TO OUR READERS

We began our third subscription drive Monday.  Subscriptions are the lifeblood of Urgent Agenda.  They're the reason we're still here.  This is a critical drive.  We must triple the number of subscribers to become financially stable.  Otherwise, Urgent Agenda will either disappear or be reduced.

What do you get by subscribing?  First, you insure the survival of this site, which has one of the most informed readerships on the web.  We cannot disclose our readers' names, but you're in very good, and sometimes well-known company.

Second, subscribers and donators now receive The Angel's Corner - sent each week by e-mail.  We discuss the trends of the week, but also go beyond politics, into movies, music and TV.  In addition, Angel's Corner gives the very coveted Pompous Fool Award, bestowed only on the most deserving candidates in politics and journalism. 

If for any reason you wish to cancel your subscription, the unused portion will be returned, upon request.    

This is a momentous week, a great time to join.  So please subscribe, or donate, in the column on the right, so that we can keep going.  Urgent Agenda is needed more than ever. 

UPDATE:  This is the third day of our drive.  True, the first day was a holiday, the second inauguration day.  But we are running alarmingly behind our goal, and well behind where we were at this point in our last subscription drive.  This is not good.  Please subscribe and allow us to continue and expand. 

WEDNESDAY,  JANUARY 21,  2009

BULLETIN - AT 12:39 A.M. ET, JANUARY 22nd:  Caroline Kennedy has issued a statement saying she has indeed withdrawn her name for consideration to replace Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate.

BULLETIN - AT 11:49 P.M. ET:  You won't believe this, but AP is running a story claiming that Caroline Kennedy has changed her mind and again wants the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton.  (See our Caroline stories, two items down.)  The report:

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- After wavering briefly, Caroline Kennedy renewed her determination Wednesday to win appointment to the U.S. Senate seat once held by her slain uncle, Bobby Kennedy, a person close to the decision said.

COMMENT: How obnoxious.  Note that the AP leads with a reference to the seat once having been held by Robert F. Kennedy, as if that should determine who gets it now.  This is just a bad scene.  It is embarrassing for New York, for Governor Paterson, even for the president, who should offer Caroline some kind of non-job to avoid this display.

ATTENTION TO DETAIL - AT 9:51 P.M. ET:  From The Washington Post:

President Obama took the oath of office -- again -- on Wednesday, out of what a White House lawyer described as "an abundance of caution."

"We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately yesterday. But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time," said White House Counsel Greg Craig in a statement issued early Wednesday night.

Obama and Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts had both seemingly stumbled over the 35-word oath during Obama's swearing-in as president on Tuesday, leading some to question whether he had properly committed the Constitutionally-mandated speech act that made him president of the United States.

COMMENT:  When Ronald Reagan, who'd been a movie actor, became president, his detractors warned, "There are no retakes in the Oval Office."  Apparently they were wrong.

UPDATE TO CAROLINE STORY - AT 7:45 P.M. ET:  The New York Times is now confirming the Caroline Kennedy story, printed just below:

Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn from consideration for the vacant Senate seat in New York, according to a person told of her decision.

On Wednesday she called Gov. David A. Paterson, who will choose a successor to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her concerns about Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s deteriorating health (he was hospitalized after suffering a seizure during President Obama’s inaugural lunch on Tuesday ) prompted her decision to withdraw, this person said. Coping with her uncle’s condition was her most important priority, a situation not conducive to starting a high profile public job.

COMMENT:  With the understanding that I have no independent information, I'm just not buying her reason, as stated in the Times's story.  It was made clear as she started campaigning for the job that the whole idea was for her to, in effect, succeed Ted Kennedy in the Senate, and keep a Kennedy presence there.  This is speculation:  Maybe she came to her senses and realized the resentment her appointment would cause, especially after her poor performance in recent press interviews.  She surely understood that her name was all she really had, and that she was trading on it.

Or, maybe the governor told her she would not be appointed, and gave her a graceful way out.  Paterson is not politically stupid, and knew that Kennedy was losing popularity with each interview she gave, not gaining it.

BULLETIN AT 7:37 P.M. ET:  According to the New York Post, Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn her name from consideration to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton in the U.S. Senate.  Here is the report:

Caroline Kennedy has told Gov. David Paterson that she is withdrawing her name from consideration to replace outgoing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the U.S. Senate, The Post has learned.

Kennedy cited "personal reasons," according to sources.

Her stunning move comes as sources revealed that Paterson had intended to appoint her to the now-vacant seat today.

COMMENT:  It is too early to make any sense of this.  I have my own theories as to what happened, but would prefer to wait for further information. 

NO CHANGE IN GAZA - AT 6:50 P.M. ET:  From The Jerusalem Post and AP:

Smuggling into Gaza from Egypt is underway again, only days after the end of the IDF operation against Hamas.

AP Television News footage showed Palestinian smugglers Wednesday filling a fuel truck with petrol that came through a cross-border tunnel from Egypt. The footage also shows workers busy clearing blocked tunnels and bulldozers carrying out other repairs.

COMMENT:  Very explosive situation.  Hamas is fanatical, and will try to smuggle even more weapons into Gaza.  This may require Israeli forces to enter Gaza once again.  It's President Obama who must deal with this now.

IGNORED VOICES - AT 6:18 P.M. ET:  From Fox News:

Family members of people killed on September 11, 2001, and in other terror attacks say they are outraged by President Obama's draft order calling for the suspension of war crimes trials of prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.

"To me it's beyond comprehension that they would take the side of the terrorists," said Peter Gadiel, whose son, James, was killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11. "Many of these people have been released and been right back killing, right back at their terrorist work again."

COMMENT:  In fairness, the trials are being suspended so the new administration can review procedures.  But this is trouble for the president down the road, and will be a test of how much influence the far left has in his administration.  A procedure must be found wherein dangerous people are not released.

STILL IN THE TANK - AT 5:32 P.M. ET:  If you thought the media would step back from its Obamapassion, think again:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Emotions ran high for some White House visitors who got the chance Wednesday to meet President Barack Obama. Some people cried. Others became flustered. One wore an Obama flag as a cape and a hat emblazoned with his name.

''We just praise and thank the Lord,'' said one woman who came face to face with Obama in the White House's Blue Room. ''It's been better than we expected.''

COMMENT:  All right, it's the first day.  We'll allow it.  But I checked this morning, and I didn't see the oceans recede or peace come to all peoples.  Better start working on that.

DOW WOW - AT 5:27 P.M. ET:  The Dow soared 279 points, to 8228, almost erasing yesterday's losses. 

THE WORD FROM IRAN - AT 2:15 P.M. ET:  Apparently ignored by the mainstream American media, Iran has reacted to the inauguration of President Obama with a warm, kindly welcome, as Britain's Telegraph reports:

It was the Supreme Leader's Special Representative though, who put it most graphically and with evident disgust. "Obama's is the hand of Satan in a new sleeve," explained Hossein Shariatmadari. "The Great Satan now has a black face."

COMMENT:  Let's see how many on the political left react with outrage at that racist remark.  Are you hearing the silence? 

THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO KNOW - AT 1:25 P.M. ET:  From The Los Angeles Times:

Late Tuesday afternoon, Fox News was the only major national TV outlet that carried a live telecast of former President Bush's homecoming speech to cheering supporters in Midland, Texas.

COMMENT:  We noticed that.  It was an important speech, a spirited, at time defiant defense of his record, with a listing of what Mr. Bush considers his major accomplishments.  But the mainstream media isn't interested.

BANKING ON IT - AT 9:32 A.M. ET:

Jan. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama's economic team is pushing to complete a bank-rescue plan that can be twinned with the $825 billion stimulus package being negotiated with Congress to alleviate the rapidly deepening financial crisis.

While full details of the rescue haven't been settled yet, people familiar with the deliberations said the package is likely to include a $50 billion-plus program to stem foreclosures, fresh injections of capital into the banks and steps to deal with toxic assets clogging lenders' balance sheets.

COMMENT:  A private, and very knowledgeable source, tell us that the bank crisis is far worse than the public realizes, especially in England, but here as well.  This could become full-blown very quickly, with a dramatic impact on the stock market, as we saw yesterday.

TRIVIA OF THE DAY - AT 9:25 A.M. ET:  From The San Francisco Chronicle:

Several constitutional lawyers said President Obama should, just to be safe, retake the oath of office that was flubbed by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The 35-word oath is explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, which begins by saying the president "shall" take the oath "before he enter on the execution of his office."

The oath reads: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In giving the oath, Roberts misplaced the word "faithfully," at which point Obama paused quizzically. Roberts then corrected himself, but Obama repeated the words as Roberts initially said them.

COMMENT:  Roberts must have felt worse yesterday than any man in America, knowing he'll be remembered for that one flub on a historic day.  If I were Obama, I'd take the oath again, and give Roberts another crack at it.  Then they should both joke about the whole thing.

CONFIRMATIONS - AT 9:17 A.M. ET: 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate is expected to consider several of President Barack Obama's Cabinet nominees Wednesday. A vote to confirm Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state, whose confirmation was blocked Tuesday by Republican John Cornyn of Texas, is expected Wednesday.

COMMENT:  There could be some fireworks over Tim Geithner, nominee for treasure secretary over his failure to pay taxes on time.  There could also be some tough questioning of attorney-general nominee Eric Holder over a host of items.  Both are expected to be confirmed nonetheless because Republicans don't want to be seen as obstructing the new administration. 

THE SPEECH

Posted at 7:30 a.m. ET

We described the president's inaugural address yesterday as workmanlike.  That description holds.  It was less than a great speech.  Only a few have argued otherwise, and they had skipped their medication.

But it was a solid speech.  There were some sections we liked, which sent the right message.  For example:

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

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

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

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

That's good.  That's very good - especially the mention of Khe Sanh, one of the bitter battles of Vietnam.  I'm glad the president knows the name Khe Sanh.  A lot of his supporters don't.

And then this, also good:

To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.

Or this, especially:

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

There were also things, though, that were troubling.  Consider:

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

That line is problematical because it contradicts some of the basic foreign-policy criticisms that Mr. Obama has leveled at the Bush administration.  The line could have been spoken by President Bush, for that is exactly the policy he was pursuing.  Here we see a flaw that we've seen before in Mr. Obama - he doesn't complete the thought, a problem often linked to inexperience.  What, for example, does he do if the fist isn't unclenched?  Does he negotiate?  Does he threaten?  Does he fight?  President Bush showed an openness toward countries, like Libya, that moved, even slightly, in our direction.  But when confronted with Saddam's clenched fist, or Syria's chill, he confronted or remained distant.  Where is the difference here?  Mr. Obama must spell it out.

Or this:

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

A needless and inaccurate swipe at the Bush administration.  Who spread the fear, the conflict, the discord?  The president might look to some of those who were his most enthusiastic boosters.

Or...

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Another needless insult.  In fact, whenever Mr. Bush discussed our ideals, like the expansion of human freedom, he was ridiculed as an ideologue and a warmonger.

Or...

...we are ready to lead once more. 

This was possibly the most quoted phrase of the speech, but it was wrong and improperly insulting.  When did President Bush not lead?  But leadership is not simply a matter of getting a show of hands, and acting only when everyone agrees.  Sometimes leadership, as Churchill showed in 1940, is acting alone.

So, there were good things and not such good things.  On balance, the president did well.  But the speech will now be forgotten as his administration begins, and the translation of words into policy starts.   The man of words, often powerful words, must become the man of action. 

Eleanor Roosevelt said to Harry Truman on the day Truman became president, "You're the one in trouble now."

Mr. Obama is the one in trouble now, and we wish him well.

January 21, 2009.        Permalink          

QUESTIONS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA

Posted at 7:03 a.m. ET

The following is reprinted from my piece at the Hudson New York website:

We are in a new age, the age of Obama. The mainstream media has given us a laundry list of things the new president is scheduled to worry about: Iran, Israel/Palestine, North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela, and the economy, the economy, and the economy.

But beyond these immediate issues are fundamental questions, questions that go to the character of our policies and the strength of our ideals. How the new president deals with these questions may have far more to do with success or failure than the everyday detail of governing.

There are these fundamental questions. They represent challenges for President Obama:

1) Mr. President, are you prepared to affirm that the free nations are in a decades-long battle against Islamic extremism, or are you going to lean toward the old notion that this is a police problem?

Say what you wish about George W. Bush, but he defined the problem correctly after 9-11, and, thanks to that definition, the United States was able to make a reasonably effective stand against terrorism. Some 46 percent of Americans, in the last election, voted for John McCain, in part because they believed he would continue a vigorous fight against the extremist menace. Mr. Obama would advance the national interest and foster American unity if he would publicly accept the basics of the Bush definition.

2) Are you prepared, in the speech you plan to deliver in a Muslim capital, to explain directly and forthrightly our disagreements with fundamentalist Islam, and how America and the Islamic world might work together toward a more positive future?

One of Mr. Bush's failures was an inability to communicate internationally. Mr. Obama is a wonderful speaker, with a partly Muslim background. If he goes to a Muslim capital and simply spouts politically correct bromides about peace, he will disappoint all sides. He can advance both peace and America's security if he engages the Muslim world about why we have been fighting in several Muslim countries, and what it will take to have better relations with the West. He can also offer incentives that will benefit those nations that start to reform. And it would be helpful if he would reaffirm, in a Muslim capital, our commitment to Israel and explain that it stems from American principles, not a "lobby."

3) Mr. President, are you prepared to stress to the American people the need to remain strong and stalwart, and the need to sacrifice, in the international battles ahead - as President Kennedy did in his inaugural address?

Just before his death in 1964, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur worried that there might come a day when Americans would be unwilling to defend their country. That willingness often depends on a leadership that honors the soldier and respects national defense. President Obama has, commendably, shown great respect for military service, witness his placing a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery two days before his inauguration. He could make a further contribution by stressing, especially to young people, the notion of an America committed to its own survival, no matter what sacrifice it takes, monetary and physical. The idea of patriotic sacrifice has become frighteningly foreign to a young, indulged generation.

4) Are you prepared, as were Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan, to keep political fringes, and their ideologies, at a certain distance, truly becoming a president of all the people?

President Roosevelt borrowed ideas from the socialist movement, but kept that movement at a distance. He kept his appeal as broad as possible, which accounted for his electoral success.

We recall that, in 1948, Harry Truman was prepared to see the southern wing of his party walk out of the Democratic national convention over the issue of civil rights. What is often forgotten is that the far left of the party also departed that year, miffed over Truman's policy of resisting the Soviet Union. Former Democratic Vice President Henry Wallace ran against Truman in the November, 1948, election on the Progressive ticket. The left wing is now back in force, and believes it "owns" President Obama because it supported him so strongly. Commendably, Mr. Obama has made it clear since the election that he isn't owned by any faction, and has sought the advice even of John McCain. We hope that continues, and that he doesn't buckle under pressure from the more radical members of his party's congressional wing.

Similarly, Ronald Reagan, although regarded by some as an arch conservative, actually kept the fringe of his movement at a considerable distance, governing largely as a center-right leader, understanding that the national interest, and his own political interest, demanded it.

5) Domestically, are you prepared, Mr. President, to take on the educational establishment? In particular, are you prepared to confront our colleges and universities, and demand an accounting of what they spend, and why, before committing to billions more in federal aid?

Two news stories in the last week were particularly disturbing. One reported that colleges are raising their charges dramatically, even in the midst of a major economic decline. The other reported that the percentage of resources devoted to administration in our colleges is going up, but the percentage devoted to instruction is going down. And there are simply too many disturbing reports - too many to ignore - of teachers far more concerned with ideological indoctrination than with traditional teaching.

Parents are paying enormous amounts to send their kids to college. In economic hard times, many families are priced out of the education market. Yet, no questions are asked of our colleges, about where money goes, about extravagant mailings to prospective students, about "academic" departments that often seem more like cheerleaders for one group or another. Our colleges are too important to the future of the country to go unchallenged when they seem indulgent, profligate, and propagandistic.

6) Finally, President Obama, are you willing to defy the environmental/global-warming industry and have the entire issue of global warming studied by independent panels, before we spend trillions on a problem that may not be a problem at all?

We are told there is a "consensus" about global warming. But consensus is a political word, not a scientific one. Increasingly, well-credentialed scientists are coming forward to question different aspects of the global-warming "consensus." President Obama has thus far not joined in the skepticism, and, indeed, his scientific and environmental advisers are all members of the global-warming choir. But we need a true, vigorous, scientific and economic debate to determine the real extent of global warming, its probable effect down the line, and what, if anything, should be done about it. So far what we've gotten is a kind of religious movement, with a potential for enormous economic damage to fragile economies, and damage to our own national security.

Those are some questions for our new president. We hope he will address them.

January 21, 2009.      Permalink          

TUESDAY,  JANUARY 20,  2009

BAD TASTE IN ABUNDANCE - AT 10:59 P.M. ET:  I was sweeping the TV news coverage a short time ago, and unfortunately happened on MSNBC.  I could only stand it for two or three minutes.  Chris Matthews, outdoing even his own previous rotten taste, wouldn't even mention President Bush by name, as he ridiculed the war on terror.  He referred to Mr. Bush as that guy who was president earlier in the day, or some such construction.  It was insulting, and embarrassing for a once-great news organization.  David Gregory, the White House correspondent, was also on the program and gently tried to straighten out Matthews, recognizing how obnoxious Chris was, but he didn't get far.  I turned the whole thing off.  They don't deserve to be in business. 

INTRIGUING BRITISH TAKE - AT 8:45 P.M. ET:  I thought this was a particularly provocative lead, from Britain's Telegraph.  See if you agree:

Not because America is the only country in the world where a man born so far from privilege could become president, but because only in America would someone have the audacity to believe he could become president with so little preparation.

Obama is a man of great talent – as a speaker, a writer and a politician – but what stands out is the nerve that allowed him to act upon the knowledge that his time had come, that the nation's mood chimed perfectly with views he had been shaping for years.

Hmm.  Neither a criticism nor a valentine, but it certainly makes you think about #44. 

A NOMINATION - AT 8:20 P.M. ET:  We humbly nominate, as the most over-the-top statement of the day, this line from an editorial in Britain's reliably leftist and anti-American Guardian:

As we absorb and anticipate the many lessons of the Obama era as it stretches before us, remember this one in particular. The events of 20 January 2009 are the greatest celebration of a purely democratic achievement in human history.

Oh my, oh my.  That's a lot of history, isn't it? 

The rest of the ridiculous editorial is standard-issue left-wing claptrap.  Worth reading only for a laugh. 

SELECTION - AT 7:59 P.M. ET:  We have just selected the recipient of this week's Pompous Fool Award.  Announcement will be made at The Angel's Corner, which will be sent out tomorrow night.  Speculation has already begun around the world.  Recipient receives a plaque and a certificate of authenticity from Hamburger Helper.

BRITS ON DISPLAY - AT 6:49 P.M. ET:  Just watched, briefly, a discussion on the BBC (through CSPAN) on the coming of Obama.  Basically useless and other worldly.  Any connection between the BBC and reality is accidental at best.  One of the participants rejoiced that Obama wants to prevent the planet from "burning up."  I wish he could see my heating bill.

FIGHTING BUSH - AT 6:47 P.M. ET:  Former President Bush has arrived home in Texas, and he's not in a retiring mood.  He's onscreen now giving a fighting - really fighting - speech in defense of his administration.  It's a surprise.  Maybe he just got tired of all the "analysts" tearing him apart.  Good for W.

DOW DOUBTS - AT 6:41 P.M. ET:  Wall Street did not exactly greet President Obama with open arms, or wallets.  The Dow plunged 323 points to close at 7949, below that psychological 8000 mark.  It was the worst inauguration day drop in the Dow's history.  Concern about the financial condition of banks apparently drove the decline.

6:06 P.M. ET:  The inaugural parade is still on.  A few things we've learned: From The Hill:

It was hard to miss Desiree Fairooz and Medea Benjamin among the thousands of VIPs in the front seating section: they were dressed all in pink as demonstrators for — you guessed it — Code Pink.

To evade security rules against signs, both women held aloft blankets written with messages urging President-elect Obama to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq.

VIPs?  Really?  In whose eyes?  Also from The Hill:

The crowd packed on the west side of the Capitol grounds serenaded President Bush in mocking fashion when he took to the inaugural stage alongside Vice President Dick Cheney.

"Nah nah nah nah, hey hey, good-bye," a section of the crowd chanted.

The crowd packed immediately below the podium received Bush in stony silence when he took his seat on the stage surrounding the podium where Barack Obama was scheduled to take the oath office to become the 44th president of the United States.

It's too bad some of his supporters can never display the style that the Obamas displayed today.  They were gracious toward the Bushes, and the Bushes were gracious toward them. 

I'm going to take some time away now to search the web for international and domestic reaction, and will be back a bit later.

3:13 P.M. ET:  Senator Edward Kennedy, described here earlier as looking worn and haggard at this morning's ceremony, apparently collapsed at the Capitol luncheon and had to be removed by medical personnel.  Late reports say that he's responding to treatment.

2:57 P.M. ET:  In a day that went smoothly and elegantly, there was one discordant moment, a part of the benediction by old civil-rights warhorse, the Rev. Joseph Lowery.   This is what he said:

'Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen'...

It's sad when people fall behind the times.  Someone should inform Rev. Lowery that blacks no longer get in back, and that whites just elected the first black president.  There is a moment when a man should quietly leave the stage.

2:56 P.M. ET:  A number of commentators have now "analyzed" President Obama's inaugural address, and no two pundits agree.  Some say the speech broke strongly with President Bush.  Others say it continued a tough line on foreign policy.  By tomorrow no one will remember it, as there is work to do.

1:38 P.M. ET:  Some tidbits.  The TV camera swept the luncheon being held in the president's honor at the Capitol.  We saw Rahm Emanuel, White House chief of staff, and probably the second most powerful man in Washington.  Who was sitting next to him?  Cindy McCain, with John McCain next to her.  Obviously, this was intentional.  There's been talk of Obama calling on McCain for advice and assistance.  Fascinating. 

Also fascinating was a shot of Hillary Clinton in a long, animated conversation with Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who is holding up Clinton's confirmation as secretary of state for a day.  He's still concerned, rightly, about Bill Clinton's foundation accepting foreign donations.  Don't know the outcome of their conversation, but reportedly Clinton approached Cornyn.

12:29 P.M. ET:  The president has given his address.  These things have to be studied, read and absorbed to be fully evaluated.  Mr. Obama spoke eloquently, as he always does.  The speech struck me as a workmanlike, but not particularly brilliant address, laying out the general themes of his campaign.  There were no new ideas, nor did there seem to be any lines that will live in history.  But again, we have to study it.  On first hearing, I'd say that I don't think it will rank with the great inaugurals, but there were very few of those.  It was more similar to FDR's first inaugural than to any other inaugural address in its structure and tone.  I did not hear anything reminiscent of Lincoln, which surprised me, given Mr. Obama's attachment to Lincoln.

12:08 P.M. ET:  Obama is now delivering his address.  Every word will be examined.  We listen.

12:05 P.M. ET:  Barack Obama has been sworn in.  The oath, incredibly, was messed up by Chief Justice John Roberts in a stunning gaffe.  Roberts blew it.  But Barack Obama is now president. 

11:58 A.M. ET:  Joe Biden has been sworn in.  He didn't make any mistakes.

11:49 A.M. ET:  Pastor Rick Warren is giving the invocation.  As you know, the choice of Warren was controversial because of his stand on gay rights.  It seems like a perfectly appropriate invocation.

11:45 A.M. ET:  Everyone is now in place on the inaugural platform.  Mr. Obama should be inaugurated in about 15 minutes.

11:30 A.M. ET:  Okay, I wrote too soon.  Clinton and Gore are now speaking.  All is well with the world.

11:26 A.M. ET:  Gossip note.  Let's face it, you're interested:  Bill Clinton walked in, and was positioned right in front of Al Gore, his vice president.  They exchanged not a word, not a nod.  Absolute coldness.

11:21 A.M. ET:  Best comment of the day thus far:  Brit Hume, watching Bill and Hillary Clinton enter, said that he always felt Bill Clinton was searching for exactly the right expression to wear.  Great observation.

11:09 A.M. ET:  Al Gore just entered.  I'm sure he thinks it's too hot.

11:05 A.M. ET:  We're about an hour away from the inauguration.  All the dignitaries are entering the Capitol balcony, where the ceremony is held.  CIA Director-designate Leon Panetta just entered, in disguise of course.  (Just kidding.  He left his Angelina Jolie outfit at home.)

10:40 A.M. ET:  A remarkably routine inauguration day.  Very orderly.  No untoward incidents.  We are an hour and fifteen minutes from Mr. Obama being swon in.  I'm watching a TV screen, and an old-looking and haggard Ted Kennedy just walked in.  He looked awful, and I say that with no joy.

One interesting point:  Several commentators, on different networks, have made the point that we really don't know what kind of president Mr. Obama will be.  There is still the mystery, perhaps a greater mystery then we've ever faced with a new president.

9:42 A.M. ET:  Gateway Pundit reminds us of something else to celebrate today - and that is the liberation of Iraq, which is about to hold a major election.  Who would have thought, eight years ago, that Iraq would be turned into a democracy, even a struggling one.

9:30 A.M. ET:  We're about two and a half hours from the inauguration.  I've swept the networks again.  It seems to me that CNN is the most giddy, which is understandable when you're fundamentally an in-the-tank-for-the-left operation.  MSNBC is the most mean-spirited, with real Bush-bashing and GOP bashing going on.  Bob Woodward was just on that "news" channel talking about the "hand grenades with the pins pulled" that Mr. Bush is leaving for Mr. Obama.  Real profound.  Fox News is the most neutral, and, I think, the most serious.  There have been some good discussions and interviews on Fox. 

BULLETIN AT 9:07 A.M. ET:  To remind us that there's a real world out there, where there are no parties, no celebrations, and a lot of threat, we just received this e-mail from an Urgent Agenda reader, an American in Afghanistan.  Please read and remember:

I was coming out a small outdoor trailer, when KABOOM!, 50 yards away, just outside the camp blast wall, a suicide bomber rammed into a convoy.  I cannot describe the pressure wave that came from that blast...takes your breath away and makes you black out just for a second.  

The plume of smoke and debris that rose above me was QUITE impressive...full of car parts, garbage, pieces of the bomber, etc. etc.  
Many Afghan passers-by were badly injured, an American soldier in the rammed vehicle was thrown free and landed on TOP of the blast wall.  He later died.  The other passenger and a young female soldier were very badly burned; they do not know if she will make it.  

Many people in the buildings surrounding where I stood were injured by flying glass.  Thank God I was in a relatively open area and was completely unharmed.  I came away extremely impressed by both the power of the IED (reports of IEDs seem theoretical and abstract until you are actual near one) and by the ability of the blast protection walls to do their jobs...they certainly protected me.

It's easy for us to forget the danger Americans are facing, protecting the very things we celebrate today.

8:28 A.M. ET:  I was just monitoring the news channels.  Pretty straightforward so far, except for MSNBC, which was slobbering all over the racial aspect, recalling the sixties.  I'm glad I have a remote with fresh batteries.  I have spare batts, too.

8:25 A.M. ET:  Several readers have asked, but, no, the inaugural address has not leaked.  We don't have an advance copy.

8:17 A.M. ET:  Fox News reports that 200,000 have already gathered on the Mall.

8:11 A.M. ET:  We'll point out good journalism as well.  The Washington Post shows again this morning that a liberal newspaper can be sober and thoughtful in its editorials.  I like this quote from its lead editorial:

More than a few grains of salt are called for here. Mr. Obama is a man of great promise but relatively little experience. The hopefulness of recent inauguration days soon gave way to cynicism and disappointment. Each new administration promises to reject the slash-and-burn politics of the previous crowd, only to get caught up in more of the same, or worse. Too often, the way presidents pledged to govern as candidates bears little resemblance to the way they operate once in office. And history plays its own tricks: The challenges a president ends up wrestling with are rarely foreseen on Inauguration Day.

Yet, like most Americans, we can't help feeling something particularly special about this Inauguration Day. Like most Americans, we will be rooting for Mr. Obama to succeed.

Well stated, with class.  New York Times, please notice.

7:59 A.M. ET:  Crowds are gathering for the inauguration, which is a bit more than four hours away.  We're monitoring the TV news outlets, as well as the print press.  We expect to see and hear a great deal of over-the-top journalism, and we're getting it.  Two questions about coverage dominate:  Will the media overplay the race question?  Will the media control its pro-Obama bias?

The New York Times shows this morning, on a day when graciousness should prevail, that it can't bring things under control.  Last night Mr. Obama held a dinner to honor his recent opponent, John McCain.  It was unprecedented.  The Times reports that...

In an unusual effort to create political opportunity out of what is usually a dead period in the days leading up to an inauguration, Mr. Obama reached across the aisle and across the battle lines of the last election, calling his former opponent a man who sought common ground... 

The Times then goes on to say: 

"He did not mention that Mr. McCain evinced little of his bipartisan side during the presidential campaign."

Utterly uncalled for and tasteless.  Let's hope for better quality today.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. becomes the 44th president today.  Urgent Agenda will suspend its usual format and blog throughout the day, reacting to events, and especially to the inaugural address.  Please visit us often.

As Americans, we wish Mr. Obama the best.  We want our country to succeed.  We will support him when we think he is right, oppose him when we think he is wrong.  But, as members of the opposition, we will never descend to the level to which the haters of President Bush have descended over the last eight years. 

We observe not only the special character of the day, but, even more important, its ordinariness.  We change leaders by ballot in America.  Please note that there are no tanks in the streets.