I am a history buff at heart.  I love to know the facts and specifics about the great moments in our lives.  This class has allowed me to create a whole new perspective on the presidency – one that is not necessarily dominated by the great things that a president accomplishes.  I have learned that it is often the little things, the small decisions that have great consequences, that are the most important to know.  I realize now that the president changes the office through every single thing that he does, from sweeping domestic policy to the tradition of choosing a White House dog.  Everything matters.  Not just things like Watergate or 9/11.  Those are the things that drive a presidency, but not what always defines a presidency.

Like Iris and Mark said tonight, after taking this class I have become apathetic to the whole thing.  Not that I’m not still interested, but I need a break.  I too have realized that there is not really all that much I can do to influence or change the country in terms of the president.  Sure I can vote, but really my personal vote does not matter.  It is all about the Electoral College.  I want to be able to tell my students that what they do matters, that being active in politics can make a difference in the big scheme of things and at this point I can’t say that.  I need to take a step back again and perhaps regress to a point where the students I teach won’t be discouraged by their governmental system.

Everything is caused by something else.  Every president has been influenced by the ones that came before.  I don’t think that you can choose one president and say, “I am going to study this man and learn what it means to be president.”  To be a true scholar and to really understand the executive you have to study them one by one, picking apart their policies and finding the “why” behind it all.  This class has allowed me to begin that process and I am excited to continue…after I take a break.

It is the Christmas season and the whole country is in an uproar about the fact that we can’t use the phrase “Christmas season.”

This happens every year.  Everywhere we go there is a large emphasis on the fact that it is the “holiday” season.  In schools teachers have to be very careful not to say, “have fun on Christmas break!” so they don’t offend any students of other religions or beliefs.  And that is just fine.  I’m ok with trying to be politically correct and keeping the feelings of others in mind, but the uproar over the White House Hanukkah party is taking it a bit too far.

George W. Bush began having a Hanukkah party at the White House every year and President Obama has decided to continue that tradition.  But the plans were leaked and now there are rumors that while Bush invited 800 people to his last party, Obama only plans on inviting 400.  Oh my lord!  The world might end.

Tevi Troy, a former Bush administration liaison to Jewish groups, warned that the Obama White House had given Jewish Americans “a number of reasons to fear that it takes its votes for granted.”   He goes on to say that the reduced guest list created “a nagging sense that there may be a studied callousness at work here.”   ARE YOU SERIOUS!?  This is so ridiculous to me.  Obviously President Obama doesn’t have anything more important to worry about.

One rabbi made the comment that once Bush sent out invitations with Christmas trees on them.  “Hanukkah is a wonderful holiday to celebrate, but that’s not the whole ballgame, by any means, in terms of outreach to the Jewish community.”  Obama has had the first ever White House seder, a conference with 900 rabbis in August, and a videotaped message to Jews for the High Holy Days.  Does it seem like he is ignoring the Jewish people in America?  I think not.

It is silly that things have been reduced to arguing over how many people are invited to a White House party.  Don’t take it all so seriously.  Not everything that Obama does has to have a deep political meaning behind it.  Have fun!  It’s the Holidays!

First, I was struck at how humble he was.  I’m not necessarily surprised, but he definitely had the opportunity to boast a bit or to act as though he deserved the prize at this point.  He begins his speech right away with “I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility” and recognizes that the decision was controversial because he is at the beginning instead of the end of his endeavors.  He recognizes that there are other people who are probably more worthy at this time.   But he knows that because he was given this honor that he must stand for something in the world and that he must live up to it.

He also recognizes that he is in an odd position because he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize while he is commander in chief of a nation that is currently fighting in two wars.  In light of this, Obama explains that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds.  “To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.”  He outlined three ways to build lasting peace in the world.

1. We must find a better way to deal with nations that break or ignore rules and laws.  “Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price.”
2. Peace is “not merely the absence of visible conflict.”  The world needs to seek a just peace based on inherent human rights.
3. Peace should be based not only on rights, but also on economic security and opportunity. “True peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.”

I think that Obama is being very practical here.  He knows that peace is not just a cease fire.  I also think that the committee who chose him understands this too and that is why they chose him.  While he has not exactly created peace in the world, Obama has the capacity to be a great leader on key issues (nuclear proliferation, disarmament, etc.) that will affect the world.

I agree with Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Nobel prize committee, when he said, “Obama has the audacity of hope and the tenacity to make these hopes come true.”

So much of the debate on the heath care bill is about the public option.  There is a “deal” being made in congress about the public option.  Ten liberal and moderate democrat senators have gotten together and have negotiated a deal that could possibly bring the public option debate to a close. This deal would include a Medicare buy-in for workers over 55, a network of national non-profit insurers administered through the federal Office of Personnel Management, and insurance reforms that would force insurers to spend more money on actual medical care.  These changes need to be passed through the Congressional Budget Office and if the numbers look good than the group will most likely agree and present it.  Notice the if.

Let’s look at some of the questions being asked:

• Will funds for the younger workers coming into Medicare will be separate from the traditional Medicare pool?
• Which older workers get to buy in and when?
• Will there be subsidies available?
• There are already Medicare supplements available.  Would they be available to the younger workers be able to purchase these policies?
• Is someone going to restructure the Office of Personal Management?

These are all valid concerns that need to be evaluated before a final decision can be made.  It certainly will not be the public option that liberals were hoping for, but it also is not what conservatives wanted either.  Congress is making compromises on the public option left and right which shows me that they are at least willing to talk about the options.  For example, Senator Liberman said a couple weeks ago that he absolutely would not vote for a bill that had any sort of public option.  Now he has stated that he is opposed strongly to any sort of trigger, but the other compromises are ok.  Slowly, but surely a bill is being formed that will be acceptable enough to at least pass.

She was hands on during the negotiations, agreeing to a smaller public option than she probably would have liked and allowing an amendment for abortion restrictions to go through with the main bill.  “Thus far, President Obama – I think the jury is still out. He doesn’t have a huge legislative record, we’re still waiting to see what happens with health care. But [Pelosi's] delivered the votes already,” says Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.

She certainly has a longer resume than the president, but she is not more powerful.  She has just been able to bring through the votes she has needed to consistently.

Pelosi and Obama have a good relationship in comparison to other speak of the house/president relationships in the past.  They work well as a team instead of just the presidency and then everyone else.  The last time there was a Democratic Speaker of the House and a Democratic President was at the very beginning of Clinton’s administration.  Clinton and Tom Foley were a good pair, but they did not have the personal relationship and rapport that Obama and Pelosi seem to have.  Pelosi has a close relationship with Rahm Emmanuel which makes it much easier for her to work in the White House.

They don’t agree on everything, but I think that they understand how important it is for a Speaker of the House and the President to get along and to provide a unified front.  If democrats begin to really fight within the party, then all could be lost and the lofty agenda that Obama has presented will go nowhere.  If the war in Afghanistan deteriorates and there is no sign of progress in the economy by the midterm elections then there could definitely be some open fighting and decent between the administration and the speaker.

In the end, every president is more powerful and prominent, but they depend on their legislative allies to get what they want done and so Obama needs to watch and make sure that no divisions grow so severe that policy is affected.

I have to wonder though what would have happened if we did not bail out all of the large companies.  My economics professor ranted about how economies go in cycles of low and high and that we were messing with the cycle.  “These things tend to work themselves out,” she said.  But would any of us be willing to let our economy completely fail, creating a worse situation than now, just so that the “natural order” of things could be restored?  I probably wouldn’t.  I’m going to be a history teacher and it was going to be hard enough to find a job before the recession, but know it is almost going to be impossible.  I’m probably going to have to move to Alaska before I even get an offer.

The economy affects everyone and everything and it is going to be the thing that makes or breaks Obama (other than the health care bill).  At this point, people care about bringing troops home and ending the war, but they are mainly just wondering if they will be able to bring in a pay check and put food on the table.

This decrease in unemployment could definitely be attributed to the influx of hiring for the holiday season, but I hope that it is more than that.  Even if it is, at least it is something good to talk about for a couple of months.  At this point, Obama will take anything he can get.

And even while domestic approval ratings decrease, Obama remains very personally popular abroad.  He was praised by most when he scrapped the missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, indicating that he would rather go the diplomatic route rather than “lob bricks over their neighbor’s wall.”  Most European countries do not have the military power that the United States and Britain have and so any efforts to reduce combat near their borders are welcome.  Obama’s interactions with Iran are also applauded and keep his rating high.

They are also impressed by Obama’s willingness to come to Copenhagen for the climate summit and his ability to broker a deal at the G20 summit without having to use a strong hand to force it through.  But there are some things that the EU is concerned about.  While they know that compromises have to be made and that the president has to find a political balance, they are not really very happy about Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan – mainly about how long he took to come to that decision.  The general sentiment is that Obama made everyone’s life more difficult by waiting so long to decide to send more troops.  The EU has a large anti-war sentiment that is growing and Obama waiting made them look bad as well.

“Obama was trying to appeal simultaneously to two different audiences. He wanted to tell the folks back home in Peoria, Illinois, that the troops would be home in 18 months, and he wanted to tell the Taliban that an extra 30,000 troops were on their way to make life tough for them. The problem was that the folks back home would focus most on the extra 30,000 troops going out, and the Taliban would focus on the fact that they would start leaving in 18 months.”

Obama will probably stay more popular in Europe than he is at home because he is tackling domestic issues that will make him enemies here, while other countries don’t really care what he chooses to do with American health care.  Like he was a year ago, Obama is still very much a beacon of hope to the EU.

Also, Obama has the economy to deal with.  For months, he could get away with saying that it was Bush’s fault that the economy is in the toilet – that it was bad republican policies that have brought this hardship upon us.  But know the first year of Obama’s presidency is coming to a close and change has been slow.  Now is the time that people are beginning to say, “well, Bush might have started it, but Obama was supposed to finish it and we haven’t seen anything happen yet.”  The president now has to manage everything on his own, including holding the blame for the current state of things.

Obama is losing support from surprising groups.  This week 10 members of the Congressional Black Congress stated that they are withholding their support for an overhaul of the financial services industry because they felt that the administration wasn’t being specific in addressing the effect of the economy on African Americans.  The tensions are mounting between the first black president and the caucus that he was a member of just one year ago.  They do not think he is doing enough for their constituents even though the $700 billion stimulus plan will save thousands of jobs.

Bush is gone and there is no one to kick around anymore.  Now there is just a clam, cool, and collected President Obama who can hopefully handle the moments of public hatred.  Overall, people approve of him, just not the current direction of his policy.  His approval ratings have steadily fallen since he came into office, but that is normal.  What he needs to do is keep his eyes forward and hope that the midterm elections do not handicap him.  Now that the blame has shifted from one leader to another there is a great possibility that Obama’s rating could drop even lower and that will affect the upcoming elections.  If that happens, things could get real ugly, real fast.

I think that Americans need to step back and look at the big picture and not just automatically blame all of our ills on the leaders of the country.  While missteps were made, there is not always something you can do.  Things happen and then you just have to pick up the pieces.

This amendment is not really very radical.  It calls for 1) a website to be created to that people can “comparison shop” for doctors that are cost effective, but very high quality, 2) improve the provisions penalizing hospitals who have the most hospital-acquired infections, 3) evaluate previously launched health-care pilot programs, eliminate the ones that are ineffective, and expand the ones that have proven to be effective, etc.

This amendment keeps hospitals and doctors more accountable and counters the Republican language of a “government takeover.”  All of the provisions show to Democratic leaders that Lieberman and Collins are willing to jump over party lines and align themselves with the democrats in voting for the bill.  All three of them are opposed to the amendment that restricts abortion coverage, but both Lieberman and Collins have indicated that they will not support a bill that obtains a public option.  They think that if the plan fails it would likely take the same financial toll as propping up Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

The health care bill is one step closer to being passed – albeit a small step.  So many things could still go wrong and Obama could lose his key piece of legislation.  It is in the hands of Congress and all we can really do is sit back and watch the 24 hour news cycle and wait for something to happen.

I don’t like any part of it and I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of a “necessary war”.  WWII would be one, that much is obvious, but the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is more iffy for me.  Terrorism is a horrible thing, there is no denying that, but should we invade nations that we really didn’t need to invade?  Did we find any weapons of mass destruction?  I think not…

President Obama has recently declared that he will be sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.  This, in theory, will help them hold the line while the Afghan troops are trained and prepared to take over for their American counterparts.  But Tony Karon of Time believes that Obama made this decision based on some flawed assumptions.

“Obama made the threat of al-Qaeda returning on the back of a Taliban victory the primary rationale for escalating the war in Afghanistan. But, as many have pointed out, al-Qaeda doesn’t need sanctuaries in order to plot terror attacks.”  This means that there are around 100,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan trying to stop an organization that does not need a country’s land to set up home bases.  Terrorist organizations can work solely independent of each other, setting everything up on the internet even.  The individual members don’t even need to be in the same country for them to collaborate.

Another assumption is that the United States can train the Afghan security forces to effectively take over the U.S. mission.  This decision is based off the experience with Iraq, but the situation is very different.  “Despite the U.S. having officially trained 94,000 Afghan soldiers, there’s no sign of an effective Afghan security force capable of fighting the Taliban.”  Desertion rates are very high, about 1 in every 4 trained and drug addiction runs rampant through the security force.   And unlike Iraq, Afghanistan did not have a functioning army before the United States came in and it does not have the financial resources that Iraq has to finance the creation of such an army.

There are many who have said that the president’s move to increase troops was the worst decision he could have made concerning Afghanistan and that instead of sending more troops we should be bringing them home.  There are others who think that 30,000 is not enough and that Obama should have listened to his generals and sent closer to 50,000 troops.  I would have to agree with the former, though not so extreme.  I want our troops to come home and for the wars to be over so that we can focus our attention on more pressing domestic affairs.  However, I understand that we cannot just pick up and leave one day.  I think Obama needs to begin a measured scale back of troops over an extended period of time, without sending more in the meantime.