Marie, I certainly disagree with your view that communicating his positions to the current administration is all Obama can do. Obama has a global stage. There is an army of reporters following him around, prepared to report whatever he says to a curious and attentive global audience. If Obama publicly states his views on the conflict, and gives indications of the likely course of action he will pursue starting three weeks from now, the global community will respond. The world is waiting for a clear signal of direction from the incoming president. Obama has to act; his decisions and statements may save lives. Right now he's ducking, and that is helping to prolong the conflict.

That Obama is content to work "behind the scenes" is precisely the problem here. He needs to step forward and send very public signals, and close the national leadership gap. Bush and Condoleeza Rice are incapable of exerting any significant impact on the evolving situation, because the principals all know that Bush and Rice will be gone in a few weeks. The Israelis know it, the Arab League knows it, Fatah knows it; Hamas knows it; and the Europeans know it. His silence is already having a harmful effect, and is chilling global diplomatic initiatives:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LU485459.htm

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3906693,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf

http://www.liberation.fr/monde/0101308881-tzipi-livni-a-paris-pour-rencontrer-sarkozy

You call it "risk averse," others might call it something else. Some psychobabble on that which had a ring of truth to me, from
Obama’s Zen State, Well, It’s Hawaiian, in the Dec. 25 New York Times:

...he is doing it with an unexcitable steadiness that is a product of his Hawaiian upbringing.

The mood of Mr. Obama, to many observers here in Hawaii, embodies the Aloha Spirit, a peaceful state of mind and a friendly attitude of acceptance of a variety of ideas and cultures. More than simply a laid-back vibe, many Hawaiians believe in a divine and spiritual power that provides a sustaining life energy....

Mr. Abercrombie, who has known the president-elect since he was born, said Mr. Obama’s tranquil, even-keeled mannerisms resembled those of his grandfather, Stanley Dunham. As a child, Mr. Obama would follow Mr. Dunham everywhere, walking through the neighborhoods of Honolulu and beyond.

“He gives off a little oasis of calm,” said Mr. Abercrombie, who is spending the Christmas holidays in Hawaii. “He is peaceful water in the maelstrom, which will serve him very well in these circumstances when there happens to be a crisis.”

Only a year ago, many of his admirers fretted that Mr. Obama was too passive in his battle against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Later, some Democrats worried whether he had the tenacity to fight Senator John McCain and the Republican establishment....

“He has more Hawaii in him than Chicago; he’s laid-back, cool and collected,” said Noel Kent, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa who has lived on the island for three decades. “It’s hard to express anger here. It’s a very small, enclosed environment in which you have to live with other people.”....

You know Bobby McFerrin's lyrics "Don't Worry, Be Happy"? They have often come to mind for me when I have seen Obama public performances. Oddly enough, I just found out at that wikipedia entry those lyrics were inspired by Indian mystic and spiritual master who thought it best to communicate mostly with silence and gestures.

I'm not saying this type of temperment is a good or bad for a president in this age. I honestly don't know if it's going to be a good thing or not. But I do think it's clearly there. I have extra low blood pressure and know what that's like (because of that I also understand why he likes smoking--it makes us low blood pressure people feel exceptionally alive and alert), but he also seems to have a calm nervous system that I don't have, a double whammy as to the "laid back" thing. You probably aren't ever going to see him approach anything as if it was risky, even if it seems risky to others, that just doesn't seem to be his nature. I doubt you are ever going to see the "fighting back" that some netroots like to call for, because any fighting back he does won't be obvious or public, and it won't be knee jerk--it will be cool, calculated, behind-the-scenes stuff, well thought out. He'll also probably get quieter and say less the angrier he gets about something, plotting payback or manipulation over a good length of time....

Bush is still President and it would be extremely inappropriate(an understatement) for Obama to step in and over him regarding this war.

Why? Bush has positions and Obama has positions. The world needs to know what Obama's own positions are, because having that knowledge is relevant to the decisions they will make, even in the short term. I don't recall Obama having any particular reluctance about registering his public opposition to Bush policies in the past. So where does he stand on the current crisis. Americans everywhere have opinions on what is happening in Gaza, and they express those opinions. Why not Obama?

Of course that doesn't mean the world will listen to Obama and do what he wants. But I believe his lack of specificity is causing mystery and indecision around the world, and that's important because we are talking about life and death issues.

For example, if Israel invades Gaza on the ground, Hamas may try to hold out for an extended period of time against the Israeli siege, thinking it's going to get a better deal under Obama. If they are not going to get a better deal under Obama, then Obama has an obligation to speak out and make that clear right now. If he does not, that may lead to a tragic miscalculation, and needless loss of life.

Similarly, Israel's own decisions about whether to invade, and how quickly and with how much force, can be influenced by both its private reading of the policies Obama will adapt after the 20th, and by Obama's public statements. Israeli policy is clearly influenced by the desire to remain in the good graces of the American government, and in the past they have tended to avoid taking positions that are inconsistent with the US government. If some Israeli policy options are contrary to the polices Obama is going to be following, then Obama has the power right now to influence events for the good by making public statements.

And the ability of other governments or the UN to exert diplomatic pressure on the two warring parties is limited to the extent that those diplomats can't say for sure whether the US has their back.

As I said, these are life and death issues, so I don't think Obama should be overly concerned about whether his statements will bruise a few Republican egos.

Patience. Nothing Citizen Obama says or does will stay Israel's hand right now.

Clearly false, I believe. If Obama were to speak out forcefully against a ground assault, or in favor of an immediate cease fire, that would put the Israelis in a tremendous bind. By going ahead with a ground assault, they would then be delivering an embarrassing public repudiation of the incoming US president. That's simply no way to get off on the right foot with the next administration. And since the US need Washington way more than Washington needs Israel, that's huge. Israel likes to talk tough about their independence and disregard for other countries in the pursuit of their interests. But the reality is that Israel does not at all like to be divided from Washington. Obama's statements would be weighty.

And if Israel invaded in defiance of Obama's publicly stated wishes, they would rapidly find themselves quite isolated diplomatically. They would be out there all alone and without a net, and Obama's statement would likely provide the starting gun for an intense round of global diplomacy that would bring enormous pressure on Israel and Hamas to negotiate a cease fire. Without that support from the incoming administration, UN diplomats have fewer arrows in their quiver.

If Obama does not speak out soon, and allows the ground invasion to move forward without any statements from him, the only rational conclusion to draw is that Obama in fact supports the entire Israeli campaign: the air assaults and a ground invasion.

JT ended with --

This is the "leader" who explicitly says (paraphrasing) "you're going to have to force me to be progressive.

This is about us, not about him. If we accept his vague silences silently, we aren't helping him move our way.

I don't understand the great concern about boundaries, Carol. Obama has given a series of press conferences during the transition. In fact, didn't he give three or four daily press conferences in a row back at the end of November? He has also given a series of radio addresses and released very presidential-looking videos on You Tube. During those press conferences and addresses, he has expressed all manner of opinions on the economic crisis, and has given his views on the direction US policy must take.

Some of those views were consistent with Bush administration policy, but some were not. And I don't remember so many worries about transgressing institutional boundaries, or interfering with the office of the presidency. Should Obama have shut up so as not to interfere with Bush's handling of the economy? Of course not. While Obama was making elaborate statements on his economic agenda, Bush went to the G-20 meeting and was ignored by everyone present. That's a totally rational response, since all those present knew Bush doesn't count anymore. What they needed were signals from the Obama administration, and they received those signals in abundance. Obama didn't have a big problem about stepping into the leadership void at a time when the world needed leadership.

During the campaign, there was an assassination in Pakistan, and Obama spoke out on US policy toward Pakistan. There was a war in Georgia, and he expressed opinions on the US relationship with Russia and Georgia, and spoke out forcefully on the war, including calling for a UN Security Council resolution requiring an immediate end to the violence. There was a controversial declaration of independence in Kosovo, and Obama offered a clear statement of his views on Kosovo independence. Obama also issued bold statements on issues and events regarding Cuba, and articulated a policy that was sharply at odds with administration policy. Should he have kept his trap shut because there is only one president at a time, and the president alone is responsible for foreign policy? Hardly.

Now there is a major crisis in the Middle East involving significant loss of life and significant threats to stability. And suddenly Obama is a shrinking violet, concerned about stepping on the toes of poor George Bush? I say bunk. He's just ducking, and using transition protocol as an excuse.

Obama is obviously a major global leader, even before he is inaugurated. Global leaders are supposed to speak out and exercise leadership during global crises.