So, what actually happened? First, did Obama flub the oath, if so, did Roberts flub it as well? Lets have a look at the transcript:

ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama…
OBAMA: I, Barack…
ROBERTS: … do solemnly swear…
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear…
ROBERTS: … that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully…
OBAMA: … that I will execute…
ROBERTS: … faithfully the office of president of the United States…
OBAMA: … the office of president of the United States faithfully…
ROBERTS: … and will to the best of my ability…
OBAMA: … and will to the best of my ability…
ROBERTS: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
OBAMA: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
ROBERTS: So help you God?
OBAMA: So help me God.
ROBERTS: Congratulations, Mr. President.

The transcript makes clear that Justice Roberts made a mistake first, then corrected it, after which President Obama repeated the mistake not the correct version. In other words, both flubbed the oath, Roberts corrected himself, Obama did not.

More important than the flub, though, is that the message stays the same; the meaning of the sentence does not change. Shorter; there’s no use in debating the issue since it doesn’t matter whether Obama flubbed it and if so why.

©2009 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

We start with a speech by Trevor Phillips, who is paying homage to Obama only weeks after he slammed Obama in Prospect magazine! Anyway, it’s a day of celebration so I won’t get too bitchy. Harriet Harman was on a bit earlier and was short and sweet.
I have my Obama t-shirt on, woohoo!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Its all just about to kick off, the old presidents, Clinton, Bush, Carter have all arrived.

One of the first jobs of an American president is to redecorate the Oval Office. Each new president is expected to update the furniture, replace the carpet, repaint the walls and woodwork as well as add some new paintings. There are also the sculptures, usually three or four. So when he moves in today, President Barack Obama will have to decide what to do with a bronze bust of Winston Churchill.

The bust is on loan from the British government and was installed by his predecessor, President George W Bush in 2001. Bush explains it in an official White House tour video [my transcript]: "my friend the prime minister of Great Britain heard me say that I greatly admired Winston Churchill and so he saw to it that the government loaned me this and I am most honored to have this Jacob Epstein bust of Winston Churchill. I like Churchill because he was a great war leader. He was resolute, he was tough, he knew what he believed, and he had a fabulous sense of humor. And in this job, believe me, you've gotta have a sense of humor. Otherwise it makes for the days awfully long and for the nights awfully short." (Predictably, the video inspired a spoof.)

Officially, Her Majesty's government loaned the bust to Bush for the duration of his term. At the end of this month, the bust can therefore go back to the Government Art Collection on Cockspur Street. But there is little to prevent Obama from retaining the sculpture, just like there was little that prevented him from retaining Bush's Defense Secretary and several other "holdover" officials.

Downing Street, always ready to cultivate Britain's "special relationship" with America, would probably happily extend the loan to another four to eight years. After all, no figure in the world better symbolizes the "special relationship" than Churchill. In his last Lord Mayor's Banquet Speech, Prime Minister Gordon Brown explained it yet again: "Winston Churchill described the joint inheritance of Britain and America as not just a shared history but a shared belief in the great principles of freedom, and the rights of man - of what Barack Obama described in his election night speech as the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope."

Will Obama keep his Churchill? Obama's speech writers would certainly appreciate it. In the United States, the signifier "Churchill" is as positively evaluated as "Obama" in the United Kingdom right now. As Christopher Hitchens observes, in America, Churchill "occupies an unrivaled place in the common stock of reference, ranging from the mock-heroic to the downright kitsch." The man voted the Greatest Briton in a 2002, argues Hitchens, "can be quoted even more safely than Lincoln in that he was never a member of any American faction."

Good politics is not the only reason for Obama to retain the bust. Last year, the New England Historic Genealogical Society discovered that Obama is in fact related to Churchill. (The researchers also found that Obama is a ninth cousin of Brad Pitt and a distant relative to five former U.S. presidents, including George W Bush.) So why not keep a bust of a distant family member which happens to be a great war leader that most Americans love?

As it is often the case, family history cuts both ways. In Kenya, the land of Obama's father, the signifier "Churchill" carries nothing but negative connotations. Several times in his long political career, Churchill was responsible for Britain's empire, which until 1963 included Kenya. It was his government which in 1952 declared the so-called Kenya Emergency - an attempt to quash a rebellion against colonial rule known as Mau Mau. For the next eight years, suspected rebels were routinely detained, tortured, hanged and shot. According to Caroline Elkins, the colonial soldiers killed between fifteen and twenty thousand Kenyans in combat, while up to one hundred thousand perished in the detention camps. One of those who endured torture in a British prison was Hussein Onyango Obama, US president's Kenyan grandfather. Traces of this story can be found in Obama's memoir Dreams from my Father as well as in a few interviews; much more is sure to come. For now, it behooves us to remember it when Obama sends his Churchill packing. The time for the Anglo-American "special relationship" to move beyond Churchill is long overdue.

Srdjan Vucetic is Dillard Fellow in International Studies at Pembroke College, Cambridge 

Did you see how red Joe Biden got? Talk about loose lips sink ships.

Jill Biden said on the Oprah show that she wanted her husband to be vice president instead of secretary of state, chiefly because it would involve less travel.

"If you're secretary of state, you'll be away, we'll never see you, you know," she said, describing how she and her husband had talked about it.

"I'll see you at a state dinner once and awhile. But I said, if you are vice president, the entire family, because they worked so hard for the election, they can be involved. They can come to our home. They can go to events, they can be with us all the time. And that's what's important to us," she said.

Biden, seated at his wife's side, looked sheepish and tried to shush his wife after she made the remark.

Via / ABC News and Reuters

Un zapatazo en contra de todas la guerras, not just the ones overseas, pero also the ones within and against communities here in the U.S. For New Orleans, the fronteras, the barrios, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Un zapatazo con tacon for Oscar Grant, Marcelo Lucero, all of those raided by ICE, all the children separated from their parents, for those young men of color sent to the front lines, for all those without health insurance and papers. For all those behind walls: prison walls, border walls, walls of poverty.

Time to feel my feet on the ground and dig into the earth with my toes and walk and work.

Throw your shoe up on your site and link to the shoe throwing throwdown at My Ecdysis.

Dear Mr. Barack Hussein Obama,

We, members of the “Afghanistan’s Students Movement” congratulate you for your success in the Presidential elections of the United States of America, which we consider a sign for a better future. Your presence in the political arena of the world will rearrange many political equations and will create a different system that we hope can bring about the opportunity for global peace. We are optimistic that you, not only as an aware political organizer, but also as a charismatic and wise leader, will be the initiator of another generation of powerful leaders committed to human values that the world has been waiting for.

Let us admit this honestly: We have all lost hope. The flame of hope that had been lightened in our hearts after year 2001 in Afghanistan has been transformed to a blind knot of doubt and darkness due to the misleading policies and political disability in Afghanistan. The hope and will to live has decreased in last six years while terrorism and drug production has increased. The highest rates of mother and infant mortality are in Afghanistan, (MMR 6500 in Badakhshan). For every four kids, one dies before reaching age five. (Afghanistan Human Development report 2007 p.27).

Poverty, social disorder, kidnapping, violence against women and children and many of other problems have struck the heart of society in Afghanistan. We think that your attention and focus in Afghanistan should shift from the Taliban’s terrorism to Afghanistan’s society. Our society is in such a painful and deteriorating situation that it has inevitably become a cradle for terrorism and fundamentalism. We should not forget that Afghanistan has been a victim of the West’s struggle against communism, a struggle that continued for two decades with the resistance of people of Afghanistan and saved the countries in region and world, a resistance that left nothing for Afghanistan’s people but a malfunctioning social system, more than two million dead, five million emigrants, three illiterate generations, fundamentalism and wide poppy fields.

We have no doubt that the neglect by the international community and USA after the departure of Soviet forces, and the fall of the Communist state led to civil war and then emergence of Taliban in Afghanistan. This neglect provided an opportunity for development of the most dangerous and darkest fundamentalist regime on the globe in Afghanistan in less then seven years.

The attention of the international community and especially the United States should shift to Afghanistan’s society. A society that is sick and on the brink of death can only be saved by a well thought out and efficient method and a collaborative international effort. Fundraising and providing loans alone can not prevent a crisis; there is a need for coordinating the country’s political direction. We believe that if the future leader of the USA continues the mistakes of George W. Bush, and fights the world with the ideological simplification of good and evil, we will soon witness the fall of Afghanistan’s government which is a symbol of global governance and influence, and the sad result will be that an unforgivable and irreversible catastrophe will shadow the region
and the world.

You must know that although branches of terrorism are in Afghanistan, its roots are in the depths of oil reserves in Saudi Arabia and the nuclear weapons in Pakistan. The free tribal regions in Pakistan can be a safe shelter for development of fundamentalist power equipped with nuclear armament in near future. The future US administration should also know that the Taliban had reasonable opportunities in the last seven years that, intentionally or not, were provided for them by the West and the Government of Afghanistan. The Taliban that the USA will be fighting in 2009 are not the Taliban of 2001. The empowered Taliban now have modern armaments, know the tactics of organized war, and have a budget, financial power, and more support in the region. The Taliban are now more organized and have attracted many local militia groups. Experience shows that negotiation and power-sharing with the Taliban will not change the situation, but will help the injured snake of Taliban fundamentalism become a seven headed dragon.

We believe that the contradiction between the structure and essence of government has led to political failure in Afghanistan. The structure of Afghanistan’s government contradicts its nature. The government has a modern and democratic structure, but a tribal and traditional essence. This hypocritical incompatibility has caused increasing political and economic corruption and has led to destruction of society. The tribal structure of government has led to rechanneling the American reconstruction aid to the Taliban’s terrorism. This structure has allowed for the presence of heads of political parties, members of Taliban, Hekmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami (Islamic Party), and ex-communists in parliament, government and smaller branches of power. In fact, these people are the main decision makers in the political process of country.

Most of the members of the parliament do not have the least legal literacy and have come to power through a process that has a legitimate cover (elections), but is in nature undemocratic. Decision makers in provincial councils, parliament and cabinet are representatives of ethnic and linguistic divisions and interests of leaders of various factions. The procedure for election and functions of Senate (Upper House) are similar to that of an ethnic Jirga. The members of provincial councils, Parliament and cabinet have come to power depending on support of ethnic and linguistic fractions and are not committed to formation of a stable, sustainable and encompassing national value system.

The concept and position of political parties is ambiguous and vague in Afghanistan’s power structure, and the leaders of parties in the government use the opportunities and public resources for strengthening their parties. The leaders of parties like the Afghan Millat Party, the Republican Party, the Wahdat (Unity) Party, and a few other parties have seats in important government branches from the ministries to the presidential office and this has created a conflict of interests and inefficiency within the power structure. Decision making and effective action at a national level requires cooperation between different government organs, but with the current state of power imbalance, coordination and cooperation is almost impossible. Each party tries to please its own supporters and its loyal sub-groups and this has led to increasing corruption and has created obstacles for reconstruction. Without an efficient and implementable reconstruction program, poverty and the reach of fundamentalism will expand and increase.

In addition, the modern state with a free market economy, which was a direct suggestion of President George W. Bush for Afghanistan, has led to poverty and increasing class disparity. The current economic model in Afghanistan has created a breeding ground for economic mafia. All the governmental (public) sectors and national mines and resources of Afghanistan have been handed over to private companies that are managed by a network of corrupt politicians and politically influential business owners. We believe that the information that is given to you from the official sources of Afghanistan’s government and even their partners in power (The National United Front) is usually incorrect and misleading and is packaged to create a vague and unreal optimism. In fact, the international community has not been able to create the most primary form of stable and influential government in Afghanistan despite a huge expenditure of aid. Each election carries the risk of a coup.

Complicating matters, a misleading image of the situation in order to justify the Western “war against terrorism” and the expenditure of billions of dollars. The military budget of the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq, derived from the taxes of American citizens, and which was supposed to bring security, health and prosperity for Afghanistan’s women and children has instead provided the Taliban with modern armaments that kill dozens of innocent people everyday. We are certain that Afghanistan’s problems will not be solved only with militarism and sending more troops. With the current state of affairs, this plan is far more certain to worsen the situation.

Our suggestions:

1 - Change in political structure: Ratification of the presidential system in constitutional Loya Jirga in 2003 prevented formation of a strong central government with the natural participation of all ethnic groups. By suggesting another convention of Loya Jirga, you can create an atmosphere of trust and ensure the presence of all ethnic groups in the Afghan government and a shift from a presidential system to a parliamentarian system. That will allow all Afghanistan’s citizens to feel equal belonging and responsibility to the political system of the country for the first time. This will also create the opportunity for abolition of ethnic quota that only benefits the former Jihad leaders. It will allow people from all different ethnicities to participate freely and equally.

2 - The parliamentarian government and federal system has proved efficient in Iraq. Participation of all ethnic groups and parties in the federal system has ensured the rights of minority groups and their participation in formation of a stable system. You should also suggest the federal system for Afghanistan. Five zones of Afghanistan can be five independent states which will help formation of strong local economies, and the non-concentrated political system can be more coordinated and efficient. In Afghanistan, formation of a concentrated powerful government system is very difficult due to its geography and limited resource. The almost homogenous
ethnic, linguistic and religious population of each state (zone) can prevent conflicts.

3 - Strengthening civil society: We believe the situation could be improved dramatically by decreasing the military budget and investing more in the social sector. There is no doubt that this shift will have a more positive influence, be an easier strategy, and will result in quick and long lasting outcomes for ensuring peace and stable society in Afghanistan. Afghanistan needs social change and this is only possible by strengthening civil organizations, not by increasing the military force.

4 - Stabilizing the issues related to political geography of Afghanistan. The 2700 Kilometer southern border of Afghanistan with the free tribal regions of Pakistan has helped terrorism to have a continuous movement in the region.

5 - Be firm with the Taliban. The US and international community’s soft policies against Taliban has led to strengthening fundamentalism in the region, and especially in Pakistan, and will continue to do so. The possibility of terrorists’ access to nuclear armament does not seem far away anymore.

6 - The bureaucratic system in the country is still run in the communist style and is inflated. It needs to be reduced, and there needs to be a move towards more regulation and transparency.

7 - The economic system should shift from the uncontrolled free market economy. Formation of monitoring governmental bodies can prevent waste of national resources. A mixed economy system is the best option and economic model for a country that does not have anything. In the current situation, the government and ministries have given over their responsibility to private sector that has weakened public services’ ability to serve the poor.

8 - Any big aid package to Afghanistan’s government should be conditioned on lack of corruption. Corruption is one of the biggest reasons for discontent among Afghanistan’s population. Request transparency and just and equal distribution of aid. The unjust distribution of international aid has led to estrangement of different groups of Afghanistan’s population from government and the international community. This critical issue, if not remedied, could, in the long term, further encourage people of these regions to support armed opposition of government.

Mr. President, we have hope that you will not let humanity be disregarded in Afghanistan.

In Solidarity and Cooperation,
Afghanistan’s Students’ Movement - The overseas office

13.02.2009
Shaharzad Akbar
BA student (senior year)
Anthropology and Development
Smith College in Northampton, Massachusett
Email: shaharzadakbar[at]yahoo.com

Sayed Asef Hossaini
MA Student
Erfurt School of Public Policy
Germany
Email: s_asefhosaini[at]yahoo.com

Articles are invited about what you expect (or don't) from the new American President.

February 24: VwV was launched in February of 2008 and one of our first posts was titled, “After Fidel, Cuban bloggers discuss US candidates.” The post compiled Cuban bloggers thoughts on what the new U.S. president would do with the new leader of Cuba and so Obama’s infamous “without pre-conditions” line began, which haunted him throughout the campaign.

March 21: After videos of Obama’s reverend were brought to the public, the now President-elect delivered, arguably, one of the most memorable speeches in history on racism. VwV’s post, “World moved by Obama’s speech on race,” highlights what bloggers throughout the world had to say after hearing Obama’s thoughts on race.

April 17: As the first African-American president of the U.S., it was crucial for VwV to get the thoughts of African bloggers on Obama. In the post titled, “A letter from Africa,” bloggers throughout the large continent shared their opinions on the then, Democratic contender for nomination.

June 9: As America’s summer heated up, so did the presidential campaign but throughout the world. In the post, “Global: The world has a say!” VwV’s editor compiled a list of Web sites that allowed non-Americans to vote who they think is best for the states.

June 19: The rapid growth of technology played a major role in the 21st century presidential campaign. In the post, “Global: I’m voting Republican” covers what world bloggers thought about a controversial film by Charlie Steak.

August 29: This was the day the world was introduced to Sarah Palin – the governor of the U.S. state closest to Russia and John McCain’s Republican running mate. Without much information about the Republican VP pick, bloggers simply commented about McCain’s pick being a woman as compiled in the post, “The world reacts to Sarah Palin’s VP nomination.”

October 10: Race was not only prevalent on the Democratic campaign trail but also on the Republican, as rallies became heated. The post, “Racism on the Republican Trail?” includes just a few of the comments that were fluttering through the blogosphere about remarks made during Republican rallies.

October 24: The rise of technology returns with the post, “Dear American Voter: an international persepective.” The post covers Link TV’s project that allowed non-Americans to send letters to American voters via videos. The post includes just some of the prevalent thoughts of the voices without votes.

November 4: Mainstream media outlets weren't the only ones covering “breaking news.” As soon as word got out that Dixville, New Hampshire, was the first county to close their polls and count their votes, the blogosphere was on it. This post, “Dixville notch makes global blogosphere history” quotes the excitement of some bloggers and skepticism of others.

November 9: And, after it was all said and done…bloggers began to look back and analyze how Obama ran a successful campaign. In the post, “Social media and the making of the president,” analyses were offered by bloggers in three different countries of how social media played such a major factor in the campaign.

On the lighter side of the campaign, our silliest moments include: Tina Fey as Sarah Palin; Sarah Palin’s conversation with “Sarkozy;” And, Joe the unlicensed plumber.

A friend had emailed me overnight to ask “So, what’s the atmosphere like over there?”

My immediate reaction was: “Erm, well, I don’t really know. Because I haven’t been out in the thick of things yet”.

I arrived at K’s house yesterday and we spent the afternoon/evening chatting, sleeping, eating and watching live footage of Obama and Biden’s journey from Philadelphia to DC. See, sometimes it’s just enough to be in the right country because you actually get to see things like that as they happen .

But actually, I realise that it’s not just that my yesterday was low-key. Based on my journey through the city at lunchtime (from Dulles Airport to the NE area, zip code 20002 if you want to look it up) and also on the news reports I’m seeing - where poor freezing newsreaders are standing on the Mall, with the Capitol building behind them - I can say that the atmosphere in DC yesterday was, surprisingly, also very muted.

Said newsreaders are standing on a fairly empty Mall; and as our airport shuttle bus made its way through the city yesterday, the streets were really very quiet. Mind you, that always freaks me out about American cities (bar New York): where are all the pedestrians? (In this case: inside, probably, as it’s sub-zero temperatures.)

All this will undoubtedly change today, however - as a) I will be entering the thick of it, to b) go to the massive concert being held on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. It kicks off at 1.30pm our time (for the duration of my stay over here, “our time” will be Washington time ) and they’re expecting a crowd of 500,000.

You can watch the concert live on www.hbo.com. I’m presuming that means you can watch it live on the site internationally, also. If so, it kicks off at 6.30pm UK time.

Watch out for me. I’ll be the one in a coat, hat and scarf.

And here was Barack’s full speech in Baltimore:

As the reporter and my friend K both noted, it’s almost as if Obama is still campaigning. And as I replied, it strikes me that this because he truly wants a sea-change in the country. He genuinely wants Americans to reach out and help each other more, to look after each other and work together; to change the mood of a nation beyond doing so with intangible feelings like hope and optimism. As Obama said on the night of November 4th, his election is just the beginning. And as a result he will, perhaps, have to keep drilling his vision - or rather: the practical application of his vision - into the American people. I doubt he will ever let up. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

*Update* Just found footage from Delaware, including Joe’s full introductory speech. Gotta love around 5 minutes, where all the white secret service agents appear, followed by their black President. Magical :

slideshowHey, America, I’m back! And I’m pleased to be here.” That’s what I wanted to shout when I arrived at Cincinnati airport on Thursday afternoon. Even the blast of icy air that hit me on disembarking the plane wasn’t going to dim my spirits and stop this next chapter in my Obama journey.

The officials at the airport had other ideas though. First was the frustration of having to fill out a paper immigration form, despite having filled out the exact same thing online before I left London. The new system just introduced is not yet fully in operation, at least not in Cincinnati. But that was minor compared to the succession of checks, questions, x-rays, searches and queues that I and my bags were then subjected to. And not all of them were conducted in an entirely friendly manner. I picked my suitcase up from the carousel only for it to be x-rayed, searched and then deposited on a conveyer belt to be transported to a different part of the airport for me to pick up all over again. The lack of signage only added to my confusion.

So it was with great relief that I saw the friendly faces of Randy and Jodi waiting for me. Last time I had seen them was on the evening before election day, hope mixed with nervous tension and the adrenaline of gearing up for one final big get-out-the-vote push.

Then the weather had been unseasonably warm. Now it was unusually cold. -12C when I landed and quickly plunging to -19C as night fell. I’ve never experienced a cold like that; which penetrates clothing within seconds. It was so cold that schools across the area were closed on Friday. On the flip side I was introduced to the great American tradition of making ’snow angels’ in the yard.

“I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it,” she told Fox’s Chris Wallace. “And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past.”

Pelosi’s remarks come shortly after Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he wants to look into whether the Bush administration broke the law by taking the nation to war against Iraq and instituting aggressive anti-terror initiatives.

Conyers called for an “independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities.”

President-Elect Barack Obama told ABC News a week ago that he believes that Washington should look towards the future rather than the past. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he told ABC News a week ago. “On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

Pelosi explained that Obama and Conyers are not “that far apart. There are different subjects and you treat them differently.

“We cannot let the politicizing of, for example, the Justice Department to go unreviewed,” she added. “I want to see the truth come forth.”

Although it was an unpopular decision, President Gerald Ford was right not to press charges against President Richard Nixon. Prosecution would have damaged the American people’s faith in government and it would undoubtedly have torn the country apart. Prosecuting top Bush adminstration officials will have the same effect. If Pelosi and Obama are serious about bringing the country together they have to let byones be bygones and focus on the future.

Pelosi and Obama are not the same kind of politician, however. Where Obama ran as a moderate last year, Pelosi is known as an ideoligical liberal partisan hack who detests compromise. If one Democrat is indeed likely to prosecute Bush officials just to get even it is her.

Moderates and conservatives can only hope that Obama will have tremendous influence over the speaker, and that he will curb her desire for revenge.

©2009 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.