Bill Clinton's latest title is husband of America's new secretary of state, but that has not stopped him from flexing his own diplomatic muscles while in Davos this week. The New York Observer's Joe Conason reports that Bill's moves at the World Economic Forum -- including a long talk with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin -- reveal that the former president will "continue to be an active figure on the international stage."

While former President Bill Clinton speaks highly of President Obama, this forum is exactly why I didn't want Senator Hillary Clinton to be given the Secretary of State position.  President Obama runs the risk of having Bill Clinton out there making promises, deals and statements that could create problems for us.

We should only have one Sec of State at a time.

During the presidential campaign all we heard from the Republican Party was about the media's fascination over Barack Obama.  That it was the media that got Obama elected with their undying love toward the man.  It was because the media never reported the 'facts' about Obama's past that he was elected, etc.. etc...

I have to admit it.  The media can sell an idea or a person by how they cover it or them.  They are as good as any of your favorite commercials.

That is why I've come to the conclusion that a huge part of the reason our economy is tanking is because the media is constantly reporting every little piece of bad news about it and rarely reporting the good news.

Consumer's confidence relies on what they hear and see.  If they see each day news about more jobs being cut or another company going out of business or companies profits dropping, it's only human nature for them to start worrying about their own situation (job, savings, home mortgage, bills, credit cards, etc..).

I am the first person to protect the idea of 'freedom of the press'; but sometimes, like during wars on the battlefields where the media is forced to keep their mouths shut, perhaps that should happen during extreme times such as we are currently experiencing with the world economy.  Or at the very least, they should be forced to report the 'good news' too.  Such as companies still hiring, making large profits or they are expanding.  Balanced reporting I guess some would call it.

Some right wingers are accusing the media of trying to help President Obama and the Democrats get their stimulus bill passed and once they do, the media will start reporting the good news again.  I don't believe this is true.  Keep in mind, these same reporters/commentators work for a living too.  The media outlets are hurting economically now too.  Companies can't avoid to advertise right now, which hurts the media's income.  They are just risking losing their own jobs by doing what the right wingers are claiming.

I heard last night that the television station showing the Super Bowl haven't been able to sale air time for four 30 second spots during the game.  They are hurting too.

So, perhaps the media (radio, TV, newspaper and magazines) should all think about what they are reporting before doing so.  Perhaps they should spend a little more time searching for the 'good' news, instead of spending all their time finding the bad news to report.

CNN is reporting that a group of orphans from the Tikrit Orphanage complex have created a War Memorial.  It's a duplicate of the shoe thrown at former President George W. Bush during his last visit to Iraq. 

Faten Abdulqader al-Naseri, the orphanage director said, "The shoe monument is a gift to the next generation to remember the heroic action by the journalist."

This is really sad and disgusting.  This is what we get for "liberating" the Iraqi people?

I can't really blame the kids.  All they know is what they are told.  They know they lost their mom, dad or brother and sister and it was because of something the Americans did.  I sincerely feel for them.  I can't imagine how I would feel if some other nation were to invade my country and kill my mom or dad in the name of liberating my country.

The memorial however gave me an idea of which I'd like to suggest here on TPM.

Perhaps the Americans and the American supported Iraqi leadership could come up with some money to build another memorial - in support of America and those other nations that "liberated" them from the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein?

Remember the photos and videos we were shown of the Iraqi men tearing down the statue of Saddam Hussein and then jumping on it then slapping their shoes against it?

Imagine a statue of the Iraqi people jumping and/or pulling down Saddam Hussein's statue, with a U.S. Soldier(s) standing by watching (or perhaps a U.S. tank sitting nearby).  Try visualizing the famous memorial of our soldiers during WWII atop Mt. Suribachi during the battle for Iwo Jima raising the U.S. flag, that's the kind of statue I'm seeing should be built in Iraq.  A memorial to the U.S. for their sacrifices in life, loss of body parts, time and money.

Let's make them remember why they are 'free' today to build that now famous -- War Shoe Memorial. 

While the reason we invaded their nation may have been wrong, our treasure was lost there too, for the sake of their 'freedom'.









 

I'm betting most of you haven't heard about this tax credit that is currently in the stimulus bill:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- If you're thinking of buying a home, there could be a big bonus for you in the economic stimulus bill that's now before Congress.

Among its many provisions is a $7,500 tax credit for first time home buyers. The House passed the $819 billion stimulus plan, including this tax credit, in a vote late Wednesday. The Senate may vote on its version of the bill some time next week.

Technically, the stimulus bill is actually changing the terms of the $7,500 tax credit that was issued as a part of the Housing Recovery Act, which Congress passed last summer. That legislation required that the tax credit be repaid over 15 years, making it more of a no-interest loan. Not surprisingly, the measure had little impact on the market. The stimulus bill now under consideration would make that tax credit a true credit that doesn't need to be repaid.

Many in the housing industry believe this credit could do a lot to jump start the moribund housing market.

I think this is a great idea.  It's kind of like my idea of a coupon or gift card to consumers from the government to take out a loan.  It just might help to get the housing market moving again.

I would add something to it however.  It shouldn't be just for first time home buyers; but all home buyers, new and old.  There should also be something for home buyers that borrow money for home repairs.

If Republicans won't join you in boosting the economy and thereby helping the American people, even if you compromise with them, then reverse course and do everything that you had planned on doing and more.

President Obama, you and the Democrats have pushed the stimulus package since before getting elected in November of 2008.  You have pushed for tax cuts for over a year now.  You began putting your economic team together even before getting elected.  You and your team have been working and planning since that time to get the economy that you were going to inherit back in shape.  That's why it's odd to hear people say, "why the rush, why not study the problem, debate it first?"  You and the Americans that voted for you, have done this for over a year now.  They voted for 'your' vision and and 'your' plans -- not the Republicans.

Not one Republican, after you went out of your way to communicate and listen to them individually and as a group, even going so far as to dropping some of the things they didn't like (angering your Party) and adding some they did,  was willing to vote for the Democrats stimulus package voted on in the House yesterday.

It appears they may do the same thing once the bill is sent to the Senate.  They will insist on you gutting the plan and vision that voters voted for in November.  Even then there is no guarantee they will side with you and the American people.

I strongly suggest that if it appears they are going to vote down anything that is voted on in the Senate or that they won't go along unless you completely scrap your (voters) plans,  you and the Democrats go ahead and reverse course.  If they keep demanding changes and offering nothing in return - reverse course.

 Instead of passing a bill, close to what 'the Republican Party' wants, have a press conference or make a speech to the American people.  Tell them that you've tried to work with the other party but they won't budge.  Tell them you are scrapping the current bill and going back to your original  bill.  Them you may even add more infrastructure money (experts say this is what stimulates the economy) and even more tax cuts for businesses.

If the Republicans try to filibuster it -- they will be the ones to pay in 2010 for refusing to help the economy .  You have more than proved your willingness to comprimise and work with them to get the people's work done.  They are the ones not showing any give and take now.

If the stimulus bill works and the economy picks up, you and the Democrats will get the credit.  And if it fails to do the trick, you would have been blamed anyway - even with Republicans voting for it.  So you may as well 'have at it' sir. 

Go hogwild sir and do what most economists and businesses say needs to be done and then do a lot of praying for the American people (the world for that matter), that it works.

Americans know we've never been in this situation before.  It's not like the Great Depression, there are different circumstances involved this time around.  I doubt they will expect miracles.

Democrats in the House voted almost 100% for the stimulus bill tonight.  Republicans voted 100% against it.

Republicans remind me of my coworkers at work.  They complain, pass rumors, curse the bosses, praises the boss, they brown nose those they think will get them something, they blame the other guy/gal for the mistakes and continue complaining until a meeting takes place to voice employee's grievances.

Once in the meeting - those same people that were complaining and expressing their ideas for change on a daily basis up to now - suddenly clam up.  All is hunky dory folks.  I have no problems, I'm a happy camper.  If new plans are discussed to buy new products or software, the people that talked down about that product, suddenly loves it.

In other words folks, Republicans haven't the 'nuggets' to face the hard choices.  They'd rather gripe and complain and blame the other guy/gal then to stand up and be counted.  Not one of them can do this.  They showed that during tonight's vote.

There apparently is only one king bee in the bunch and the rest are workers.  They follow the leader and have done so for the past 8 years.  At least the Democrats have individual brains, not all of them voted for the plan tonight, showing they have their OWN opinions. 

Republicans don't seem to know what to do on their own.

President Barack Obama held his first on television interview on an Arab television station.  He talked to Muslims across the world letting them know that it's not America that is their enemy; but those that give you nothing and only tear down what you have.

The President is reportedly writing a personal letter to the leadership of Iran as I speak.

President Obama is trying his level best to show his ultimate 'respect' for the Middle East and it's people.  He's treating them as human beings.  He's showing them that it is the terrorists (those filled with hate) that are harming them and others.  He is simply asking them to take notice as to who it is that is tearing down things, destroying families by asking them to commit suicide and kill other human beings -- and who is instead building things for and with them and who is trying to make things better for them? 

As far I know, this has never been tried before.  This is exactly what he said he would do.  Whether or not it works I don't know; but at least he is trying something new.

I want to put in writing that I predict the following:

We will someday, very soon, be seeing video clips of President Barack Obama walking downtown Baghdad.  He will be seen shaking hands of shop keepers and customers walking on the street.  He will be seen talking to them, perhaps sitting down at a table in a local resturant having a conversation with some of the customers.

Yes he will be heavily guarded and no, reporters will not be given prior notice of the visit.  He may even be wearing body armer and head gear; but he will be seen standing on mainstreet Baghdad and/or sitting in a local pub/coffee shop talking to some Iraqi people.  The visit will be short of course but enough time to give the people a chance to meet him in person.  They will be able to say, they met the President of U.S. in person.  They will be able to say, he showed me respect by sitting down and talking to me.

Showing respect to them means a lot.

The news of Obama's visit will make headlines immediately and it will have a major effect in the Arab world.

Mark my words -- this will happen.  President Barack Obama means business.  He means to try his level best to make peace with the world.

Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in an interview with The Washington Times that he will support Eric H. Holder Jr.'s nomination for Attorney General because Mr. Holder assured him privately that Mr. Obama's Justice Department will not prosecute former Bush officials involved in the interrogations program.

Sen. Bond also said that Mr. Holder told him in a private meeting Tuesday that he will not strip the telecommunications companies that cooperated with the National Security Agency after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks of retroactive legal immunity from civil lawsuits--removing another potential sticking point among GOP senators.

In the interview Wednesday, Mr. Bond said, "I made it clear that trying to prosecute political leaders would generate a political firestorm the Obama administration doesn't need."

If President Obama and Attorney General Holder aren't prepared to go after those that they have evidence on as having committed crimes --- exactly who will they go after?

I honestly thought Obama would (in time) go after those that committed crimes during the Bush administration.  He's apparently decided to ignore the rule of law and crimes made BEFORE January 20, 2009.

I'm deeply disappointed.  Our country will forever pay for allowing these crimes to go unpunished.

I keep hearing the Republicans complaining about President Obama and the Democrat's plans to spend money fixing up the National Mall or buying new cars for the Federal government.  They claim they aren't stimulus actions.

I beg to differ.  These projects create short term jobs for thousands of workers across America.  While these people are working, other consumers are hearing good news about the economy (people are working again).  After hearing that things seem to be picking up with the economy, folks begin to spend more money (having more confidence in the economy and their own job).

Consumers buying new products causes even more jobs to be created to handle the work involved in getting the supplies/services for that consumer.   This equals long term stimulus.

That birth control plan everybody's talking about; you ever stop to think who will pay for the babies born because there wasn't money for birth control.  Most of those babies come from poorer neighborhoods.  The government can pay a sum up front to save money down the road.  It cost more to give birth and raise a child then it does to possible stop the birth from happening at all.

Republicans are also complaining about giving relief to wage-earners who pay Social Security taxes but do not earn enough to owe income tax.  Again I say, if these people have money in their pockets, they will in the short term buy things.  Along with the other jobs I mentioned, the economy 'appears' to be doing better -- thereby causing other consumers to gain confidence enough to go out and buy more things, which in turn creates more jobs, a spiral effect.

Spending money on health care costs and unemployment has the same above effect.  If the federal government continues to pay the unemployed, they continue to spend money which in turns creates more jobs.

The ultimate goal should be to get American's confidence back.  If they think their job is safe, and their banks are working, they will go out and buy things and services.  They will borrow money to buy those things which in turn helps banks.

Republicans have all sorts of good ideas now on how to save the economy.  Americans must remember, it was the Republicans that had complete control of the purse and administration for the past 8 years.  If they wanted to give corporate companies more tax cuts, why didn't they back then?  They didn't need Democrats to help get the bills passed.  If they wanted to give middle class tax cuts, why didn't they do so during the past 8 years?

Why on earth should we trust the Republicans with our economy when it was their actions or lack there of, that got us where we are today.    They ignored the middle class and poor people.  They thought giving tax cuts to the rich and big business - would create a booming economy (trickle down economics again) -- they were WRONG then, and WRONG now.

President Obama's team has put forth a complete package to try and calm the nerves or the consumers and thereby stop the recession from getting even worse.  While stimulating the economy Obama plans on leaving proof of purchase behind -- infrastructure, roads, schools, bridges, an electric grid, etc...

If you think your plan is a better one, then say so and tell us why.  But don't expect us to 'take your word' for it like you have the past 8 years.

Rachel Maddow of MSNBC interviewed Illinois Governor Rod Blogojevich today.  She did a wonderful job.  She asked many of the questions that needed to be answered and she didn't allow the Governor to just 'ramble', she would stop him midsentence and make him explain his answers.

I however wish somebody would for once ask the man something very simple. 

If everything you have done and will do in the future is 'for' the people of Illinois, those who voted for you twice, why then sir, are you taking time away from 'their' State's governmental issues so that the Representatives and Senators can spend over three months discussing whether or not to impeach you?

You've stated repeatedly that you are pretty sure you'll be impeached.  And you know that you will be indicted.  You've also repeated stated that your visits to talk shows isn't about 'you'.  Well, sir, it is 'you' they want to impeach.  It is 'your' job they want to take away.  'You' are taking Illinoisian's governmental time away to travel around the country to defend 'yourself.'

By the way, who's paying for those trips?

Sir, if you truly cared about the people of Illinois, you'd resign declaring your intent to work full time to get all the facts out --- But instead sir, you decided that 'you' are more important then they are.

Just imagine what governmental affairs could be resolved right now if the Illinois State legislature didn't have to take time to impeach and prosecute you.

(CNN) -- President Obama meets with House and Senate Republicans on Tuesday for talks that could give some indication of how much bipartisan spirit exists in support of efforts to tackle the country's economic crisis.

 

Obama is hoping to rally support for his $825 billion stimulus package on the eve of a crucial House vote.

 

Republicans have expressed reservations about the proposal, calling for more tax cuts and less spending.

The bill the House will vote on includes $550 billion in spending and aid to states and $275 billion in tax cuts.

Democratic strategist Jaime Harrison says Obama is going to talk to Republicans to try to integrate some of their ideas into the plan. The tax cuts already in the proposal are one example of an "olive branch" to the GOP, Harrison said.

I don't know about you but I resent what Harrison said about the tax cuts in Obama's plan being an 'olive branch' to the GOP.  Candidate Barack Obama had these tax cuts listed in his economic stimulus plan during his presidential campaign.  They are in no way a 'gift' to the GOP to get them on 'his' side.

Obama smart enough to know that in order to stimulate the economy he will need to both, give tax cuts, and spend money on infrastructure to create jobs.

President Obama doesn't NEED to give the GOP anything (American's voted for HIM, not the GOP); but he's trying his best to prove to all in Congress that his plan WILL WORK, and that with their help, both Dems and Repub's can do their jobs by voting for it.

If there is any tweaking to be done to the plan, it's only to make it BETTER --- not to give an Olive Branch to ANYONE.

Jon Stewart of the Daily Show makes a great point about Guantanamo detainees and Obama possibly moving some of them to U.S..

Go watch the VIDEO

He points out who we already HAVE or have had, as prisoners in the U.S.  The detainees do not have super powers -- or we'd know that by now.

Barack Obama struck a note of foreign policy confidence Monday night, telling an Arabic news station that al Qaida leaders and Osama bin Laden "seem nervous" now that they don't have George W. Bush as a recruiting tool.

In his first formal interview since taking office, the president spoke with the Dubai-based station Al Arabiya on topics pertinent to the Arab and Muslim worlds...

"Their ideas are bankrupt," he told host Hisham Melhem, when asked to respond to recent audio clips from al Qaida leadership calling him various epithets. "There's no actions that they've taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them."

Pressed later in the interview to comment on Bush's use of the term 'War On Terror,' and the implications that the phrase held, Obama once again distanced himself from his White House predecessor.

I think that you're making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters," he said, according to a transcript provided by the White House. "We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down. But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship."
threeup_js('World', '161087', '2');

document.write('Your request is being processed...');

If Obama's discussion on terrorism were marked by tones of firmness, his positions on other Middle East issues seemed defined by fresh thinking and inclusiveness. At one point he did something that would have been anathema on the campaign trail: he touted his hereditary and biographical links to the Muslim world.

"I have Muslim members of my family," said the president. "I have lived in Muslim countries."

Read More...

I'm real curious if these words will mean anything to the Muslim extremists?  I sincerely hope so.  Obama seems to be giving Osama Bin Laden a taste of his own medicine.

During the Inauguration Obama warned the extremists that they will be remembered, not by what they tear down; but by what they build for their people.

Obama's reversing what Osama's been preaching for years.

Who is paying for Gov. Blagojevich's travels to all these news stations to talk about his not being guilty of abusing his powers?

Seems like everybody in the country is cutting jobs.  A bit scary when you hear about so many in such a short time span huh?

I was wondering if maybe some, if not most, of these jobs are being cut, not because the company is going bankrupt or actually hurting; but because they don't 'want' to find themselves in the same position as those companies that have lost millions of dollars.

They they could also be looking toward the future 'if' they should end up with problems, they can then claim they 'tried' to slim down but it just didn't work.

Say for example, we heard Microsoft cut thousands of jobs recently.  We all know that Microsoft is 'the' operating system.  The world depends on that operating system to keep afloat with their computer work.  There's no loss of 'work' there.  There's also no loss of income.  I'm betting they are just cutting back for the 'just in case' scenario.

Oh sure, those jobs are lost (at least temporarily); but once the economy starts showing signs moving again, I'm betting they'll all be rehired.

No, I'm not being ignorant of the facts.  Just trying to look at this problem from a different view.