any proposed consultant relationships with State Department ethics officials, and the same procedures outlined above will apply here as well.

“None of these protocols is required by any law, and all of them go above and beyond the requirements of the law to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. The procedures are, of course, in addition, to the already extensive laws and regulations government the activities of spouses of federal officials (such as those outlined in 5 USC 208 and related regulations).”

Peter O’Neil, Europe Correspondent, Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, November 27, 2008

PARIS - There is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change, according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries, including Canada.
Results of the poll were released this week in advance of the start of a major international conference in Poland where delegates are considering steps toward a new international climate-change treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
There already are reports emerging that some countries, such as coal-dependent Poland, are pushing for special treatment to avoid making major commitments to slash carbon emissions during a global economic downturn.

Less than half of those surveyed, or 47 per cent, said they were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions, down from 58 per cent last year.
Only 37 per cent said they were willing to spend “extra time” on the effort, an eight-point drop.
And only one in five respondents - or 20 per cent - said they’d spend extra money to reduce climate change. That’s down from 28 per cent a year ago.
The Canadian results, from a poll of 1,000 respondents conducted in September, were virtually identical to the overall figures. There are no comparative figures for Canada because Canadians weren’t included in the global study in 2007.
The 11 countries surveyed were Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States. There were 2,000 respondents surveyed in China, including 1,000 in Hong Kong.
The survey was conducted as part of a joint collaboration between the financial institution HSBC and environmental groups, such as the Earthwatch Institute.
“There’s consumer reluctance that’s creeping in, and we’ve seen that some are being stunned into inaction by the enormity of the task,” said Earthwatch executive vice-president Nigel Winser.
Results of the poll suggested that 55 per cent of respondents in the 11 countries said their governments should be doing more by investing in renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and wave power.
That’s more than double the 27 per cent who wanted their governments to participate in Kyoto-style international agreements to reduce emissions.
In Canada, the same portion favoured renewable-energy options, while 32 per cent supported collective international efforts.
“People believe governments are focusing too much attention on indirect actions that pass responsibility for climate change onto others, such as increasing taxes on fossil fuels, encouraging individual environmentally friendly activities and participating in international negotiations, such as the Kyoto Protocol,” the report said.
“More needs to be done to inform consumers about measures such as green taxation or carbon trading to help them understand how tangible these can be.”
The poll helps explain why outgoing Liberal Leader Stephane Dion had so much difficulty during the election campaign trying to sell his Green Shift platform that proposed a carbon tax in order to encourage emission reductions.
Earthwatch’s Winser said the silver lining in the poll was that it stresses public dissatisfaction with the performance of all governments.
“We welcome this survey because it shows that individuals want their governments to do more.”
HSBC was unable to provide the poll’s margin of error.

Obama campaigned and won the election by telling a majority of voters in this country exactly what they wanted to hear. Every move was calculated. Every position was based on the latest polling numbers. He won by campaigning on raising taxes for only 5% of Americans and cutting taxes on 95%. In a society that has moved more and more towards a belief that the government owes them something and lives by the “I got mine” mentality - This Works!  When everyone was mad at Wall Street, Obama ripped into Wall Street. If gas prices were too high, he ripped into the “evil” oil companies. Furthermore, he convinced a majority of drones in this country that the war in Iraq was lost and we should pull out in retreat knowing full well he was never going to pull out.

By JONATHAN MARTIN at Polico.com:

Leading opponents of the war have mostly been silent as president-elect Barack Obama, who first built his national image on the foundation of his early opposition to the Iraq war, assembles a group of national security hands that is anything but a team of doves.

It’s a disorienting moment for the peace wing of the Democratic Party, at once elated America selected a new president opposed to the Iraq war and momentarily disoriented by the imminent removal of a commander-in-chief whose every action they’ve opposed for the past eight years.

“Shock has paralyzed them for the moment,” said Steven Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation who writes The Washington Note, a popular foreign policy blog. “We are in an Obama bubble now. And it’s tough to step out and be first to deflate the bubble.”

Especially, he added, before that bubble takes shape.

“You’ve got some people like myself who are saying there may be an interesting design in what Obama is trying to do. Maybe it doesn’t fit easily in a neatly sculpted box of liberal pacifist and warmonger hawk. Maybe it’s more complex than that.”

Still, it’s clearly a team that tilts to the right of Democratic foreign policy thought.

Vice-president-elect Joe Biden initially backed the war in Iraq and has supported other military interventions in his long Senate career. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton also supported the Iraq war resolution, a vote that Obama framed as a critical failure of judgement during the primary. She’s also taken a harder line on Iran than the president-elect—and is in line to be his Secretary of State.

Jim Jones, a retired Marine General who advised Clinton, Obama and John McCain during the campaign and has refused to disclose his partisan leanings, is slated for National Security Adviser. And running the Pentagon? For at least the first year of his administration, it’s virtually certain that the new president will retain Robert Gates—the Secretary of Defense appointed by President Bush.

Liberals scored one victory, though, when a top candidate to take over the CIA withdrew from consideration this week after concerns surfaced over his views on the agency’s interrogation methods. In a letter taking his name out of consideration, John Brennan said he didn’t want to be a “distraction” to the president-elect.

Yet most leaders on the left are keeping to themselves any criticisms of the centrist quartet that will help shape and implement Obama’s foreign policy.

For now there is a measure of trust from liberals who believe Obama will hold to the principles he espoused during the campaign: end the war in Iraq, negotiate with adversaries and restore America’s standing in the global community.

“We should have a simple sign on our wall saying, ‘It’s the policy stupid,’” said Tom Andrews, the former Maine congressman, riffing off James Carville’s 1992 Clinton campaign mantra. “Many will give President-elect Obama the benefit of the doubt about who is executing the policy as long as there is no comprise or backtracking on the policy itself,” added Andrews, who now heads the group “Win Without War.”

There is, Andrews noted, a reluctance to carp before Obama is even sworn in. “He hasn’t been president for one second yet,” the former congressman observed.

Progressives who knew Obama before his ascent onto the national stage also suggest that he’s remaining on the same course he’s always charted – one that hews closer to the middle than those on the right will give him credit for or those on the left would prefer.

Maryiln Katz, a veteran of the peace movement dating back to her days as a member of Students for a Democratic Society, helped organize the October 2002 rally in Chicago’s Federal Plaza where Obama declared his opposition to what he called a “dumb war.”

But, Katz recalled, the then-state senator also made certain to point out he was no pacifist.

“He asserted his own position in contradiction to [the] anti-war movement,” she said. “He wasn’t us. He didn’t pander to the crowd.”

But Katz, a well-connected Chicago public-relations executive, said that some liberals chose to ignore the part of the speech where Obama stressed that he was not against military force and actually urged more aggressive pursuit of al Qaeda.

“A lot of people took his position on Iraq and projected our politics onto him,” she said. “And that was never him. It was never true.”

By Randall Mikkelsen for REUTERS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise - to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans - as part of his economic recovery strategy, two aides said on Sunday.

David Axelrod, the Obama campaign strategist who was chosen to be a senior White House adviser, was asked if the tax cuts could be allowed to expire on schedule after tax year 2010 rather than being rolled back by legislation earlier. “Those considerations will be made,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Bill Daley, an adviser to Obama and commerce secretary under former President Bill Clinton, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the 2010 scenario “looks more likely than not.”

President George W. Bush’s tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2010. After that they would revert to 2001 levels, when the top individual tax rate was 39.6 percent.

Obama has called for reducing taxes for the middle class, but requiring the wealthiest Americans to pay more than the current top rate of 35 percent.

His aides’ comments suggest Obama may be wary of imposing any additional tax burden at a time of deep crisis, despite the outlook for record budget deficits and mounting national debt. He may also be seeking to bolster Republican support for his recovery measures.

“The main thing right now is to get this economic recovery package on the road, to get money in the pockets of the middle class, to get these projects going, to get America working again, and that’s where we’re going to be focused in January,” Axelrod said.

Obama said on Saturday he was crafting an aggressive two-year stimulus plan to revive the economy, aiming to save 2.5 million jobs by January 2011 through projects including transportation infrastructure, school modernization and alternative energy.

Obama called in October for a $175 billion stimulus measure, but he suggested he was ready to push for a much larger package.

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat who is part of the majority leadership team in the Senate, told ABC’s “This Week” that an economic recovery package between $500 billion and $700 billion is needed and could be ready by the time Obama takes office on January 20.

“I think it has to be deep. In my view it has to be between five and seven hundred billion dollars,” Schumer said.

President-elect Barack Obama says he thinks it’s ethical to use embryos that would otherwise be destroyed for research into illnesses.

From the Associated Press:

When the Bush presidency ends, opponents of embryonic stem cell research will face a new political reality that many feel powerless to stop.

President-elect Barack Obama is expected to lift restrictions on federal money for such research. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also has expressed interest in going ahead with legislation in the first 100 days of the new Congress if it still is necessary to set up a regulatory framework.

“We may lose it, but we’re going to continually fight it and offer the ethical alternative,” said Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa. “I don’t know what the votes will be in the new Congress … but it’s very possible we could lose this thing.”

Stem cells are the building blocks that turn into different kinds of tissue. Embryonic stem cells, unlike more mature versions, are blank slates. If scientists could control them, they could direct regenerative therapy, perhaps allowing a diabetic’s pancreas to begin produce insulin, for example.

Harvesting stem cells from four- or five-day-old embryos kills the embryo, which outrages opponents of this type of research. But supporters say hundreds of thousands of embryos stored in fertility clinics eventually will be destroyed anyway and that people should be allowed to donate them for research that could help others.

“I believe that it is ethical to use these extra embryos for research that could save lives when they are freely donated for that express purpose,” Obama wrote during the campaign in response to 14 questions from scientists, doctors and engineers.

Under President George W. Bush, federal money for research on human embryonic stems cells was limited to those stem cell lines, or families of constantly dividing cells, that were created before Aug. 9, 2001. No federal dollars could be used on research with cell lines from embryos destroyed from that point forward. Federal regulations do not restrict embryonic stem cell research using state or private funds.

John Podesta, head of Obama’s transition team, strongly hinted that the president-elect would deal with stem cell research soon after taking office Jan. 20. “As you know, he has said something specific about stem cell research, so I think you can expect that what he said in the campaign will be fulfilled once in office,” Podesta said.

Obama made it clear during the campaign he would overturn Bush’s directive.

“As president, I will lift the current administration’s ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001, through executive order, and I will ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight,” he said.

Opponents of such research say they will press their case on several fronts.

The main argument is that life begins at conception — that once fertilization occurred in the lab, so did a human being.

Secondly, they will argue that scientists are having success using other methods — adult stem cells that form specific tissues, or reprogramming skin cells to act like stem cells — so money should be directed where the biggest scientific breakthroughs have occurred. For example, this past week, doctors gave a woman a new windpipe with tissue grown from her own stem cells, eliminating the need for anti-rejection drugs.

“We still intend to try and talk about the real facts that it’s the adult stem cells providing the actual treatments,” said David Prentice, senior fellow at the Family Research Council.

Added Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America: “There’s a lot that’s happened over the seven years that includes some remarkable scientific discoveries, which really should have made the issue of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research moot.”

But Sean Tipton, director of public affairs at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, took aim at those arguments.

“It’s a little disingenuous for opponents who have effectively blocked federal funding of the work to then cite a lack of progress,” Tipton said. “You hold someone at the starting line then you criticize them for not getting very far.”

Dr. Chi Dang, professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, agreed there have been tremendous advances with adult stem cells. But he said it is not yet clear that they have enough flexibility to be used in all the ways that an embryonic stem cell could be.

“From a scientific viewpoint, we would be cornering ourselves into generalizing things that may not be true,” Dang said.

Dang also said these embryos would otherwise be discarded.

“The question is: Is it ethically more acceptable to destroy these embryos by pouring acid on them, or do you deploy these clusters of cells to create new cell lines that could benefit us in the future?”

Samuel Pfaff, a professor at the Salk Institute for Biologic Studies, said he also supports greater embryonic stem cell research to understand what makes them so special that scientists can endow other cells with similar properties.

“I think it’s very fair to say that the long-term trajectory for this area of science is to understand embryonic stem cells so well that we don’t have to use them anymore.” Pfaff said.

By GERALD F. SEIB for the Wall Street Journal:

As the economic signs grow ever more grim, so do the problems facing the incoming Obama administration.

That’s one way of looking at things. Here’s another:

As the economic signs grow ever more grim, the opportunities for the Obama administration to drive through its agenda actually are getting better.

The thing about a crisis — and crisis doesn’t seem too strong a word for the economic mess right now — is that it creates a sense of urgency. Actions that once appeared optional suddenly seem essential. Moves that might have been made at a leisurely pace are desired instantly.

Therein lies the opportunity for President-elect Barack Obama. His plans for an activist government agenda are in many ways being given a boost by this crisis atmosphere and the nearly universal call for the government to do something fast to stimulate the economy.

This opportunity isn’t lost on the new president and his team. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama’s new chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives this week.

He elaborated: “Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

He ticked off some areas where he thought new doors were opening: energy, health, education, tax policy, regulatory reforms. The current atmosphere, he added, even makes bipartisanship easier: “The good news, I suppose, if you want to see a silver lining, is that the problems are big enough that they lend themselves to ideas from both parties for the solution.”

Mr. Emanuel noted, correctly, that the U.S. largely squandered the opportunity the oil shocks of the 1970s presented to make serious, long-term changes in its energy habits — a failure that has returned to haunt the nation today.

Conversely, history points to examples of leaders who have used crises to seize opportunities. Most obviously, President Franklin Roosevelt took advantage of economic trauma in the 1930s to drive through a new economic agenda, as did President Ronald Reagan with his tax cuts in 1981.

The lesson holds true in foreign policy as well. Only the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, and its shock to the Middle East status quo, made it possible for President Jimmy Carter to move in and negotiate the historic Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel.

And so it is for Team Obama now. The risk, of course, is today’s opportunities will tempt the administration to overreach, lifting government spending so high that the deficit hangover at the other end of the cycle is intolerable, or injecting government so far into the marketplace that bipartisan support evaporates.

But for now, the call for government action is so universal that the playing field is wide open. With interest rates approaching zero, the Federal Reserve Board is nearly out of interest-rate ammunition to stimulate an economy sinking into recession; Fed policy makers likely are quietly praying for fiscal stimulus to start filling the void.

The chief executives gathered at the Journal conference this week called for the new administration to enact a fiscal-stimulus package of at least $300 billion — perhaps double the amount of stimulus such a group likely would have called for just a few weeks ago.

That creates an opening through which Mr. Obama can drive a fair amount of his domestic agenda. Certainly the field is open for some immediate form of the president-elect’s middle-class tax cut to become part of a stimulus package.

By the same token, the yearning for government spending on “infrastructure” to stimulate economic activity creates an opening for the new president to push the kind of green projects that fit his call for a transition to alternative energy sources, including new kinds of mass-transit systems. And the Obama call for government “investment” in alternative energies will be easier to turn into reality if it, too, can be cloaked as part of stimulus spending.

At the same time, as thousands of additional Americans lose jobs in the recession that lies ahead, they also will lose their employer-provided health insurance and swell the ranks of the nation’s uninsured. That will add a bit of rocket fuel to the Obama call for universal health coverage. And certainly the broad dissatisfaction with the way financial markets were regulated will make it easier to rebuild regulatory structures.

The crisis also presents the Obama team with an opportunity that isn’t so obvious: using economic distress to step back from the protectionist cliff Democrats edged toward during the election campaign.

A time of global economic distress isn’t a good time to construct barriers to international trade. Conversely, it may be a good time to help both stressed American consumers and distressed developing-world economies by lowering tariffs on some goods made abroad. One test of the Obama administration’s economic philosophy is whether it is as eager to take advantage of that opening as some of the others now before it.

From Fox News:

The Pentagon has suffered from a cyber attack so alarming that it has taken the unprecedented step of banning the use of external hardware devices, such as flash drives and DVD’s, FOX News has learned.

The attack came in the form of a global virus or worm that is spreading rapidly throughout a number of military networks.

“We have detected a global virus for which there has been alerts, and we have seen some of this on our networks,” a Pentagon official told FOX News. “We are now taking steps to mitigate the virus.”

The official could not reveal the source of the attack because that information remains classified.

Military computers are often referred to as part of the Global Information Grid, or GIG, a system composed of 17 million computers, many of which house classified or sensitive information.

FOX News obtained a copy of one memo sent out last week to an Army division within the Pentagon warning of the cyber attack.

“Due to the presence of commercial malware, CDR USSTRATCOM has banned the use of removable media (thumb drives, CDRs/DVDRs, floppy disks) on all DoD networks and computers effective immediately.”

By MIKE ALLEN & GLENN THRUSH at Politico.com

Negotiations between the Clintons and President-elect Obama’s transition team are rapidly moving toward a formal offer of secretary of State for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), with both sides expecting a formal announcement in the next seven days, according to numerous officials who are involved.

As a key part of satisfying Obama’s vetting team, former President Bill Clinton is open to giving up foreign sources of income if she becomes secretary of State, according to a close friend.

The friend said the former president is willing to make “changes” in his lucrative post-White House career.

“There’ll be things that he did in the past that he won’t do now,” the friend said. “He’s open to looking at what the Obama people think make sense. The Obama people will say, ‘Here’s what we’re comfortable with you doing.’ And President Clinton will look at it and most likely, say, ‘OK, I can do that.’ Like her, he wants the best for this country. My read of the situation is that he’s open to working something out – that everybody’s happy. It doesn’t feel to me like that’s going to be terribly difficult.”

The officials believe the vetting can be wrapped up this week, with an announcement before Thanksgiving, which is a week from Thursday.

The Clintons will try to satisfy Obama lawyers about potential conflicts of interest without making all the information public, according to an official involved in the process.

“There’s a big difference between letting the vetters look at it and putting it online for the rest of the world.”

Clinton’s negotiating team is led by Cheryl Mills, a former Clinton administration and campaign official. The Clinton team also includes Bruce Lindsey, CEO of the William J. Clinton Foundation, and longtime Clinton aide Doug Band.

The Obama side is represented by John Podesta, a former Clinton White House chief of staff who heads the Obama transition, and his deputy Todd Stern. The teams, confirmed by Clinton intimates, were first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

Earlier this week, people close to Obama said they were frustrated with the pace of cooperation from the Clintons, but the collaboration has picked up speed.”

A key Clinton source said the job is likely to be offered and accepted.

“She does have a sense of history, and we are at a critical moment in our history,” the official said. “It’s all hands on deck as far as making the Obama administration a success. This isn’t done. There are some mechanical steps that have to be taken.”

Some insiders say the backup nominee would be Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass). Other possibilities include New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) or, less likely Richard Holbrooke, a former Clinton assistant secretary of State.

Joe Lockhart of the Glover Park Group, said on CBS’ “The Early Show” that the Clinton nomination would send “a strong message to the rest of the world that someone of Senator Clinton’s stature is going to engage in a way that we haven’t engaged in the last eight years.

“We have a big deficit to make up with the rest of the world,” he said. “This speaks well of both [Clinton and Obama]. I believe that she’s torn. What gets lost in a lot of the campaigning is how much she loves being a senator. What could she do that best serves the country at this time? They’re both critical jobs. At the end of the day, she’ll look at this and say, ‘How can I serve my country? What is the greatest need?’ These are two great options. I think she’ll be happy with either.”

The Associated Press is reporting that Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have been indicted on charges “related to the alleged abuse of prisoners in Willacy County’s federal detention centers.

The indictment criticizes Cheney’s investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and “at least misdemeanor assaults” on detainees by working through the prison companies.

Gonzales is accused of using his position while in office to stop an investigation into abuses at the federal detention centers.”

By PETER BAKER and HELENE COOPER

Published in the NY Times: November 16, 2008

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama’s advisers have begun reviewing former President Bill Clinton’s finances and activities to see whether they would preclude the appointment of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as secretary of state, Democrats close to the situation said Sunday.

The examination of the former president suggests how seriously Mr. Obama is considering bringing his onetime rival for the Democratic presidential nomination into his cabinet. He met with Mrs. Clinton in Chicago on Thursday to talk about the prospect and word quickly filtered out. Many Democrats close to both camps said Sunday that it seemed likely that Mr. Obama would ask her to take the job, assuming they could work something out regarding Mr. Clinton’s role.

A team of lawyers trying to facilitate the potential nomination spent the weekend looking into Mr. Clinton’s philanthropic organization, interactions with foreign governments and ties to pharmaceutical companies, a Democrat close to both camps said. While Mr. Clinton has used his foundation to champion efforts to fight AIDS, poverty and climate change around the world, he has also taken millions in speaking fees and contributions from foreign officials and businesses with interests in American governmental policies.

Obama advisers are discussing what Mr. Clinton would need to do to avoid a conflict of interest with the duties of his wife, who is said to be interested in the post. “That’s the first and most important hurdle,” said a senior adviser to Mr. Obama. “He does good work. No one wants it to stop, but a structure to avoid conflicts must be thought of.”

More than a dozen advisers to both sides said Sunday that although they did not have firm information, they considered it improbable that Mr. Obama would have opened the door to Mrs. Clinton’s appointment without having decided, at least in principle, that he would like to make it happen. Rejecting her after letting the possibility become so public would risk a new rupture in a party that spent much of the year divided between Mr. Obama and the Clintons.

The possibility of Mrs. Clinton’s nomination generated positive response on Sunday, even from across the aisle. “She is a lady of great intelligence, demonstrated enormous determination and would be an outstanding appointment,” former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger told a forum in New Delhi, according to news services.

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said on “Fox News Sunday”: “It seems to me she’s got the experience. She’s got the temperament for it. I think she would be well received around the world. So my own initial reaction is it would be a very good selection.”

Speaking at an economic conference in Kuwait, Mr. Clinton openly acknowledged the possibility. “If he decided to ask her and they did it together, I think she’ll be really great as a secretary of state,” he said. “She worked very hard for his election after the primary fight with him, and so did I, and we were very glad that he won.”

One sign that many said pointed to Mrs. Clinton’s possible selection was the news that Gregory B. Craig would be White House counsel instead of national security adviser or deputy secretary of state, as some had expected. A law school friend of the Clintons who represented Mr. Clinton during impeachment, Mr. Craig backed Mr. Obama from the start of the campaign and was a scathing critic of Mrs. Clinton’s claims to foreign policy experience. Although some advisers saw no connection, others said putting him in a foreign policy job would be untenable if Mrs. Clinton were secretary of state.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have kept their conversations tightly held, but that silence has only convinced some associates that the prospect is serious. “No one has called to say, ‘Don’t get too far on this,’ ” said James Carville, a longtime Clinton friend and adviser. “A silent phone’s sometimes as much of an indication as a ringing phone.”

A former adviser to Mrs. Clinton who spoke on condition of anonymity said, “If it’s a trial balloon, it certainly seems to be floating.” Another said, “I can’t believe they would have her schlep out there with all this publicity unless they were real about it.”

Over the last week at his transition offices in Chicago, Mr. Obama has interviewed at least a half-dozen prospective cabinet members, focusing on secretary of state and Treasury secretary. His team initially planned to name the first cabinet officer this week, but advisers said Sunday that no decisions had been made.

In an interview broadcast Sunday on “60 Minutes,” Mr. Obama said that the first members of his cabinet would be announced soon but declined to expound on his conversation with Mrs. Clinton. “She is somebody who I needed advice and counsel from,” he said.

Democrats said he was also considering Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and at least one other candidate, perhaps Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Mrs. Clinton largely shares Mr. Obama’s approach to foreign policy, but they quarreled sharply at times in the primaries. She accused him of being unprepared for the complexities of the world and characterized him as naïve for saying he would talk with Iran without preconditions and authorize strikes against terrorists in Pakistan even without permission. He attacked her initial support for the Iraq war and accused her of overstating her foreign policy credentials.

By Kim McAvoy

Yesterday’s sweeping Democratic victory likely means more trouble for TV broadcasters in Washington, according to the industry’s lawyers and lobbyists and communications policy mavens.

With Barack Obama in the White House and a larger Democratic majority on Capitol Hill, industry reps fear Congress and a reconstituted FCC may push for local programming quotas, more children’s programming requirements, restrictions on product placements and mandates for free air time for candidates.

The Democrats have historically been less enthusiastic about policing broadcast indecency, they point out, but many would like nothing better than to bring back the fairness doctrine to muzzle their many right-wing critics on radio.

And broadcasters can forget about looser ownership restrictions, they say. The challenge will be to keep the Democrats from tightening them to encourage more diversity in media ownership, one of their oft-stated policy goals.

“It’s not going to be pretty,” says one long-time broadcast lobbyist.

“There is very legitimate reason to worry about an Obama FCC and what it means for the future of broadcast and all media,” says Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank.

“Specifically, what I fear is not the same thing that some others fear like a revival of the fairness doctrine. What I fear is a lot of backdoor regulation through proceedings like localism or the revival of the personal attack rule or community advisory boards for broadcasters.”

The big change will be at the FCC.

The Democrat minority at the five-person agency will become a majority next January when Republican Chairman Kevin Martin resigns and fellow Republican Commissioner Deborah Tate steps down as her term expires.

Obama will tap one of the sitting Democratic commissioners, Michael Copps or Jonathan Adelstein, to run the agency until the new president gets around to nominating (and the Senate gets around to confirming) a new permanent chairman — a process that could take several months.

Neither Copps nor Adelstein is good news for broadcasters, the lobbyists say.

Both have vigorously opposed all efforts to loosen broadcast ownership rules and have championed new public service programming obligations for broadcasters.

They contend that media consolidation is limiting the diversity of voices in media and they believe the American public is getting less than it should from broadcasters in exchange for the valuable spectrum.

Read the rest of the article at TVNewsDay.com.