´óÏó´«Ã½

The gentlemen and ladies from St Mary's Catholic Church in Closter, New Jersey are busy tonight, piling plates high with home-cooked meatloaf, carrots, potatoes, macaroni cheese and two types of rice. Most of their clients want the lot. It's St Mary's turn behind the serving spoons at the spanking new centre for the homeless in Bergen county.

Sixty-two people who would otherwise be homeless live here but anyone can come in and get the free evening meal. Last night a hundred people came off the streets of this very affluent area, a stylish suburb of New York, to take advantage of the free food.

It's predicted that figures due out later today will show modest growth in the American economy.

Madge and Rosemary handing out a vast quantity of home-baked brownies and brightly-coloured cupcakes, tell a different story to the statistics. They say they are serving twice as many people as this time last year.

The manager of the shelter Mary Sunden says there has been a dramatic change. It's not just the increase in the number of people turning up, it's who they are. Many homeless people have mental health or drug problems. But Mary says they are now seeing a different type of person as well, people who have lost their job and suddenly find they can't keep up payments on their home and a car. She says these people don't know anyone who uses the welfare system but suddenly find themselves in it. They are, she says, "lost, confused and frightened".

None of these adjectives describe Elizabeth Russo. A quietly-spoken but very self-possessed woman in her 60s, she has a resilience that is awe-inspiring. She has been living in the shelter for a year. She lost her home. But never her job. She works in a supermarket and when the economy turned down her hours were cut. Then they were cut some more. Eventually she wasn't earning enough to keep her home.

But she surprises me by telling me she agrees with the official figures. Her hours have gone up again recently, and she can tell that people are spending more, just a little bit more. It's not enough to make a huge difference, but it's there. Tonight she is happy. She has just heard that she can get on a voucher scheme that will mean she can get out of the shelter and into an apartment. She has nothing but praise for the commitment of the staff of the shelter and the stimulus money that made this possible.

Tonight she is happy.

The director to the centre Julia Orlando says that the stimulus money has made all the difference for them, meaning they can extend programmes, helping people get into somewhere they can again call home.

Just before we leave, Julia turns away but fails to hide the tears in her eyes. One man she has worked with is very ill. He lost his job because he was sick. Then he lost his home paying the medical bills. He's been living in shelters for quite a while, but hasn't seen his grown up children because he's too ashamed to let them know what has happened. Now Julia has helped him get an apartment. He shows her the keys and gives her a big hug.

Some will find little comfort in today's cold statistics, and they will question the stimulus package. Doubtless it is right to point out any sign of recovery is fragile and the reason for optimistic statistics should be examined closely. But down at rock bottom, when hope is all that is left, every little victory is sweet.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

A looks at whether the US will remain the dominant superpower in the next century.

Many of are pretty mainstream, suggesting that America's dominance has been built on military power which itself is dependent on economic power. He points out that this has been based not so much on industrial strength as constant innovation. He says that to continue this into the future, America has to emphasise research into green and bio tech, and new medical and health treatments.

This emphasis on the future of technology pretty much mirrors which also stresses medical research. I am hearing that some executives of medical companies are arguing the administration is undermining its own objectives by taxing just such products.

But that's a digression. Kurth's most striking argument is that it's time for America to grow up. He directly challenges the idea that America benefits from "soft power" - the worldwide appeal of its ideals and culture. He says the projected culture is adolescent and damaging:

"It is usually forgotten that this popular culture is chiefly popular with the young - particularly those young who are still irresponsible, rebellious and feckless...If American leaders want to lead the leaders of other countries, they will have to act like mature adults, not like the attention-seeking celebrities of American popular culture."

Perhaps he's just spotted the difference between the heartland and TV-land. In my short time here, I've been struck by the tightly-buttoned, exaggerated deference, politeness and conformity of much of American society compared to its rather more free-flowing image abroad. But is Prof Kurth right that it is time for America to put away childish things?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

It appears to be , on the lines of a guide dog for the blind.
This does not appear to be discrimination against Richard, purely because he is a primate, although he has been banned from stores and restaurants which might not have barred a pooch. It is because his owner, a Missouri woman, claims she need his company to prevent panic attacks in public. A Federal judge has agreed with those who argue that Richard is a mere therapy animal or even - such lack of respect - a mere pet.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The world, and America's allies, will have to wait a little longer before we all find out what the president intends to do in Afghanistan, and how many new troops he might intend to send there.

You might think that the might be a good place to give America's allies a clue. But US defence secretary Robert Gates won't be giving any secrets away. On his way there, he said: "I am moving into my personal decision phase" about troop numbers. He added with a heavy dose of sarcasm:

"I will probably share with the president and my colleagues in the American government where I come out on this issue before I share it with 27 defence ministers."

Fair enough, but his words will add to the growing sense of frustration in European capitals. Europe's military and political class has never been so ready and keen for American leadership. But there is a growing sense of frustration that they are not getting it.

The longer the White House deliberations go on, the more and more difficult it is to sell to their public the commitment to a mission that isn't being defined. It is much easier to show enthusiasm for a definite plan than to sell a determination to back whatever it may be that President Obama comes up with in the end. The countries which would send more troops are jittery about what they will do if Obama doesn't show the commitment they expect.

Britain will march in lock-step with whatever America requires. The British government believes that an Afghanistan that offers no safe havens makes British streets safer. But it is much more than this, part of a broader policy that sees respect for American leadership and engagement, and loyalty to the world's only superpower, as one of the key elements of British foreign policy.

This may be a mistake. Some claim that the Obama administration deeply distrusts the British government precisely because of this loyalty. Some say Obama's advisers blame Britain for what they believe was a disastrous war in Iraq.

The argument I have heard goes like this: the one man in the entire world who could have stopped the war by withdrawing his support was former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. Although he is no longer in power, the ministers and advisers who could have stopped him are still in positions of great responsibility. So the more eagerly Britain marches in lock-step, the more the administration discounts its advice.

But as we wait for the sixth meeting of Obama's war cabinet,he is offered some relief by the vice-president. No, not Joe Biden, but Dick Cheney - who in has said that Obama "seems afraid to make a decision". At least some European allies will conclude that they prefer the uncertainty produced by a few weeks' careful reflection to the decisiveness of the previous administration.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Top executive pay slashed! By 90%! None of us in the media can resist a headline that includes the word "slashed" and it arrived at just the right time: coincidentally in time for our Ten O'clock News but also judged to catch the eye of the American networks' main evening bulletins. , and revealed, at almost the same time, that the "pay czar" planned these dramatic cuts in pay and benefits at seven companies that got billions from the Government.
With a growing sense of anger at the distance between Wall Street and Main Street, and a sense of unfairness that the bosses who'd helped fuel the crisis were getting rewarded for it, the administration obviously felt it had to act.
The timing is interesting. Today in Congress there are a trio of important economic encounters (at 1400 UK time). The chair of the White House's economic advisors will speak to the , the assistant secretary for financial stability will talk about bail outs to the set up to examine them and yet another will hear evidence on the federal bail-out of Merrill Lynch.
It's exile on Main Street the administration fears most, but maybe this one was aimed at the kings of the hill.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So, much applause, back slapping, and general relief in Washington to the announcement out of Kabul. The president (the one in the White House) says:

"While this election could have remained unresolved to the detriment of the country, President Karzai's constructive actions established an important precedent for Afghanistan's new democracy."

Hillary Clinton weighs in with: "The leadership shown by the president, Dr Abdullah and all of the other candidates has strengthened Afghanistan and kept faith with the best interests of the Afghan people."

Senator John Kerry, who is in Kabul, had his say, too: "Today, President Karzai showed statesmanship by deciding to move forward, and to strengthen the country by embracing the Constitution and the rule of law."

The announcement of a run-off on 7 November must complicate the decision about when the president should make a statement on future strategy.

The White House sticks to "in the coming weeks", which some report will mean , but the defence secretary suggests that there is little point in waiting for .

But I am still not convinced that the election will happen. The British and Americans still want a broadly based unity government.

So why am I writing again about Afghanistan? Has it featured too much and is it too "inside the beltway"?

Some of the criticism below yesterday's piece does sting a little.

After all, I have made it a priority to get out of DC and report the rest of America, and I always knew striking the right balance would be very difficult.

I am a great believer in explaining editorial dilemmas openly, so here's the "but". You knew there would be a "but".

The president's decision on Afghanistan and Pakistan is of critical importance for the UK and the rest of the world.

It's not just that British troops are fighting there, it is that both the president and the British prime minister, along with hosts of advisers and commentators, make it clear that they believe what happens there has an impact on the security and safety of the US and Europe.

For a really interesting take, arguing there is no middle way, check .

It is also critically important for Obama's presidency: many Democrats are strongly opposed to sending more troops, and believe it will force him to abandon domestic reforms they are very keen on.

Then there are the nuts and bolts of how we take such decisions, and they are nearly always more important than outsiders' esoteric theories about editorial priorities.

I travelled very widely across the EU and beyond when I was based in Europe but there would always be someone asking why such and such a story hadn't been covered.

It's the old problem of not being able to be in two places at once. This blog is very important to me, but the bread and butter of the job is TV and radio reporting.

At the end of last week, we knew that the news of the Afghan vote would break within a few days. But not when or how.

So it makes it very difficult to leave town. The same is true when we know Obama will announce his decision in "the coming weeks". Do I dare make a foray outside the beltway at this critical time? Yes, absolutely, but it has to be done judiciously.

In the short time I have been here, I have reported on healthcare policy from West Virginia, public opinion on Afghanistan from New York and Jimmy Carter's comments on race from South Carolina. I am not going to stop getting out and about, and need to get a better feel for what the US thinks and feels about a whole range of issues, but sometimes what happens within the beltway will dominate..

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

President Obama's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, has successfully avoided calling for a second round in the Afghan elections, dancing nimbly around all the questions at his morning briefing. Apparently, the Downing Street spokesman did much the same thing. Mr Gibbs did repeatedly stress the need for a "legitimate" Afghan government, and a "credible partner". He said all the troops in the world wouldn't solve the situation without a partner who was willing to help.

The one senior figure who has explicitly called for a second round is the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt: "If these results point towards the need for a second round, a second round must be held."

Is a difference of opinion emerging? Probably not. Western diplomats say that any pressure for a second round doesn't necessarily mean that one will happen or that it is their preferred solution. While a second vote would give the victor more legitimacy, the United States and the United Kingdom both really want Hamid Karzai to establish a more broadly based government, by including his rival Abdullah Abdullah.

What no-one can answer at the moment is what happens if Mr Karzai refuses to play ball. The hope in Washington is that he simply needs America too much to ignore its wishes. But if he does refuse a run-off vote, refuses a coalition, no-one can tell me what would happen next.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Favourite read of the weekend: , revealing a conversation with the national security boss and explaining to Americans why the president appeals to the rest of the world.

Second favourite: an interesting prompts a splenetic .

But those who purport to worry that Biden is carrying the day shouldn't fret too much. Obama's chief of staff has confirmed that what is foremost in the minds of those undertaking the lengthy policy review is the political turmoil in Afghanistan. it would be "reckless to make a decision on US troop levels if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the US troops would create".

But it seems pretty obvious that while any announcement of troop numbers and so on has to come the other side of a decision about a second round - or not - in Afghanistan's presidential elections, its outcome cannot in reality hang on this thread.

Instead, it seems to me, the threat of following the alleged Biden strategy of muddling along with current troop levels is being used to pressure Karzai. This could be either to accept that a second round would give him great legitimacy or, more likely, to include his rivals in his government, broadening its appeal, so that it can "fill that space" Emanuel clearly regards as currently vacant. A policy for clangorous times, indeed.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The politicians said that Wall Street had to be saved to rescue Main Street. But even as Wall Street makes profits, the loans don't seem to be flowing into Main Street.

The United States economy is about to pose an interesting political problem. As the Dow Jones industrial average , unemployment hovers on the edge of the 10% mark.

As Goldman Sachs makes quarterly profits of more than $3bn, and ponders paying bonuses, for the first time in 34 years social security payments to Americans . It is because inflation is so low, but it may not feel like justice to those not getting their expected annual increase while watching bankers get big bonuses.

One writer calls the planned payouts to bank executives "". Is he right?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown says he's willing to send 500 more troops if Nato allies do more. Of course the biggest Nato ally is the US. How many is Barack Obama prepared to send?

The word around Washington is that General Stanley McChrystal has given the president - hot, cold and just right. Ten-thousand: too little. Eighty-thousand: unrealistically high. Forty-thousand: just right, for the general if not the politicians.

The debate within the White House has often been characterised as a conflict between those, like the general, who want troop-heavy state-building and those who want to concentrate on counter-terrorism: scaling back to attacking potential terrorists. I have been searching for those who back the latter view, said to be favoured by the vice-president, and do you know what? In this town I think I have a better chance of discovering a unicorn hiding under Dupont Circle.

Of course, there are senior senators who doubt the wisdom of sending so many troops. There are many who think the elections were too flawed and the government too corrupt for the Afghans to be proper partners in such an enterprise. But that is not the same as proposing a coherent military or diplomatic strategy to put in its place. My fruitless search may be the result of the fact that the most senior people in this town's many excellent foreign policy think tanks, and those whose opinion carries the most weight, are often ex-military, ex-administration, ex-intelligence community.

Of course they have a wide range of views but, like a heated discussion within a religious community, the debate takes place within the boundary of common assumptions. This interesting article argues the , and that Obama should be listening to free thinkers.

But my hunch is that I should be looking for a straw man, not a unicorn. One of those senior figures said to me recently: "I keep trying to write that speech where Obama turns down McChrystal's request. I can't do it." I am sure Obama would like to send as few troops as possible but I, too, think that the debate is, in part, to demonstrate to the vocal critics in his own party that he has looked at all the options and there is no alternative. But I could be wrong. We'll know within weeks.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

American hard-headed foreign policy, giving succour and aid to dubious foreign leaders, used to be summed up in FDR's alleged phrase .
He may never have said it, but it perfectly summed up a sort of realpolitik justification that was used throughout the Cold War to justify support for all sorts of unsavoury dictators.

That won't be the current White House's approach to the about-to-be democratically elected leader of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai. Only in their dreams. It's almost two months after the election and still the votes haven't all been counted. But it is pretty clear he will emerge the winner, and almost certain there won't be a second round.

Karzai has been on morning TV in America, attacking the view that the elections were flawed by fraud on a pretty massive scale, as , the former US ambassador to Croatia.

"There were irregularities. There must've also been fraud committed, no doubt. But the election was good and fair and worthy of praise, not of scorn, which the election received from the international media. That makes me very unhappy. That rather makes me angry."

The Americans may not regard Mr Karzai with any great enthusiasm, they may not think he is a reliable partner. Indeed, the allegations about the elections have led to much of the head-scratching in the White House about strategy in Afghanistan. They want to know that he is serious about governing on behalf of all the people, in their best interests. They worry about how they can sell nation-building to the American people while he is in charge.

Yet it seems a decision has been taken that, whatever they think of him, whoever's side he is on, he will win, and so he has to be backed. There's perhaps an acknowledgement that in the past their support for him was far too lukewarm and the hope that the election would have a different result whispered too freely.

Now, it seems, the administration has told the once-and-future president that they will give him their fullest support. More a case of "he's his own man, but he's got to be ours too".

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Why did he win?

The question seems to be on many lips: why did President Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize just nine months into his presidency? "What achievement is this about?" some ask. The nominations closed only two weeks after he came to power. "What had he done by then?" people ask.

I think it is pretty obvious. As so often, the mystery clears up if you bother to read the text, in this case the citation. The committee praises him for intentions that were key to his whole campaign. It singles out working through the United Nations, for putting the emphasis on negotiations, international diplomacy and co-operation, for creating a new climate in international politics. In other words, because he's not President George W Bush and has steered American foreign policy, or at least its strategy if not its aims, in an opposite direction.

Not surprisingly, Republicans are furious. John Bolton, Bush's ambassador to the UN, has just told the ´óÏó´«Ã½ that it is no coincidence that Jimmy Carter and Al Gore also got the prize, but, not say, Ronald Reagan. He says the committee is "preaching at America, saying 'do you Americans get the point yet?'".

Do you agree that the prize is a tool of those making a political point, and does that cheapen it, or make it more potent?

By the way, apologies to Lord Trimble who won the peace prize in 1998 for his efforts in Northern Ireland and is of course British. (He won it jointly with John Hume, who as the former leader of a nationalist party presumably regards himself as Irish but would be entitled to a British passport were he to want one.) Yes, "reaching out" is an Americanism: we Brits might reach out for some crisps (chips) but not to another person, unless with lewd intent.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The president's press secretary woke Mr Obama at six o' clock in the morning eastern time to tell him that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize. I don't yet know the president's immediate reaction but the official one is that he is "humbled". Apparently when a senior TV correspondent broke the news to a couple of very senior aides even earlier, they thought it was a wind-up.

Although the prize can be awarded to obscure if worthy figures or organisations there has certainly been a scattering of stellar names. The first well known figure to get it was also a president of the United States, Teddy Roosevelt in 1906, for negotiating a peace treaty between Russia and Japan. Since then, Woodrow Wilson, Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King, Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Anwar Sadat, Yasser Arafat and Nelson Mandela have all won the award.

Most of them had achieved some tangible triumphs before the award was made but this time the committee has made it an aspirational, although of course not conditional, award. They've given it to him for fostering multilateral relationships and particularly for his vision of a nuclear-free world which, diplomats tell me, is a real and very personal obsession. The citation also says:

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

The only two British winners I can spot are Austen (not Neville) Chamberlain and Arthur Henderson. Mr Obama might want to reflect on their triumphs. The treaty of Locarno in 1925 negotiated by the former was an early example of appeasement towards Germany. The latter won it in 1934 for overseeing the world disarmament conference, which wasn't a huge success in light of subsequent events.

But I am in danger of being captured by Washington cynicism and the narrative of the president's enemies, who see any sign of what Americans call "reaching out" as weakness and failure.

I expect a day of sneering reaction from the conservative media here. But in much of the rest of the world, Obama really is seen as a beacon of hope for a better future, a symbol of a more grown-up America. There was already a huge weight of responsibility on his shoulders, and this medal hung round his neck has just made it a little heavier.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

? I would have guessed large, bold, clean abstracts, with a nod maybe to someone like

But I am indebted to to learn the rather startling truth.

Eleven of the 33 paintings in the part of the White House that the Obamas call home are 19th Century paintings of Native American Indian life on the plains. work has titles like "Buffalo Chase with Accidents" and "Ball-Play Dance, Choctaw".

His portraits pack a punch, but the paintings of frontiersman plains the Obamas seem to have chosen leave me cold.

Catlin apparently admired Native American culture and felt he was recording a great culture on the edge of destruction, so perhaps they are making a political point. But Catlin was a

The second-most favoured artist, with four paintings is a much better choice. was known for his portrayal of Harlem life, with although to my mind his are a hundred times more powerful.

Don't worry, I will abandon art criticism and go back to politics in a minute.

The Obamas have one work by pop artist on display, but surely it should hang not at their home, but in the situation room, where the President has been holding a series of meetings to discuss the future of his Afghanistan and Pakistan policy.

The work they have is entitled On a red-and-pink canvas are the words: "Maybe...Yes..." "wait a minute!", "on second thought", and "maybe... no..."

But I really hope they are saving up their cents for his to put in that space. It's called "It's OK - Everything's OK".

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The word "Vietnam" is being muttered more and more in Washington. But is there any sense in the comparison?

It's important to note why people are referring to that traumatic war. It is not that anyone thinks the conflict in Afghanistan will cause the bitter fissures in American society that Vietnam broke open. Iraq didn't come close, and Afghanistan certainly won't.

What they are talking about is the idea of pinning hopes of victory on increasing troop numbers, winning hearts and minds and building up a government that many think doesn't deserve to be supported.

I wrote about a conversation with ABC's chief pollster, Gary Langer, yesterday, but after our interview he showed me some fascinating data. On two almost identical graphs, two intertwining lines plummet downwards. One line is presidential popularity and the other the popularity of a war. The first is LBJ and Vietnam, the second Bush and Iraq.

"That's what Obama will be worried about," says Gary, adding that if a bad economy destroys presidencies, an unpopular war does the job even more effectively. "Vietnam" is simply shorthand for "quagmire".

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Washington: , probably in reaction to media speculation. He told a meeting of his most senior security advisers last week that pulling out was not an option: it wasn't on the table.

Now he has used his meeting with senior politicians of both parties on the Hill to make it clear he's not going to slash troop numbers or narrow the goals to only targeting the top terrorists. That's according to one White House source at least.

So he's ruled out what some said was the preferred approach of his vice-president. But he won't be drawn on whether there will be more troops sent to Afghanistan. It's also worth noting that the administration is putting a lot of emphasis on Pakistan. Remember this was an "Afpak" strategy. They say they know al-Qaeda leaders are hiding in safe havens along the border, but on the Pakistan side.

They expect the government there to "dismantle" these safe havens. Today's meeting with top security officials will focus on Pakistan, looking at the economic and diplomatic relations, which I take it means "how do we make sure they deliver?".

New York: At Ground Zero, I talk to Theresa Uva, who was director of nursing at a New York hospital on the day the planes hit the Twin Towers.

"It was a beautiful day just like today," she tells me. We're standing in front of "the sphere", a globe-like structure symbolising peace which stood between the towers, and which somehow - amazingly - survived, battered and broken. It now stands in a park near Ground Zero.

It was of course because of this attack on America that the ground war began eight years ago today. It's why the president says it is a war of necessity to keep America safe; it is why he is struggling with what the future strategy should be. At Ground Zero, gigantic cranes fluttering the Stars and Stripes continue work on the memorial pools that will mark the foundation of the towers. A fire engine goes by with a sticker in its window that reads "support our troops". But would people support more troops? I am interested in what someone who was at the heart of events in New York that day makes of the current debate.

Theresa tells me that as the towers crashed down she was helping treat more than a thousand wounded who crowded into the hospital. The noise, she says was like bombs. She looked at the doctor and they both thought New York was being bombed, and they were about to die.

She supported the air strikes, as did 94% of Americans, and the invasion, as did 75%, according to ABC opinion polls.

But now she questions what the aim of the war was. She says she thought the aim was to kill Osama bin Laden and stop the terrorists striking again. But she says terrorists can hide out in Africa, Europe and indeed America itself. And now, she says, it seems the plan is to turn Afghanistan into a Western-style democracy and she doesn't think this can work.

She would support the president sending more troops if it was for just one year, and there was an end in sight. But, she says, "we all need aims in life, and I don't know what our aim is in Afghanistan, I am conflicted."

Of course, this is just one voice. But from what ABC's director of polling, Gary Langer, tells me, it is pretty typical of the concerns that people express. Since the summer, opinion polls indicate that a narrow majority of 51% think the war "not worth fighting". . He argues that people can be persuaded to support a continuation of the conflict and even more troops, but that the job of persuasion has to be done.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Has Gen Stanley McChrystal over-stepped the mark?

The debate on the United States' future strategy in Afghanistan continues apace this week, with growing pressure on President Obama to make a decision.

Until he does, the private debate is bound to spill over into a public debate that can look like a row. Obama has two meetings this week with his top-level security team, and they will be again looking at whether to back Gen McChrystal's advice to opt for a counter-insurgency strategy, which implies nation building and more troops, or continue with a counter-terrorism strategy, apparently preferred by Vice-President Joe Biden.

The UK's Telegraph reports that Obama is "furious" with the general and that White House staff were "shocked" by a speech McChrystal . No American newspaper or network has reported any fury and his spokesman has just said that he is "comfortable" with the way the debate is going.

But it would be hardly surprising if there was some irritation in the White House. After all, the general told his London audience that pulling out would lead to "Chaosistan" and, as the debate continues in Washington, said in the speech: "Uncertainty disheartens our allies, emboldens our foe. A villager recently asked me whether we intended to remain in his village and provide security, to which I confidently promised him that, of course, we would. He looked at me and said, 'Okay, but you did not stay last time.'"

Now McChrystal's boss, Defence Secretary Robert Gates, has suggested: "It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately." Rebuke or slap-down may be journalistic shorthand, but it's hardly a ringing endorsement for McChrystal's decision to speak his mind. What should stay private, what should be public?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

, even though he and the First Lady travelled to Copenhagen to push the bid.

A humiliation, a moment of moment or a fact devoid of political meaning? I have no doubt some hostile commentators will argue the former.

The argument had already been doing the rounds that he should concentrate on the big stuff, and not on such trivia.

But that position has already been undermined. He used his European trip to have a meeting in the front of Air Force One with Gen Stanley McChrystal, the top military man in Afghanistan. So not a wasted journey.

It is surely the president's duty to push as hard as possible for an event to be held in his country, when most think it will bring jobs and regeneration. It would have been a dereliction to have sat in the White House, leaving it to his wife.

But it perhaps reveal the limits of charisma, the boundaries of Brand Obama. There is no doubt he is still hugely revered in the rest of the world, even if his support has slipped at home. If he is still a spellbinding superstar, this time the magic touch did not work.

You could argue the president has a history of relying too much on his own personal intervention to solve problems, rather than using it as the final touch on top of a detailed political strategy. That certainly seems to have happened with the healthcare debate.

But perhaps the Olympic judges are not swayed by the last minute arguments, and this reality TV with world leaders is just so much showbiz.

The winning city itself may be more compelling than passionate pleading from a superstar.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

President Obama needs some successes at the moment.

. He could argue the first talks between Iran and the US for 30 years have worked, and that the success justifies for hostile nations to unclench their fists, and receive the hand of friendship in return.

The talks with Iran, at first blush, seem to justify his decision to "reach out", as Americans would say.

And, he could argue, the Iranians appear to be shifting only because he took care to get the Russians and Chinese on-side first.

The Iranians have agreed to have some of their uranium enriched outside the country by another nuclear power, which could lessen their ability to develop weapons.

The president says more action must follow: the inspectors have to be allowed in to the (now not-so-secret) site near Qom within two weeks. Otherwise, there would be "increased pressure".

And there has to be "swift action" from the Iranians, he said, to prove they are only interested in civil nuclear power. "Talk is no substitute for action," he insisted.

One former insider I have been speaking to tells me that enrichment is a bit of a red herring and what really has to be stopped is "weaponisation".

Iran almost certainly has the scientific ability to make a bomb, he says, but has not taken the political decision. Mr Obama hopes to drive them off this course.

The decision to hold talks was widely derided by critical commentators as a sign of weakness. The trouble with that is that "talks" is where you always end up.

Persuasion leads to talks. Successful sanctions lead to talks. Even military action, in the end, leads to talks.

But it is important that the president sets a pace to undermine any suggestion that he is being strung along.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?