Hung with bloom along the bough
I am off for a couple of weeks, and there will be no posts for a while.
So, Happy Easter - or whatever spring rite you may celebrate. Here are some eggs painted by my youngest.
Archives for March 2010
Obama's Afghan speech sends message home
"Got some marines in the house!" shouted the commander-in-chief, almost in campaign mode. Except Obama has never worn a leather bomber jacket, emblazoned with the American Eagle and the words "Air Force One", to address a political rally.
Yet his since he became president is deeply political. "You inspire me!" he told them, before going on to say that they stood for values that America desperately needs, like sacrifice, honour and decency, that the American military had done what was required while so many other institutions had let America down.
I've spent the last three days watching Republicans campaign, and a constant refrain from the speakers and the crowds is the suggestion, sometimes put very bluntly, that Obama doesn't support the troops, and doesn't behave as a proper commander-in-chief.
There are never any specifics, but it matters a great deal in a country where the military are held in greater, more reverend regard, and have more political clout, than any democracy that I can name. If a politician is not for the troops, under all circumstances, it means he or she is unpatriotic.
Obama's speech was rousing but not gung-ho. He gave a run-down of how the war in Afghanistan was "absolutely essential" and how "we are going to keep them on the run". He concluded that section with the declaration: "The USA does not quit, you do not quit... we will prevail!"
But his main message was not about the progress of the war but his attitude towards the military. He talked about his anguish about the sacrifices they made, and how he was humbled by it. The tone is very much his own.
Perhaps it was that white shirt underneath the bomber jacket but he reminded me of a military chaplin, rather than a faux general. He told the assembled troops that he would "do the right thing" for them back home and listed improving pay, benefits and child care. He would ensure better care for wounded warriors, particularly those with traumatic stress and brain injury.
It is the Obama dilemma in a nutshell.
I am sure his promises mean more to the men and women gathered before him than blood-curdling rhetoric, but you can almost hear the sneers of his opponents about a social worker-in-chief. He told the troops that politics back home looked messy but there was no daylight between the parties when it came to support for the troops.
His first presidential visit to Afghanistan aims to convince people his stance is what patriotism really looks like.
Defending the First Amendment?
Phoenix, Arizona
The second Palin-McCain rally didn't go quite as smoothly as the first. Her speech was just about the same, word for word. She rather rushed the first half, then relaxed into a more captivating stride. There is little doubt she is an exciting, rousing speaker, telling the audience exactly what it wants to hear. But she doesn't seem so good at thinking on her feet.
During the speech a young man got to his feet and shouted something, obviously insulting. I couldn't hear what he said. But our TV pictures show clearly what happened next. At first those around him try to shout him down but don't touch him. Then he moves to leave, apparently of his own accord, and someone grabs his shoulders. He pulls away and points. Then he is grabbed around the throat from behind. He then disappears from view under a melee and reappears being held by two men and is marched from the hall still shouting.
John McCain winked at Todd Palin while all this was going on and Sarah Palin just stood and watched.
I suppose you can argue by a sort of domino effect of logic that the Vietnam War was a war to stop communism spreading, and if it had spread it would have threatened the American constitution. Then again, the Vietnam War was lost, and America still has a constitution. It is more difficult to argue that the man shouting had been allowed to exercise his First Amendment right under the US constitution to freedom of speech. I don't see any problem in protesters being hustled from a political rally. It happens in Britain, it happens everywhere. I was at a recent Obama rally at a university in Fairfax, Virginia, when an anti-abortion protester was taken from the hall by campus police. But it does seem stretching it a bit to suggest that stopping someone speaking is allowing them to protest, or that standing up and shouting before being manhandled was what was meant by the First Amendment.
Sarah Palin turns on the charisma
Tuscon, Arizona
"Do you love your freedom, Arizona ?" Sarah Palin cries, hitting the high register. The portion of Arizona cramed into Pima County Fairgrounds tells Sarah Palin that they do. She is doing her bit for the man who has done so much for her.
Veteran senator, tortured war hero former presidential candidate he may be but John McCain is in a spot of bother in Arizona. Like many sitting Republican senators, he's being challenged for his own seat by those who think he's not conservative enough, on the economy, on immigration in particular.
So what better way to hit back than bring on your old pal, who just happens to be the heartthrob of the conservative Tea Party movement? Sarah Palin fell out with the McCain camp during the presidential election, and they despaired of her occasional catatonia and failure to grasp basic policy. But if the senator has ever breathed a bad word about her it wasn't in front of leaky advisors who've told journalists so much.
So she does her stuff. She not so much hits the red button issues as stomps on them in her platform heels. She praises the troops. "Anyone who has served this great country raise your hand - we are going to honour you. Thank you! We love you!" She sneers at health care, attacks the media.
She makes it clear she and the maverick are cut from the same anti-Washington cloth.
"It's a beautiful grass movement putting government back on the side of people. Let me clear the air right now everybody here supporting John Mcain we are all part of that tea party movement. We are all that tea party movement."
Words mean what Sarah Palin wants them to mean. But what do the rest of the Tea Party movement make of this?
Outside the wire fence around the fairgrounds four women are there to support an alternative, more right-wing, candidate.
A couple of hours drive up the valley at the San Tan Flat Steak House country music plays, as the local Tea Party movement begin their regular meeting with the oath of allegiance.
"Then a prayer Father, we come before you amazed that people across our country are binding together and raising their voices in preservation of this great republic."
Palin's support for McCain disappoints them. The founder Jason Mow says that Palin should remain true to her roots and beliefs and then she would win a presidential election with a landslide, because that's what the country is crying out for. Sara Palin is a brand. A super star. When she chucked in her job as governor of Alaska she started making millions out of her autobiography, speeches and now an eight-part series on Alaska. Some think she'll end up in Hollywood, not Washington. The conventional wisdom is that she will opt for celebrity not politics and that she is too devisive to be a presidential candidate. That's not the view of a man in an Obummer T-shirt says: "I think she's a fox. A drop dead fox." He says it is time for a woman to be president. A woman says, "she's just like me" and wants her to run. But a Vietnam veteran, an ageing angel perched on his harly Davidson, admires her toughness but says she's doing more now than when she had an offical job. Perhaps the conventional wisdom is right. But Palin is the Republican party's only charismatic figure and by doing gigs like this she is keeping on the right side of the party hierarchy. In America, fame and fortune never hurt if you are really after power.
So why is Sarah Palin in town?
Phoenix, Arizona.
"It's 84 in the Valley and you are driving home with on ."
"Violence, attacks, rhetoric in DC and - later in the programme - Sarah Palin in town. Why is she here, do you have an idea why she's here? It's not necessarily to campaign for John McCain," says radio host Larry Gaydos.
"Right, but she also has another reason to be here in the valley and the state," says his partner, Mac Watson.
Larry and Mac bat around the day's news laced with plenty of pungent comment with the practised energy of familiar tennis partners.
Neither seems to need their microphones. Larry sits and shouts while Mac stands and shouts, but unlike many loud radio hosts their commentary is insightful, not designed to boost one point of view.
Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and former vice-presidential candidate, is the darling of the Tea Party movement, the angry conservatives who hate the Obama administration and don't think much of the Republicans either.
But she's not coming to support her ideological allies.
She's here to back John McCain, the former presidential candidate who many in the Tea Party would consider a Rino - Republican in Name Only.
He's facing a challenge for the Republican nomination from but two candidates who make a virtue of how much more right wing they are.
Mac says "you dance with the date that brought you".
There's no doubt that Sarah Palin would still be the obscure governor of a frozen state in the far north if John McCain had not picked her as his choice to be vice-president.
Now she's a worldwide celebrity and, indeed, a brand.
Her biography Going Rogue is a best seller with some reports claiming she has earned $7m (£4.7m) from it.
She is said to make $15,000 a speech. She is a Fox News commentator (whatever you think of her views the backdrop of icy Alaskan mountains is gorgeous) and has just been commissioned to do an eight-part documentary on her state which was at first billed as a reality TV show about her family.
So she owes Arizona's senior senator her fame and fortune and campaigning for John McCain is the polite, pleasant thing to do.
And of course it helps him.
Mac asks Larry: "Is it because McCain wants her to win over the base or because she wants to keep her name out there?"
"McCain is using Sarah Palin to come in and get the hard right Republican, the Tea Party out. She is very far right, she is going to steal some of the votes."
But what is her game?
Mac tells the drive-time listeners: "She's a big draw but she's a circus attraction.
"She's trying to be a political Oprah, she's multi-platforming herself but I can't figure what she wants to be. Is she running in 2012? Is she a political animal? I can't figure out what she wants to be?
"If she wants to run in 2012, people won't take her seriously if she goes down the Rachael Ray, Oprah route. She'll be more Hollywood than Washington DC."
"All options open, man."
I am sure Larry is right. She hasn't decided herself and at this stage it doesn't do any harm being more Hollywood's girl-next-door rather than DC.
There must be some calculation in this weekend's rallies, going out of her way to please the Republican hierarchy and not her solid base.
Peering into the crystal ball, my guess is that she will run but will end up anointing the winner, rather than winning herself.
But who can tell? The reason so many love the drama of battle for a presidential nomination is that it is such a soap opera.
Sarah Palin may evoke too many strong emotions to win the middle ground but at the moment she is the only Republican superstar among a rather grey field.
Tomorrow, I'll be talking to some Tea Party activists and seeing Sarah Palin in action.
Signed, not quite sealed, Democratic optimism delivered
It's chilly outside the White House but the trees have blossomed early after the weekend's sunshine. Inside, President Obama is feeling the warmth of a new spring for his party. That's if the vice-president doesn't get bigger headlines for his whispered words to the president that this was "a big [expletive deleted] deal". But he's right. The mood has changed.
As the president entered the East Room, the politicians gathered to watch the signing chanted: "Fired up and ready to go", one of the slogans of the Obama campaign. They will hope now, in victory, they can recapture something of those heady days.
Being inside the room as the president signed certainly felt like a big deal. Maybe that's the White House "wow" factor. But this is an important moment for the Democratic Party after languishing in the doldrums for the past few months. The president has let it be known that this moment of achievement means more to him than the moment of his election.
The Democrats feel a new optimism with a solid victory under their belt. They feel they've proved that they can govern, can make a difference, can do something hard that required a huge amount of political will. Republicans, of course, feel that this will be a vote-winner for them.
The United States now has near universal healthcare. The administration's much-quoted figure of 95% having cover is a bit of an understatement. A third of that 5% are illegal immigrants. Of the rest, some are those the Congressional Budget Office believes would rather face a fine than take up insurance. The majority are people entitled to Medicaid, the government scheme for the worst off, who currently don't take it up. Then there are a very few in the income bracket of $60-80,000 a year who are exempt from the fine. So, a more accurate portrayal would be: "All but a handful of US citizens will have to take out health insurance or are entitled to join a government scheme."
The Senate will now become an entertaining sideshow for those who love parliamentary wrangling. Their attempts to kill the revised bill will matter for those who care deeply about the various tweaks ordered by the House.
But the fact is the US has a new law on health insurance. If Republicans want to spend their time debating the various backroom deals to buy individual senators' votes, I suspect the Democrats will not mind too much. Their view will be: go right ahead.
Many Republicans will campaign to repeal the bill. But it may not be as easy as it first looks. Nancy Pelosi's office has been excitedly sending around copies of . The conservative columnist and former Bush speech writer argues:
"Even if Republicans scored a 1994-style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25-year-olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there - would President Obama sign such a repeal?"
Those who've been protesting long and loud will not be won over, and may feel angrier than before. But it is harder to keep up the momentum against a law, than a proposed law. There were no Tea Party demos outside the White House today, none outside Congress when the bill was passed. They will not fade away but their focus may change from this bill.
Could it even prove popular? ABC's Gary Langer are not quite as relentlessly hostile as some would suggest.
On the ´óÏó´«Ã½ News at Ten last night we used a couple of interviews from a charity-run clinic in Los Angles. One was from a doctor who talked about the sense of excitement he'd seen since the passage of the bill; another from a patient who said he had never liked Obama but the president had proved himself to be a great man who could get things done. Now you might expect people at a free clinic to say things like this but if there is any sign this is a more general sentiment, it could be important.
I am not arguing all is fine and dandy for Obama, or that there is not passionate dislike for this bill which could finish off some Democratic careers in the autumn elections. Critical will be the view of independents and swing voters.
But a sense of hope and change was an important part of Obama's victory and if his own party gets a new spring in its step as the cherry blossoms bloom in Washington after months of cold comfort, that in itself can change the political weather.
Where does healthcare victory leave Obama?
This is the most significant victory for Obama since he took office. The cool professor has been bloodied in battle, earned his spurs. But at what cost? What price will he pay?
While many voters chose Obama because he talked of a different way of doing things, this messy business of backroom deals and arm-twisting has further lowered the reputation of Washington.
And while many Americans seem genuinely to yearn for the cross-party accord they call bipartisanship, and politicians at least pay it pious lip service, this lengthy debate has revealed a gaping ideological chasm.
President Obama identified overhauling the healthcare system as his priority and he's got what he wanted, a victory that eluded Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. But when he threw down the gauntlet, the conservatives eagerly picked it up. Healthcare didn't create the Tea Party movement but it gave it a focus and a cause.
There are dangers to his left as well as his right. He's harmed his reputation with his own power base, for many liberals feel there have been so many compromises the bill is hardly worth it.
So it's a pivotal moment. But it's not clear which way the balance will swing.
Many Republicans are convinced that while they lost the battle, they will win the war. They are sure the vote in Massachusetts for a Senate seat in January and the opinion polls delivered a clear message. They agree with the Tea Party Patriots and the cable networks that this is an un-American measure, hated by the American people so much that it will hand victory to them in November's elections to the House and the Senate. They may be right. But Democrats will do their best to point towards popular measures in the bill.
It has been a messy and sometimes ugly process. Obama has clearly been feeling his way, and has made plenty of mistakes. But does he impress with his toughness and tenaciousness, or repel those who voted for him because they thought he was different?
Does success breed success and will Obama be able to steam ahead with difficult laws on immigration and the environment? Or does his party feel burnt out, beaten up and that their president has called in all the favours he can afford?
The first opinion polls after this vote, and in the coming weeks, will make fascinating reading.
Democrats hope for victory after abortion deal
The Democrats have won the first vote on health care, comfortably over the 216 they needed. It is on a procedural motion to continue with the general debate, but it is an indication of the way things are heading. They won by 224 to 206; 28 Democrats voted "no".
It was almost like the House of Commons with Jesse Jackson in the chair banging his gavel and calling the House of Representatives to order. Emotions have been running high at times, with Republicans warning of government tyranny, a European-style nanny state and an end to freedom. Equally emotional speeches from the other side talked about "healing America".
But the real work was going on behind the scenes to secure the last necessary votes. Negotiations had been going on for several days with Bart Stupak, who leads the anti-abortion Democrats. He won an executive order to be signed by President Obama once the vote has taken place.
The White House issued a statement saying:
While the legislation as written maintains current law, the executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation's restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented.
With that, Mr Stupak and his friends were in the bag. The president is due to speak as soon as the final vote is out of the way.
Trying to work the old magic
President Obama has made a passionate, personal appeal to House Democrats. We all expect they will meet and vote on health care on Sunday, although there has been no official announcement as I write.
He used the word "tough" half a dozen times at least in the speech. It was I have heard him make since I came here last summer and I imagine will remind many of the election campaign. He told congressmen and women in the House of Representatives:
"I didn't think of myself as a potential politician when I got out of college. I went to work in neighbourhoods, working with Catholic churches in poor neighborhoods in Chicago, trying to figure out how people could get a little bit of help. And I was sceptical about politics and politicians, just like a lot of Americans are sceptical about politics and politicians are right now. Because my working assumption was when push comes to shove, all too often folks in elected office, they're looking for themselves and not looking out for the folks who put them there; that there are too many compromises; that the special interests have too much power; they just got too much clout; there's too much big money washing around."
I am just reading , the recent book on the presidential election, and it stresses how much Obama missed his family while on the campaign trail and the strains that being a politician took on that part of his life. The authors report that his staff knew he was going to run when he missed an important event for his daughter to go to a fund raiser. So, perhaps this was from the heart:
"A lot of us have been here a while and everybody here has taken their lumps and their bruises. And it turns out people have had to make compromises, and you've been away from families for a long time and you've missed special events for your kids sometimes. And maybe there have been times where you asked yourself, why did I ever get involved in politics in the first place?"
He answers his own question: "This is one of those moments. This is one of those times where you can honestly say to yourself, doggone it, this is exactly why I came here. This is why I got into politics. This is why I got into public service. This is why I've made those sacrifices. Because I believe so deeply in this country and I believe so deeply in this democracy and I'm willing to stand up even when it's hard, even when it's tough."
I am not sure any last votes will turn on this. I don't believe there will be a vote unless the Democratic leaders think it is in the bag. But Obama is trying to work the old magic, the ability to connect, that made him think he could be president in the first place.
Where is the Democrats' oomph?
Fairfax, Virginia. Is Obama the only Democrat with any oomph?
President Obama has them whooping and hollering in what I imagine is his last rally before the big vote on what he calls "the patients' charter on steroids". We can't say for sure - as we don't know for sure - that the vote is on Sunday, or indeed what his weekend plans are. He's in the Patriot Centre, a huge hall, on the campus. The White House pool reporter estimates there are 8,500 people here, although that sounds a bit over-the-top to me.
Obama is, once again, in fine and fiery form. He delivers much the same speech as he has been making all around the country, with a special few tweaks as the time draws near. He tells supporters this is not about politics and the chatter on cable TV and in Washington.
"What they like to talk about is the politics of the vote. What does this mean in November? What does it mean to the poll numbers? Is this more of an advantage for Democrats or Republicans? What's it going to mean for Obama? Will his presidency be crippled?"
The crowd roars "noooooo" and he continues "or will he be the comeback kid?" "Yeeeees."
Maybe somewhere in between, if he gets the vote to go his way. If it is Sunday, it probably means it is in the bag. There is, after all, no point in calling a vote you are going to lose. He tells the crowd:
"We've had historic votes before. We had a historic vote to put Social Security in place to make sure that our elderly did not live out their golden years in poverty. We had a historic vote in civil rights to make sure that everybody was equal under the law. As messy as this process is, as frustrating as this process is, as ugly as this process can be, when we have faced such decisions in our past, this nation, time and time again, has chosen to extend its promise to more of its people."
Obama ends by telling them:
"You've got to stand with me, just like you did three years ago, and make some phone calls and knock on some doors, talk to your parents, talk to your friends. Do not quit, do not give up, we keep on going. We are going to get this done. We are going to make history."
I've no idea what supporters of the bill have been telling their neighbours and family, but I haven't seen many of them on the streets.
I can't help thinking the Democrats haven't been trying or even thinking that hard about how to win this argument. The president seems sometimes like a one-man band, the only guy making a forceful, passionate case. Of course, at these rallies there are often people who've suffered under the current system (there weren't today) but where are the parades, where are the demos by those in favour of the bill?
When we were in Pennsylvania the other day, we were trying to find out what the pro-reform organisation was doing. Finally they told us about a demo outside Congressman Jason Altmire's office. When we told them to hang on, we were 40 miles away, they told us they didn't want the press there. It's a weird way of getting your message out.
Opponents of the bill will say it's because no-one wants it. Certainly, this watered-down mishmash of compromises doesn't inspire passion in those Democrats I have met. But the party doesn't seem to be that bothered.
Outside the meeting in Fairfax, hours before Obama arrived, people with blue badges reading "volunteer" were queueing up. At first they, too, told me they were not meant to talk to the press, but I was without TV camera or indeed notebook and went on chatting. They thought the bill was a good thing, were sure it would pass but there was no passion, nor attempt to persuade. It is so very different from the Tea Party people who, despite their well-known views on the mainstream media, are very ready to help and put their view across with great gusto.
I wasn't here during the presidential campaign but everyone tells me the Obama organisation was highly professional and highly motivated, driven by enthusiastic supporters. Now the party seems deflated, with no desire to motivate the people, or more to the point suggest they represent the people.
I can't explain this lack of oomph but it could be deadly. If there is such a thing as a will to win, is there a will to lose as well?
A congressman's vote in the balance
Pennsylvania district four. At Ferri's pharmacy in , manager Enid McClung finishes off measuring out some pills and picks up the phone to a customer. "It appears you don't have coverage," she tells him. It appears the man's lost his job and so lost his health insurance. "The prescription is rather expensive. It's $464."
Few doubt health care reform of some sort is necessary. Few I speak to here think the bill that will be voted on within the next few days is the right way forward.
The chemist's owner, Bill Ferri, has some advice for his congressman:
", you should not be for this plan. I think we do need healthcare reform but this is not the healthcare reform that we need in this country. The majority of the people, in my opinion, are against it."
It is solicited advice. Congressman Altmire has not decided how to vote. He is playing it right up to the wire, and has gone out of his way to ask his constituents in Pennsylvania district four to tell him what they think. It is a suburb of Pittsburgh with a rural feel, made up of small towns, along the line of the William Penn Highway. Mr Altmire, a health care administrator before he became a politician, won this marginal (swing, for American readers) seat with the support of Republicans and independents.
I talk to him inside the on Capitol Hill. His office here has been inundated with thousands of letters and many telephone messages.
Several of those calls were from the White House, in what he calls "a continuing conversation" with the president. Obama even tried to ring him from Air Force One but that call didn't connect. I put it to him straight: this is about the president's authority - if it falls, he's damaged.
He says: "I am not worried about the political implications. I have the competing goals of representing my district and making sure we have good policy. And those two things should be working together. If I have a vote that my constituents aren't comfortable with, I am not going to be able to support the bill."
So is he worried about losing his seat in the November elections?
"I still have to go home to my district to look my family and friends and neighbours in the eye for the rest of my life on this important vote, and know that I did the right thing. This is not about politics."
In Dick's Diner on the William Penn Highway in Murrysville, old friends meet across the political divide. John Cicco is a Democrat, Jill Cooper a Republican. They both think this is a bad bill, driven by the need to score a victory, rather than get a good bill. 
John deplores the lack of a public option (a government-run insurance scheme) but wants his congressman to vote for it. You couldn't describe him as enthusiastic though.
"It's a garbage can of different ideas, some of which may be good but aren't honed out, others that are bad ideas, and it is all being delivered at once in order for the Democratic Party, my party, to look as though it can lead."
Jill thinks this has become about the president's authority. She tells me: "He looks like someone who is trying to win for the sake of winning. Leading not listening."
In another part of the district, , I catch up with Loretta Worsham, who's an independent voter (which has a specific meaning in America - someone who is not registered as a Democrat or Republican).
She says of healthcare: "Obviously it is a mess but I don't think having the federal government involved in it is the solution. I just fundamentally don't like the idea of government being involved in health care."
She voted for Jason Altmire two years ago. "He voted 'no' last time on it and I would hope he would do that again. I saw him as an independent thinker but if he voted for it this time I am not so sure I would vote for him again."
Mr Altmire may find he's torn between his constituents, his conscience and his president.
How the healthcare debate has changed US politics
"Kill that bill" chant the crowd outside the Capitol, carrying banners proclaiming the president a liar and his plans socialism.
"That bill" gave them life. The conservative Tea Party movement was formed to fight big government and tax rises but it shot to prominence last summer loudly opposing the president's healthcare plans.
As the fight has dragged on and on (and on) their movement has grown. It has become a focus for opposition to the president. The people with the placards outside America's seat of legislation seem to have far more power and vigour than the men in suits from the Republican National Congress who stand at the edge of the crowd and try to hand their glossy printed posters to protesters who are quite happy with their home-made, hand-scrawled ones.
It is a rallying point for those like Jim Heath who oppose the president and all his works. He tells me: "It's totally outrageous what he wants to do, he wants to transform the country into a socialist nation."
I remark on his banner showing Obama climbing into a coffin marked "healthcare" and ask what this whole business has done for the president's authority.
"I couldn't care less what it does to his authority, authority belongs to us, to the people, we elected him." He raises his voice to a yell: "11/6/12 the day I am waiting for [the date of the next presidential election]... he will be gone in 2012".
A man with a guitar plays God Bless America, and others join in before chanting "USA, USA!" A recurrent theme at these events is that somehow these people's country has been captured from them.
Linsy Heiner has her baby boy Beau strapped to her front, holding a poster, and she says: "I believe that Obama's approach to reform in healthcare will actually harm patients' ability to make choices for themselves. We don't need to have a strong government intervention in our healthcare, that's not American."
As importantly, she goes on: "I read Obama's book, I read how he felt that this needed to be an open discussion, we need to have a lot of discussion in order to make those hard decisions.
"And yet we are not doing that. It's been closed doors and I think the reason they didn't open the doors is because if they saw the process people would be disgusted with what is going on. So it is breeding distrust and the process has been frankly just as bad as the bill."
The theme that Obama is not governing as he said he would is common. I ask several people if they are not simply sore losers, people who never liked the president, never liked his plans, and never will. Most say something on the lines that he hasn't lived up to his own promises.
One protester, Cindy Seamans, surprises me saying that she did vote for Obama but doesn't like the health care proposals. "I think we can't afford it, we can't afford the interest we are paying on out debt now and healthcare hasn't even started."
I put it to her that Obama was quite clear he wanted a healthcare reform, and many of the proposals at the time of the election were considerably more left-wing that the one now on the table.
"But he did promise transparency, to reduce the amount of lobbying in DC and trying to open up what the federal government does to the American people, and I don't think he's come through on any of those promises, and I don't think he's made any of them a priority either," she says.
The vote has yet to take place but it seems clear to me the way this has been done and the utter lack of discipline within the Democratic Party has hugely damaged them, and probably the president.
It took months of arguments between proponents of rival plans to get anywhere near a vote. Then it took backroom deals and a huge dollop of pork-barrel politics (special favours for individual states to win the votes of their senators) to get what looked like victory in the Senate on Christmas Eve.
By then many liberals felt the plan was so watered down as to be nearly worthless, even though all the concessions hadn't earned a single Republican vote. Doubts about the plan itself and even more disgust at the deals helped Republican Scott Brown win a vital Senate seat, and scupper the bill.
So after months more wrangling we are now back in the House, where Democratic leaders are still trying to win the votes of their colleagues, many of whom are frightened that associating themselves with what they see as a toxic measure will poison their chances for election in November.
Some still hope victory will bring its own rewards. In a phone bank in Silver Spring, Organising for America, which sprang out of Obama's election campaign, is trying for one last push.
They're using their superb data base to call people urging them to ring their Democratic congressmen and tell them to back the bill. Allisa Webber seems sad the mood at the time of the presidential election has so dissipated.
"I still feel that hope and optimism, and I wish that other people can find it somewhere instead of being so pessimistic. He's our president and I know that he's working as hard as he can, and so are the rest of us. You know things are hard right now and we are doing the best we can."
Another volunteer, Dr Michael Griffiths is disappointed with his party: "It's not the president's fault at all, it's the Democratic Party.
"We have a dysfunctional party and the Democrats have not been able to come together and just do it. I feel disappointed with the party, I feel the president is trying to deliver on what the party should be trying to deliver on and that's sad. I dont know what the party's there for if it doesn't stand for anything. It's very disappointing to me as a Democrat, lifelong Democrat."
Healthcare has dominated Obama's domestic agenda at the expense of allowing him to be heard on the economy. Win or lose this weekend, it will continue to haunt him and define the fault lines in American politics.
Texas Democrat against Obama... and the British Empire
Why is a Democratic candidate in Texas calling for the impeachment of the president? It is one of thrown up by the US system of primary elections, with registered voters choosing who gets to represent their favoured party.
Kesha Rogers, who won the Democratic nomination for Texas's 22nd Congressional district with 52% of the vote, has been by Texas Democrats. She is a supporter of the .
They are the ones who stand on the fringes of Tea Party rallies carrying placards depicting Obama as Hitler. It is not a casual insult: they believe that Obama's healthcare proposals are based on Hitler's and their aim is a eugenic cull of the population, and that the president should be thrown out of office.
The movement founded by Lyndon LaRouche, who's stood for president many times, is sometimes described as far-right. I am not sure that does justice to its rather eclectic mixture of policies.
Followers believe that the White House takes orders from the British Empire (run from Buckingham Palace and Threadneedle Street), which also organised two World Wars and the fall of the USSR, and they are passionate about expansion into space, particularly the colonisation of Mars using the power of nuclear fusion.
Now they are campaigning for some potentially more popular policies, such as ending bank bail-outs, big job creation programmes and strict new financial regulations. But the reason their programme isn't being hailed more widely is apparently because America's youth has been enslaved by Rupert Murdoch and Bill Gates using (respectively) MySpace and Facebook.
The Republican candidate for Texas's 22nd district, , should have an interesting election.
Israel's 'unshakeable ally' awaits formal response
The US state department says it is waiting for a "formal response" from the Israeli prime minister after his telephone conversation with Hillary Clinton about plans to build new homes for Jews in East Jerusalem. But the USA's relationship with Israel was declared "unshakeable".
The US response has been fast and furious after the announcement of plans to build more than one and a half thousand new homes in East Jerusalem in the middle of a visit to Israel by US Vice-President Joe Biden.
It comes ahead of a new round of indirect talks with the Palestinians. Mr Biden had gone out of his way to lavish praise and affection on his host. So the initial reaction to the announcement seemed to be shock as much as anything else.
But in the following days, Hillary Clinton called it "deeply negative" and White House adviser David Axelrod said it was an "affront" and an "insult".
It seems they want to use this as an opportunity to test how serious the Israelis are about more talks.
State department officials would not go into what Mrs Clinton said in the phone call, but said "she did outline some specific things" that she wanted done, both about the housing project and more generally about the talks. One Israel newspaper reports that among her requests were the reversal of the project, and substantial gestures towards the Palestinians.
Asked about the Israeli ambassador's claim that the relationship with the US was at its lowest for 35 years, the spokesman said that Israel was a "strategic ally" and America's commitment was "unshakable".
He repeated that they were awaiting an official response and would then "evaluate the implications".
He said that George Mitchell was in the region and that the beginning of talks was not conditional on the response, but would go ahead if the negotiations could move forward and make progress.
Obama's authority hangs in the balance
This is a critical week for President Obama's authority. . The president's spokesman, .
But the man in charge of getting enough votes in the house, . If they are all stating reality as they see it, the White House is taking a staggering risk.
The president has delayed his long-planned Asian trip to lobby reluctant Democrats. .
To lose the healthcare vote because of Republicans is one thing. It opens the way to the obvious strategy of blaming the opposition for failure. This at least fires up the base.
But to lose because not enough Democrats vote for the president's own policy, his flagship legislation, would be a catastrophe.
The White House would have a go of course, and would still blame the Republicans. But it would be hard get round those Democrats who opposed, whether because they are worried about losing in November, or because they see the proposals as too liberal on abortion.
Even if the House does pass the legislation by next weekend, there is still the tricky political business of the Senate vote. But the bill would be in sight of safe haven, if not quite home and dry.
My inclination is to believe that politicians just don't take risks like this, they don't go into a room unless they know where the exit is, that the math adds up and this is about the theatre of moral pressure.
But I may be wrong.
Barack Obama's fault as president is that he's not enjoying the job enough. He'll be enjoying it even less this time next week if enough on his own side turn against him.
Wind me up, Chuck
What great gifts does Washington offer the world? Think of the city and you think of the White House and museums, politicians and lobbyists. You don't automatically think of music. The Philly sound, Seattle's indie bands and Chicago blues are famous all around the world.
But Washington?
Let me tell you, Washington's glory is Go Go. I'm all fired up because I've just seen At 74, he still exudes raffish charm, in his black hat and big brown shades, his gold tooth spangling in the spotlight, and a splendidly piratical coat. He's perhaps what Jimi Hendrix would have looked like if he'd lived to become a grandaddy.
Chuck is the Godfather of Go Go, Washington's unique take on 70s funk. He may not be as famous as George Clinton and James Brown, but he is at least their equal.
Over many years I've seen bands in all sorts of venues, from muddy fields to aircraft-like hangers, football stadiums to sleazy pubs, but nothing quite like this experience in the DC suburb of Silver Spring.
The restaurant in a in the DC suburb of Silver Springs had an intimacy all of its own, perhaps appropriate to the advancing age of the patrons. Fewer than 100 people sat around tables, eating dinner as we watched the legend perform.
Upstairs other enthusiasts took dinner and acted out a 20s murder mystery. No wedding parties were in evidence, though it was that sort of place.
But staid it was not. The band was good, but silky smooth. When Chuck joined them, he played a couple of slow ballads and almost seemed regretful to leave off the silk and go hell for leather. "That's my Go Go guitar," he says, gesturing. "You'll know when we're gonna change when I pick it up."
But the chant of his catchphrase - "Wind me up, Chuck!" - was too insistent to ignore. Go Go is guitar-driven funk, distinguished by call-and-response between performer and audience.
Most music may be better live, but for Go Go the audience is part of the show. The call-and-response is key to the sound. This crowd knows all the words. "Po-liceman at the door," he calls out. "Run, Joe, run, Joe," we chant back.
Chuck moves among the audience and at one point fumbles the mic' and drops it. The crowd doesn't miss a beat and continues with the chant.
For once at a gig, most of the audience are of a similar age and plumpness as your reporter. Dinner consumed, chairs are pulled back, matronly hips sashay and paunches sway. When they danced to this in their youth I was thousands of miles away moving to a different beat. But like them, my face splits into a joyous grin. He changes the lyrics as well as the rhythms to Mannish Boy from "Now I'm a man, way past 21" to "Almost grown, nearly 75".
It was a great gig. Anyone who has any liking for soul, R'n'B, or funk should check out Chuck. Mopping his face with a towel, he ends by saying: "People ask why I am not retired? I still got fire. I still got desire. And I'm still being hired."
Long may you wind us up, Chuck.
Don't bet your shirt on it...
The president's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, appeared in the White House briefing room dressed in a Canadian hockey shirt.
with his Canadian counterpart after the USA lost a match.
Rather unsportingly, I thought, he quickly took it off to reveal an American one underneath.
He'd already twittered the latest news: The president is delaying his long planned trip to Indonesia because of healthcare on Capitol Hill.
He was planning to go next Thursday, now he's not going until Sunday.
He'll spend the extra time talking to reluctant Democrats trying to persuade them to vote for the latest healthcare legislation. .
Mr Gibbs originally said healthcare reform would go through before the president left. It says something that Mr Obama has to change his dates and plans to make this at least possible.
Will the healthcare bill be through the House by this time next week?
Don't bet your shirt on it!
But if they don't pass something soon, the president will be left looking rather bare. I hate to think what Mr Gibbs, would, or wouldn't wear, to declare such bad news for his team.
Armed and ready to shop
Elm Grove, near Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Other customers stare as Nik Clark and Kim Garny do their weekly shop at a large upscale supermarket. It's hardy a surprise as a TV camera is trailing behind their trolley. But people would do a double-take even if the ´óÏó´«Ã½ weren't in tow. In some ways Nick wants them to look.
There's a revolver amid the ravioli, an automatic among the avocados.
Like cowboys out of Westerns, the couple carry handguns on holsters on their hips. She has a Smith and Wesson .38 special with a cute pink grip that makes it look almost like a toy. He has a rather more chunky Glock.
The movement is slightly different in the state of Wisconsin where concealed guns are banned. Nick says wearing a gun in a visible holster is the only way he can carry a weapon legally and he wants others to be aware of their rights: he doesn't want to confront but to convert.
"You have a right to self defence and open carry is a great deterrent. It's about personal protection," he says.
He's a beefy guy, with bulging muscles, so I ask: Isn't he rather intimidating when he's armed as well?
"I've been open carrying for about a year and most people don't notice, or some might make a comment. It's a demonstration I am a law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to hide. Criminals never open carry."
He says that his group respects property rights and if a shop doesn't want their custom and they are asked to leave they are happy to do so: they don't want to patronise that business. But he says most big companies know the law and have a policy that allows them to shop armed.
Kim says for her it is all about self protection: "I can guarantee if I am going to my car late at night and someone sees me carrying a gun they won't make me a victim."
But Nick says he is also making a point: "I want people to see me and have a level of comfort, to know that if they are out walking their dog it is OK to carry a gun, if they are walking to their car after work it is legal to carry a firearm."
When Obama was elected many gun enthusiasts expected the tightening of laws. Many of those in favour of controls expected Obama to increase regulation. As a senator he had always been in favour of restrictions on guns. But it seems thing are rather going the other way.
Last year a ban on carrying concealed weapons in national parks was lifted. In Virginia politicians are likely to change the law and allow people to buy more than one hand gun a month.
The supreme court is pondering whether to declare the 28-year ban on handguns in Chicago unconstitutional. They will take months before coming to a decision but observers who've watched the case carefully believe they will rule against the ban, with huge implications all around the states.
In Wisconsin, Open Carry is taking legal action against the rule that bans handguns within a quarter of a mile of schools. The supreme court judgement could have a bearing on that.
Still, when I meet around 30 people from Wisconsin Open Carry over lunch at a big restaurant there is a feeling that their rights need protecting. There are grandparents and mums and little children, and all the adults are armed.
Most tell me that this is mainly about protection but what they refer to as civil rights comes a close second. A couple of people tell me it is the other way around: the politics comes first. One man, whose name I don't catch, says he doesn't feel very threatened in suburban Wisconsin but it is about resisting the encroachment of the last two administrations, it's about not giving in to big government.
Matt Slavic, sitting next to his little granddaughter, observes that outside the United Nations is a sculpture of a gun, its barrel twisted in a knot. "The Second Amendment gives teeth to the rest of the constitution, it keeps tyranny at bay. I do feel it is under threat, not just from within the USA but from the UN - their small arms treaty would restrict hand gun ownership in the United States."
Several people tell me the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, underpins the first, freedom of speech. One of those eating with a gun at their side, John Laimon, goes further: "It's not about guns, it's about civil rights. It's growing because of the plain fear about inadequate politicians. They cut down guns but they've got bodyguards. Our rights are under fire."
If you're in the UK, you can see more in my report on ´óÏó´«Ã½ News at Ten on Thursday evening.
Firing up support in Philadelphia
The crowd in Philadelphia went wild as the president told them healthcare reform had to be done now. There's a new urgency. A new insistence. A finger-jabbing impatience after a year of talking. One senator watching said he had new fire in his belly.
Teenagers in a choir who sung the national anthem before the president appeared hugged each other and jumped up and down with sheer delight when he finished.
If this selected crowd were in the Senate and in the House, he'd have no problem. The speech and the others that will follow it, this week and next, are intended to create a sort of moral momentum to mow down the political roadblocks.
Like just about every other elected politician in this country, he mocked the ways of Washington, where everything is measured against the political story, the poll ratings, the coming elections. He said he would do what was right, not what was popular.
It's probably why Washington DC isn't allowed representation in Congress. The politicians campaigning for office couldn't sneer at their own city.
Outside, protesters from local Tea Party groups waved placards warning of the dangers of healthcare reform. It is groups like this that have kept the debate at fever pitch, and everyone I spoke to was convinced this had nothing to do with health but was about a big government take-over, aimed at reducing the rights of citizens.
They are perhaps part of Pres Obama's problem, but not the immediate one. Before Democrats can even think of pushing the changes through the Senate using budget reconciliation, they have to get them through the House.
Democrats who worry the Senate bill funds abortion are not going to vote for the current plan. The next few weeks will tell if firing up supporters makes a dime of difference.
Unvarnished views from Philadelphia
For the president, it's the first in the latest series of quick forays out of the White House into the cities of America. President Obama yet again is hitting the road to sell healthcare reform.
It is scarcely the first time but we are reaching a crux. If Mr Obama cannot get healthcare reform done, his authority will be damaged. After all, he has asked the question himself: "If we can't do this, what can we do?"
I have almost accepted that he is genuine when he says he would rather be a one-term president with a solid achievement than cling to office. He seems to be taking no regard of the fact that at the moment he hasn't got the votes even for a simple majority.
Politics is in flux. And as ever, the voters are even more unpredictable than the politicians.
Before President Obama's speech, I met with John Sutherland a few miles up the road. He's a small businessman, a picture framer. A 180-degree panorama of Philly's 30th St station hangs high on one wall, a series of soulful portraits of round-faced musicians by a Malaysian artist living in New York are on the work surface. I'm particularly taken with three photographs of fading painted wooden doors and a neo-gothic miniature menorah. Still, I tear my self away.
I'm here to meet him because he voted for President Obama and has written an article for the local paper arguing that without reform, small business will be crippled.
When we were arranging the interview, he told us that the plan is so badly flawed that it is time to start from scratch.
But when we start chatting, he tells me that since we've talked, he's been thinking things over and he's changed his mind. He thinks they should go for a majority vote, after all, not abandon the project. To be honest, as a reporter it is one of those moments one's heart sinks and you think: "How can I salvage this?".
Well, in this case, the answer is that sometimes unvarnished splintered reality tells you more than glossing over the awkward.
It is an illustration of just how fluid opinion is at the moment. John doesn't like the fact that the current bills offer subsidies to the insurance industries, he doesn't like the fact that it will take four years to take effect and he thinks the whole process has been "ugly".
But he says small business desperately needs change. The economy won't get better until this is sorted out. He says his own premiums have risen dramatically in the last year, and many of his friends and contacts say they will have to stop their healthcare plans altogether because of the cost.
He thinks a majority vote is the only way. He says after he wrote his article he had many e-mails in support. But some attacked him for saying insurance companies should be made to cover those with pre existing illness. His critics said that if they did, the companies would not be making the maximum amount of money.
He shrugs and says: "If people think that way, what can you do?".
He's right in that there is a philosophical gulf between the two sides.
But President Obama is trying to rally people like John and persuade them the gulf is so wide that a majority vote is the only way forward and it's worth one last push.
Trending towards the nastiest election ever
As a newcomer it can be difficult to judge how bad it's got. It is easy to be swept away by the drama of the moment and I would rather err on the side of caution than hysteria. However, this morning writes of ""chaos", "a political storm", "disarray" and "disorder".
Every day I am told the frustration with Washington is greater than ever before. Politics is more vicious, more party political, that America is more divided than ever before. I was taking with a veteran American cameraman who predicted that the 2012 election would be the nastiest yet. Others who've been in this town along time agree that there is a new peak in partisanship.
I am still not quite sure. Viewed from the other side of the pond politics in the era of George W and Clinton, the war and the culture wars, looked pretty tough. I wasn't much interested in politics as a teenager but even could feel the waves of hatred towards Nixon washing across the Atlantic. Is it worse now than the era portrayed in Rick Perlstein's brilliant Nixonland, a portrait of a country rocked by riot and near revolution?
Was Washington less filled with hate during those long decades when up on the Hill white men shared a comfy bipartisan drink while Americans couldn't share the same water fountain? I would be interested to read what you think.
Still, no one doubts Obama is in a serious position and the gloves are off. According to the Republicans have prepared a Powerpoint presentation featuring rude cartoons of Obama and the message "save the country from trending toward socialism!"
It is clearly too late to stop it trending toward using nouns as verbs. Although this is portrayed as crude, it is in a sense a pussy-footing message that pulls its punches. Why "trending@" not "becoming"? Why a wordy mouthful instead of "save our country
from socialists"?
Another curiosity is that Obama is portrayed as the Joker, Nancy Pelosi as Cruella Deville but Harry Reid as Scooby Doo. It's true Scooby is the least loveable and most irritating cartoon character ever, but it is not exactly below the belt vicious to compare the senator to a cowardly but good-hearted dog. (.)
Perhaps we will be saved from the election getting really dirty by the ad men's ineptitude.
Obama's challenge
The president is throwing down the gauntlet to Republicans:
"I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for a year, but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of 60 votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, the Children's Health Insurance Program, COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and both Bush tax cuts - all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority."Â
Republicans will reject this almost instantly. One has already put together a montage of clips showing Obama saying he wouldn't govern like this.
CNN are quoting a White House insider saying this is a "last helicopter out of Saigon " strategy.
Fleeing a lost war is not the most optimistic metaphor for an adviser to adopt. And it still may go down in flames.
Tango for one
The president's speech is the "final act" in healthcare reform, according to the White House. But I have a feeling that the president's latest speech will be more mood-setting theatre than a climax to this long-running drama.
He's written to Republican leaders saying that they have more in common with his Democrats than many think, and that he is looking forward to working with them to complete what he calls a historic achievement.
He tells them that they, the Republicans, had raised good ideas at last week's televised health summit. He's exploring four of them. They are: fighting fraud by under cover investigations, investigating alternatives to suing doctors for malpractice, paying doctors more for Medicade (health care for the poorest) and more health savings accounts.
I doubt this will temp anyone to change their vote. They are concessions, an attempt at compromise. But the big divide remains. The president believes that controlling insurance companies' costs, obliging them to insure everyone, whatever their medical circumstance and making health insurance virtually compulsory are all vital. The Republicans don't.
One Republican has been swift to reject any deal.
"I don't know if we should be insulted or humored at the president's feeble attempts to incorporate Republican ideas into his latest health care proposal," said from Georgia adding:
"Snooki, from the Jersey Shore, has more substance than President Obama's offer."
For the uninitiated is an Big Brother style reality TV show and one of the stars is not considered to be one of the world's great intellectuals.
As they say, it takes two to tango, and this looks as if it is going to end up as a solo effort.
So beyond this rather doomed offer what is today about ? Last week Obama suggested that the American people would understand if this was decided by a simple majority vote. he won't get much further today and won't use the words "budget reconciliation", the device Democrats are likely to use to get round Republican plans to fillibuster.
All this suggests it will be left to briefers to make the way ahead clear when, , House and Senate Democrats can't even agree who gets first bite of the cherry.
The president's aim must be to the win people over to his plan, but the longer it drags on, the more bickering there is, the more damage is done to his image.
Bunning's block: Politics at its best, or worst?
Traffic flows freely for once along the busy George Washington Memorial Parkway linking the US capital and the Virginia suburbs.
Some drivers may have reason to bless Senator Jim Bunning for making their commute less fraught with delays.
For the roadworks that have been going on for two years are at a standstill. Huge earth movers lie idle in the middle of the road, and the workers have all been sent home.
As we filmed one truck turned up, loaded up some ladders and locked up the construction site. The repairs to make the hump back bridge fit to carry 75 vehicles a day have stopped.
It is all the work of one man - Senator Jim Bunning - . He's done it on his own, against the wishes of his 99 Senate colleges - both Republican and Democrat.
Payments to doctors, the unemployed and even money to allow rural viewers see cable TV will be hit.
He's using a process called unanimous consent.
A Senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one Senator objects, the request is rejected..
As a baseball star Jim Bunning was known for his "brush back pitch" - essentially throwing near the head of the batter to get them to move off. In old age he's lost none of his taste for aggressive play.
The White House has called him "irrational" and Democrats are delighted if people get the impression Republicans are out to wreck plays to help the jobless.
That's hardly fair as some of Mr Bunning's own Republican colleagues urged him to back off and none have supported him.
But he has yet again used the procedure to block money being spent.
Mr Bunning's objection is partly based on procedure but also because the $10bn payment is unfunded. , backing into a "senators only" lift to make his escape.
But he has explained himself to his colleagues. His objection is party based on procedure but mainly on his objection to adding to America's ballooning deficit by extending a $10bn payment without saying where the money is coming from.
He read out a letter from a sheet metal worker from Kentucky who said he hadn't worked a full week for two years but "fully supported" the senator for standing up to those who wanted to spend taxpayers' money they do not have.
This country is sooner or later going to implode because of the massive amount of debt built up over the last 40 to 50 years. Selling the country's soul to countries like communist China in order to finance our lifestyle... is sheer lunacy.
The letter went on.
As far as I know there is no connection between the senator and the Tea Party movement. But surely these are sentiments they would admire?
They have been lauded by some for being the authentic voice of America, angry about the ways of Washington. It will be interesting to see how they view this piece of Capitol gridlock.
I am eager to hear if the senator has admirers out there.
No first nuke?
Should America abandon the first strike? That is apparently at the heart of a meeting today between President Obama and defence secretary Robert Gates.
They are working on a document called the Nuclear Posture Review. .
A senior administration official has told the ´óÏó´«Ã½ there will be a "dramatic reductions in the nuclear stockpile, while maintaining a strong and reliable deterrent".
When the paper becomes public the president will announce that he's getting rid of thousands of weapons, and won't develop a proposed by George W Bush.
Instead there will be a new focus on how conventional missiles will be used. All this is in line with .
Those who've talked with him in private about the issue have no doubt this is a personal priority, not a political stance.
The that one huge issue has yet to be settled. When should nuclear weapons be used?
The left of the president's party says there should be working to make it clear they are only there as a deterrence.
Others want to leave open the possibility of a first strike. I can't see the military wanting to shut off their options, or the president defying them.
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
I’m Mark Mardell, the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My previous blog, as the ´óÏó´«Ã½â€™s man in Europe, taught me one thing at least: your comments are key. I read them all, so please have your say.
For the latest updates across ´óÏó´«Ã½ blogs,
visit the Blogs homepage.
Latest from ´óÏó´«Ã½ News blogs
Latest from ´óÏó´«Ã½ News blogs
|
Nick Robinson: |
 |
|
Douglas Fraser: |
 |
|
Brian Taylor: |
 |
 |
|
Richard Black: |
 |
|
Jonathan Amos: |
 |
Subscribe to Mark Mardell's America
You can stay up to date with Mark Mardell's America via these feeds.
Mark Mardell's America Feed(RSS)
Mark Mardell's America Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find useful.
