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.

The enormous financial burden of the two wars-Joseph Stiglitz estimates it at $3 trillion--heavily contributed to the financial meltdown in the U.S.A. and disarray in global economy.  Far from being a model for developing world, we now need to heal our own economy. Now it is America's turn to embark on overhauling its financial system, re-structuring its economy, re-inventing a more equitable government, re-examining its foreign strategy and re-thinking its basic assumptions about the world. In short, it is time for perestroika, American style. Call it transformation, as Obama does. But it must be done much better than Gorbachev's perestroika least the U.S.A. goes the way of the USSR.

It cannot be done without thinking out of the box of the Cold War mentality. But, as the war in Georgia has shown, this approach continues to poison U.S.-Russian relations.

The Russian rebuff to Georgia came after its repeated warnings against NATO expansion, after the bombing of Yugoslavia and the proclamation of Kosovo's independence. But it was Russia that was accused of reverting to the Soviet era Brezhnev doctrine. In fact, in his reckless attack on South Ossetia, Georgia's president Mikheil Saakashvili was inspired by U.S. abandonment, in the post-Communist era, of the strategy of peaceful resolution of conflicts in favor of the "shock and awe" bombardment of non-co-operative adversaries. This strategy has proved not only inhumane but also counter-productive.

Unless President-Elect Obama renounces this reliance on war as a means to achieve security for the United States and its allies, there is little chance that his presidency will produce a better world than the one President Bush left behind. It is incumbent upon European leaders, especially, those who refused to support U.S. in Iraq, to speak up and dissuade U.S. leaders from starting a new war and using bombing as the peace-maker of choice.

Let me now focus on the need to transform U.S. policy toward Russia. First of all, U.S. should abandon the fantasy of unipolar world domination foisted on the Bush administration by the neo-conservatives.  Alas, many of our European allies were cajoled into accepting, however half-heartedly, U.S. hubris. Now we need to scale down U.S. and NATO military involvement abroad and rely on skilled diplomacy and leadership by example, not brute force or economic blackmail. We need to recognize that even though the U.S. is the only superpower, it is far from omnipotent. We need allies and partners, and that includes Russia.

We also need to recognize that many of our current problems with Russia are of our own making. Our failure to do good on the promise to disband NATO is one example. Our expansion of NATO to Russian borders is another. The decision to install an anti-missile "shield" in Poland and the Czech Republic is bound to cause more tensions.

Imposing the free market

We made mistakes even while helping post-communist Russia in its economic reform. In the 1990s, U.S. adopted an approach, espoused by Jeffrey Sachs, Andrei Shleifer, and Lawrence Summers, which amounted to clumsy efforts to impose on Russia the same free-market dogmatism that is at the root of today's global crisis. Under the misleading name of the "Washington consensus" this approach to globalizing Russia dominated the Clinton administration. Yet even in the World Bank there were prominent critics whose advice was ignored.

One was Joseph Stiglitz who challenged the orthodoxy of free-market fundamentalism with an alternative economic philosophy he called "a third way." Cognizant of the benefits of free-market, he has also recognized the important role governments can play in preventing its abuse by tycoon investors and mighty corporations. Stiglitz was squeezed out of the bank because of his views, even while being awarded the Nobel Prize in economics.  Another critic was professor William Easterly who later authored the book with the meaningful title The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good.

Free-market Healer, Heal Thyself

While lecturing Russia about the blessings of unfettered free market, we forgot the lessons taught us by Thomas Jefferson . In a letter to John Taylor in 1816, he warned that the "banking establishments," when left to their own devices, " are more dangerous than standing armies." Presciently, he foreswore "the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity" as  "swindling futurity on a large scale."  Jefferson knew that in a democracy the people, through its government, should have regulatory power over irresponsible bankers and investors. As the Bernard Madoff scandal has shown once again there are plenty of those ready to take the country for another Ponzi pyramid ride.

Alas, Shevtsova applied her "liberal view" to Russia only, failing to consider a similar correlation between foreign and domestic policy in Western countries. Did she not hear that after the 9-11 attack Bush tried to rally the West to a "crusade" against Al-Qaida by proclaiming the Stalinesque motto that ‘those who are not with us, are against us'? Does she not know that, on Bush's initiative, The Patriot Act was then passed which has restricted civil liberties in the United States more than during the Cold War when our adversaries were not only considerably more powerful than Al Qaida, but also had much a large following inside the United States?

Scholars advising their governments on international relations must be watchful of the dynamic correlation between foreign and domestic policy even in the most democratic countries. Ancient Greeks knew that any form of government, including democracy, has a tendency to degenerate. We, too, know that the eternal vigilance against enemies of freedom, both foreign and domestic, is the price we have to pay for the blessings of liberty. As Shevtsova seems oblivious of Western concerns with the preservation of liberty , one would doubt her credentials as a "liberal." Her views seem more consistent with those of the neo conservatives.

Neo-con's Media Megaphones

Now the neo-conservatives seem to be re-grouping to take charge of U.S. foreign policy under Obama.  In fact, several neo-con columnists were elated by Obama's appointments.  This makes the liberals worry whether Obama will be able to carry out the transformation he promised. Teresa Stack, president of The Nation magazine, the flagship of the liberal-left movement that voted solidly for Obama, reminds its readers: "Neocons and their corporate mainstream media megaphone are prepared to do everything in their power to thwart progressive change.  We can't afford to take change for granted."

Indeed, it was the "mainstream media megaphones" that fanned hysterical russophobia during the Georgian-Russian conflict.  They regurgitated  comparisons of the Russian action to Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938. They also largely marginalized scholars like Mark Almond, a British historian, who found Russia's rebuff to Georgia fully legitimate. With greater justification, he compared the Russian action with Britain's retaliation gave to Argentine aggression in the Falklands in 1982. No great power will retreat forever, he quoted Kissinger. Indeed, after two decades of endless retreats under constant pressure from the West, Russia finally decided it can no longer retreat and hit back.

But hitting back is not a strategy. Neither is U.S. mass media hysteria. That's why Russia, the EU and the United States need to address the common concern for the prevention of armed conflicts along the Russian borders and elsewhere in the world, least they escalate into a major conflagration involving nuclear powers.

Hold Obama to his Promise

Now that Obama is about to be inaugurated, it is important to remind him of the transformation he promised to deliver. It has to be toward a more efficient, fair, and vibrant society at home and a less confrontational, less expensive, but more prudent and cooperative U.S. policy abroad.

The new policy toward Russia must include:

• Abandoning the fantasy of U.S. unipolar world domination and recognizing Russia's legitimate national security concerns;
• Abiding by international law and work within the established organizations such as the U.N., EU, OSCE, WTO, World Bank and IMF until they can be revamped to conform to the new reality;
• Returning to negotiations with Russia on all Cold War legacy issues, such as America's abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and Russia's repudiation of START II;
• Halting NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine or, at least, provide a ten years moratorium on such expansion;
• Cooperating with Russia in halting proliferation of nuclear weapons;
• Coordinating efforts against international piracy and terrorism, as well as against global warming and to protect the Earth's biosphere.

The New York Times described the election of Obama as a catharsis and return to the American dream that was destroyed--politically, economically and socially--under Bush. Obama's new appointments bear little signs of new thinking. They may be pragmatic in the sense of party politics, but lack a vision of the evolving global community and the role the United States and the West should play in it. As Gorbachev's perestroika showed, any attempt at radical transformation is risky. It's better to have the Russians among our cheer leaders and friends, not as our opponents or detractors.

What is needed is a rational and concerted effort to broker a peace deal which maximizes justice, and which creates new realities on the ground that will help to sustain the peace once it is in place. And so, if you get a call, in the middle of the night, from President Obama, informing you that you have just been appointed U.S. Middle East Envoy; what would you do to bring peace to the Middle East? Here are a few suggestions. Perhaps you have something to add.

Gaza: Negotiate a ceasefire, and then a truce, between Israel and Hamas, on the basis of an Israeli pullout, accompanied by a cessation of missile and mortal fire by Hamas, to be monitored by U.N. observers. Suggest to Hamas to give up their military ambitions in exchange for: an easing of border restrictions, a lifting of an economic blockade, and an opportunity to partner with Fattah to provide a democratic government for the Palestinian people. If Hamas agrees, launch an international investment program for Gaza, with the purpose of: creating jobs, building infrastructure, growing the economy, and weakening the hold of extremist thinking. Along with the hope that comes from economic growth, launch a series of programs to sustain the hope: a more balanced and modern approach to education, a student exchange, a cultural exchange, an empowerment of women, an expanded Peace Corps presence, a media campaign, international conferences, etc.

West Bank: Continue to train Palestinian soldiers, so as to enable the duly elected government to defend itself from outside threats, including the threats posed by Hamas and other extremist factions. Encourage Fattah to reach a workable agreement with Hamas so that the two could work together to negotiate a comprehensive peace deal with Israel for the creation of a Palestinian state, along the lines of the understandings that have been reached between President Abbas and Foreign Minister Livny, and reminiscent of the deal offered by President Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barack to President Arafat in the year 2000. Continue to develop the four industrial zones in the West Bank, and launch an international effort to invest in good paying jobs, jobs which grow the economy, jobs which protect the environment, and jobs which help to neutralize extremist thinking. Work to inspire Palestinians with a Vision of Hope, and support that economic effort with Public Diplomacy Programs which are specifically designed to prop the vision up and to carry it forward. Use an Ideology of Common Sense to speak to Palestinians with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity.

Israel: Encourage Israel to embrace and enhance the possibility of peace, and to take positive action in that regard by: negotiating a truce with Hamas, allowing Hamas to partner with Fattah for the sake of democratic rule, helping Hamas to build infrastructure and to grow Gaza’s economy, and helping Fattah to do the same in the West Bank. Encourage Israel to negotiate a final status agreement, one that protects Israel’s security, but one that also allows Palestinians to achieve at least most of their political aspirations. To the extent possible, convince Israel to become actively involved in orchestrating the economic growth of the new fledgling state so that the ordinary Palestinian citizen is finally given a place at the table, a stake in his or her future.

Syria: Encourage Syria to negotiate peace with Israel on the basis of an Israeli pullout from the Golan Heights, along with a U.N. monitored military free zone in that area. Structure a series of economic and diplomatic incentives to lure Syria away from Iranian control, and to cause Syria to stop its support of terrorist organizations, and to stop interfering with internal Lebanese affairs.

Lebanon: Continue to bolster Lebanon’s democratically elected government. Try to steer Hezbollah away from military confrontation, in favor of a political role as part of a duly elected government. Use a Vision of Hope to empower the Lebanese people to embrace the possibility of peace among themselves, and with Israel.

Egypt: Encourage the international community to continue to invest to grow Egypt’s economy and to create good paying jobs. Support Egypt’s efforts to mediate regional disputes. Empower the man on the street with the notion that his life could get better, and use that hope to weaken the hold of extremist thinking. Push for warmer relations between Israel and Egypt on the basis of peace in Palestine, and on Israel’s efforts to help orchestrate an economic revitalization of the Middle East with her technological know-how and her economic drive.

Saudi Arabia: Give Saudi Arabia credit for proposing a comprehensive peace deal with Israel. Encourage Saudi Arabia to continue mustering Arab support in this regard. Encourage Saudi Arabia, in light of lower oil prices, and worldwide green demand, to diversify its investment portfolio by investing in green technology in Palestine, and throughout the Middle East. Use oil profits to create green profits, and use these profits to create even more good paying green jobs, jobs which will grow the economies, jobs which will protect the environment, and jobs which will weaken the strangle hold of extremist thinking. Use a growing economy, and the prospects for Middle East peace, to shift the thinking on the street from an extremist ideology to an ideology of common sense. Use the momentum of change to gear the educational system to a more modern and balanced approach, and to gear religious practice to be more in keeping with the more peaceful aspects of Islam.

Iran: Try to convince Iran that its nuclear ambitions are not in keeping with Iran’s best interests long term. Make the point that a nuclear Iran will be in the crosshairs of many a potent foe, and that the least bit of miscalculation could spell a doomsday scenario. Use diplomacy and economic incentives to convince Iran to give up its nuclear aspirations. As such, Iran could begin to play a vital role in pushing a comprehensive peace process forward, based on mutually shared economic and political interests. Iran could also cooperate by having Hezbollah and Hamas play political, as opposed to military roles. Iran would also be able to quell dissatisfaction from within by delivering to its people the promise of a better day.

With this much on your plate, you may think twice about taking the job. But don’t you agree that a chess game of this sort is what is called for, given current realities on the ground? Don’t we have to table at least some of the emotions and passions, for there to be even the slightest chance for peace? And do we have any choice but to try, even against all odds?

For more information, please visit our website www.sellingavisionofhope.org

You may have even thought you were watching an episode of Saturday Night Live before reality kicked in and that yes, you had just seen breaking news on TV. And that yes, Bush, at 62, still has catlike reflexes and managed to avoid both shoes. The conference was held in Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki’s office to mark the signing of a security agreement.

Several news reports explained that in Arab culture, throwing shoes is a grave show of disrespect. “This is the farewell kiss, you dog,” Al Zeidi reportedly yelled at Bush in Arabic. In the Twittersphere, that sentiment may be shared by an even greater number – with thousands of ‘tweets’ expressing their desires to throw their very shoes – and other inanimate objects – at the outgoing 43rd US president.

David Hughes, from Glasgow, Scotland, said simply:

“If I had a shoe, I would throw it at Bush too.”

Rami Ismail, from the Netherlands, said:

“An Iraqi decided to throw a shoe at Bush during a conference. I can only imagine how sad fundamentalists are that the shoe wasn't a grenade.”

Several others commented on Bush’s reflexes and his shrugging the incident off, including Australian Kyle Buttress, who said:

“Bush had some good ducking and weaving action there during the Shoe toss… Good to see he didn't turn his back or anything.”

Erik Rasmussen, in Spain, said:

“This video of Bush & the shoe was the lead story on the news in Spain. Very telling, really, of his “accomplishments”. Needed a bloody nose.”

The Blogosphere is sure to come up with more reactions with each passing hour, but Englishman Georgie Hammerton was one of the quick ones to blog about the incident on My Bloggy Wog.

“I know this isn’t funny.. but, well it is isn’t it?

“On a side note; is this what passes for journalism in the US!? *shudder*. BBC, I salute you!”

Malaysian blogger Shamsul Yunos noted how the media covered the incident.

“If you watch CNN or BBC, they have put a fantastic spin on the story. It goes something like this: ‘Sure the image of someone throwing a shoe at Bush is bad but the fact that the man lived to tell the tale shows just how free Iraq is right now.’

“Great.

“The BBC interviewed people on the ground and the few Iraqis they met agreed with the shoe thrower in wanting Bush and the Americans out of their country.

“Apparently the white house doesn't think the image will seriously damage Bush's legacy.

“So what exactly is his legacy? Leaving a lot of mess behind? I'm sure that legacy is only being reinforced by the shoe throwing incident.”

Yunos was one of the few bloggers I came across that noted that Al Zeidi, the now well known shoe-attacker, had covered events in Sadr City extensively.

“(He) had lost several relatives in the conflict. He was also recently kidnapped and tortured in a three-day ordeal.”

Chicago-based Indian blogger Saqib Salman Shafi in his blog SaqibSaab questioned what Al Zeidi was really trying to accomplish.

“Now, based on the fact that he was using shoes, one may ask what exactly was he trying to accomplish? Best case scenario, Bush gets a black eye or a scoffed up nose. But you know what, I feel the disgruntled journalist, along with millions across the globe, could care less at the effectiveness of his weapons of choice. It was the statement that spoke loudest. Upset with the leader of the super powerful nation of the world? Take off your jutha(shoe) and chuck it at him. I can see the internet jokes of “epic shoe maneuver,” already.

“And check out how quickly he launches the first one and then removes his other shoe (reloads) and fires away. Maybe he had them untied and ready for deployment? Or rather, perhaps he wore slip-ons or loafers that day.”

Egyptian blogger, Zeinobia, was quite sorry Al Zeidi missed Bush’s head.

“This is the news of the day , sorry the news of the week or may be even the month and the end of the year.

“Bush was having a press conference today in his surprise visit to Baghdad with Al Maliki when Muntader Al-Zeidi , a reporter threw his shoes at him. Unfortunately he missed him :(”

She continued to blog about Al Zeidi, being a correspondent for Al Baghdadia Television, an Iraqi-owned station based in Cairo, Egypt, Zeinobia said she feared for his life.

“He has entered the history, already I wish that someone tells his news now in Baghdad because I fear on his life.

“Idiot Bush of course tried made fun from the incident and said these words : All I can report is a size 10.”

And in the Philippines, someone was up late enough - or way too early - to blog about it almost immediately as it broke. Dreamer4U asked why there was so much hatred in the hearts of Iraqis for Americans and other Westerners.

“It is for sure I thought an embarrassing time for America and Iraq, now I knew how mad is the Iraqi to the American, if you know why let me know here.

“Anyway the shoes of the Iraqi reporter is size 10, Bush should be glad it didn't hit him or else he would be injured before going home in the states. Now I know “W” is good on something, he could have been a good military guy, sadly he was a very ineffective President though.

“Why is it that there are hatred in the heart of the Islam/Iraqi for the American or western people?”

Bush arrived today in Baghdad on a surprise visit — his last to Iraq as commander-in-chief — to celebrate the agreement, thank U.S. troops and meet with Iraqi leaders.

It was Bush’s fourth visit to a nation transformed by the U.S.-led war he started in 2003. It follows three weeks after Iraq’s parliament approved an accord with the U.S. that provides for the withdrawal of American troops by the end of 2011.

In the absence of detailed reporting on India, three images of the country have tended to coexist (somewhat uneasily) in Westerners' imaginations.

The first image is that of an exotic tourist destination, described by my Lonely Planet guidebook as a land of swaying elephants, prowling tigers and Henna-tattooed locals. This image has taken a hit, and I can testify to this first hand from having spent the past few days talking to friends who were planning to attend a mutual friend's wedding in Delhi and visit Bombay along the way. 

The second stereotypical image is that of a major source of outsourced labour, with computer programmers and internet-enabled call centres looming large in the popular imagination. 

The third image comes from the countless television documentaries which highlight grinding poverty in the slums of cities like Calcutta, often featuring white saviours like Mother Teresa. 

The international media's accounts of the recent atrocities in Mumbai may yet add another stereotype or two to that list. Understandably, most reporters provide little context for what has happened, focussing on the immediate facts on the ground rather than India's complicated history of Hindu-Muslim relations. Less forgivably, some accounts have portrayed what has happened in Mumbai as just the latest example of militant Muslims targeting 'the West', ignoring not only India's history but also its geographical location. 

Of course, not every journalist has the time or knowledge to describe Britain's rushed partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, and the persecution that has since been suffered by both Muslims and Hindus in some areas. That makes it important to read the few who do. Besides Kanishk Tharoor's recent article in openIndia, I would recommend taking a look at the recent Sachar Report on the status of Muslims in India (an English language summary is available here). This government-sponsored investigation found that Indian Muslims are in many ways more disadvantaged than even low caste Hindus. 

Notwithstanding these facts, it is true that the Islamist ideology that apparently lay behind Wednesday's attacks reaches beyond national borders. That is why it commands that attention of the world in a way that Hindu extremism, to take just one example, does not. If local grievances provided the fuel for the attacks on Mumbai then Islamism likely provided the oxygen. At any rate that is the interpretation adopted by Andy McCarthy. (If his name sounds familiar, it may be because he recently alleged that William Ayers secretly authored Barack Obama's putatively autobiographical first book.) He writes at the website of America's conservative National Review that: 

"The obsession over whether al Qaeda or its endless jumble of affiliates pulled off the operation is a misguided attempt to mimimize [sic] the challenge.  The bin Laden network is not unimportant, but it is tapping into something that is much bigger than itself.  It's become fashionable for pundits to confine the threat of radical Islam to a relative fringe of disgruntled takfiris and rationalize that if we could only eliminate them all would be well.  But that fringe represents only a strain of the virus ... local issues are fitted to an ideological framework that is global, hegemonic, and more about the ultimate triumph of fundamentalist Islam than, say, a Palestinian state, Kashmir, Danish cartoons, economic inequality, or whatever this week's complaint is." 

The other writers at National Review take similar lessons from the attacks in India. Several express the hope that they will make President-Elect Obama reconsider his promises to close Guantanamo and roll back some of President Bush's tougher (and more constitutionally dubious) anti-terror legislation. As Kanishk noted earlier, the ruling Congress Party had repealed India's equivalent of the Patriot Act. 

Unfortunately, the online sections of many of the American left's most prominent journals have had little to say about the attacks thus far. The front page of the American Prospect's website does feature one relevant story, confusingly titled ‘Attacks in Indiana'. Other than that, it is largely silent. The New Republic has had a bit more to say, but has mainly carried anecdotal reports from Indians. The ideologically heterogeneous writers at The Atlantic do have some interesting things to say, and I recommend that interested readers take a look at Robert Kaplan's dispatch in particular. 

I for one hope that prominent liberals work out a more detailed and historically informed response to what is happening in India. Only then can they counteract the cruder, more chest-thumping reactions of the American right, which - while they may contain some grains of truth - ultimately only serve to obscure the true story.

While widely respected within the media world, and viewed by many as a rising star, the prospect of Gregory being handed the keys to arguably NBC's most prized broadcasting possession has actually appeared increasingly slim in recent months. Unable to carve out a slot for himself amongst MSNBC's stellar cast of polemicists, Gregory found himself saddled with Race for the White House in March of this year: a bland panel show covering the American presidential race that clearly lacked a creative direction and suffered from its tendency to recycle talking heads chosen largely from MSNBC's own in-house pool of talent. The decision to renew the show into the New Year--under the revised and equally uninspiring moniker 1600 Pennsylvania Drive--only cast further doubt as to whether Gregory would ultimately be handed an opportunity by the network to truly shine.

However, the decision to choose Gregory over flashier and more high profile candidates such as Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow is a huge vote of confidence for the Los Angeles native--and one that is justly deserved. Having engaged in a number of fiery exchanges with members of the Bush administration--the President himself included--while a member of the White House press corps, Gregory has quickly carved out a reputation for possessing excellent journalistic instincts, a rare ability to clearly identify "the story behind the story," and a tenacious and unrelenting style of interrogative pursuit: assets that would all mesh perfectly with the format of the highly decorated Sunday talk show.

Moreover, by choosing Gregory over Matthews and company--the pioneers of MSNBC's newfound strategy of jettisoning objectivity for opinion, which has seen the network mimic Fox News's rating success at the cost of drawing strong criticism during the presidential campaign season--MSNBC executives would ensure that the reputation of one of the few last great bastion's of balanced objectivity within the American third estate remains intact. Anyone who questions whether such an edifying description is truly merited need only look at Colin Powell's decision to announce his endorsement of Barack Obama's candidacy on the show a few weeks ago--and the almost country-wide outpouring of grief following Russert's death in June of this year

As an American sojourning abroad, Thanksgiving has always been a bit difficult to explain. If asked, most Americans would mention pilgrims and native Americans - because that is what we learned in school. The mythology goes: the pilgrims at Plymouth survived a long and arduous winter in their rather poorly chosen location because the local Wampanoag, among them Squanto, taught them how to grow corn and fish for eels, among other essential survival skills. A feast was had to celebrate this neighbourliness and give thanks to God that everyone made it through. And that was the first Thanksgiving.

As schoolchildren, we commemorated this story by making little pilgrim collars and feathered hats (yes, really) out of construction paper. That all seems a bit trivial now, more about a safe America we fantasise about rather than the complicated America we have - and always have had.

One feast becomes a tradition only over time, and Thanksgiving was celebrated haphazardly throughout the United States up until the Civil War, with different states observing some sort of semi-religious feast at different times.

When Lincoln asked his citizens to take pause, it was only three months after 50,000 people died, on both sides, in a three day period at Gettysburg. Notably, he asked Americans not just to reflect and give thanks for their "singular deliverances and blessings," of the past year but also to have "humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience." You have much to be thankful for, Lincoln reminded us, but there is much to regret - and much to get done, "to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it ... to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union."

There is much to regret. There is much to be done. This is Thanksgiving. Its history - like our history - is not something you would find in a storybook (and there are no convenient costumes) but is borne out of the best hopes of our dark, divided heart.

Obama will inherit President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (the PEPFAR programme), which has helped to place hundreds of thousands of people on life-saving medication. PEPFAR was launched in 2003, and has spent some $19 billion so far with another $48 billion (including $9 billion for tuberculosis and malaria) pencilled in for 2009-2013. But while it is often cited as the only positive foreign policy accomplishment of the outgoing administration, it is also deeply controversial. The programme has been undermined by the US culture wars, the Republican assault on science and a unilateral and privatised approach to foreign policy. So what must Obama do about it?

There are a number of things that could be done quickly. First, he should cancel the Mexico City Policy (which was introduced by Reagan, repealed by Clinton and reintroduced by Bush) that denies US funds to foreign NGOs that even mention abortion in counselling or referrals, undermining the provision of comprehensive health services. Although Bush signed an order exempting PEPFAR from the policy, it still applies to all US family planning funding and should be repealed.

Second, social conservative positions on abortion have also led to HIV/AIDS-related programming becoming separated from reproductive health and family planning services. Reintegration would help to protect women and girls and boost maternal health.

Third, the first version of PEPFAR  mandated that one-third of all money spent on preventing the transmission of HIV be focused on ineffective "abstinence-only" interventions rather than the comprehensive prevention strategies supported by the vast majority of experts and international opinion. The second phase (authorized by the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008) removes this "hard earmark" but replaces it with a requirement for all country programs to report to Congress if they spend less than fifty percent on "abstinence-only" programs. This should be removed.

Fourth, PEPFAR II requires "at least half" of all funding to be spent on treatment and care. But many experts believe that with new HIV infections running faster than the roll out of treatment, the focus in stopping the pandemic must be on prevention, and that, in any case, the decision on what interventions to adopt should be decided in-country and not in Washington DC.

Fifth, PEPFAR II retains requirements for partner organisations to denounce prostitution and sex trafficking. While this might sound reasonable on the surface, it makes it impossible to reach groups who are vulnerable to HIV but also often oppressed by law enforcement agencies. It should be scrapped.

Sixth, PEPFAR II still allows partner organizations to opt out of best-practice, comprehensive programming if they don't like any aspects of it (the ‘conscience clause'). This too should go. Finally, the new legislation contains a clause that should make travel to the US easier for people living with HIV. This needs to be fully implemented. 

Overall, too much of the programme has been influenced by earmarks and provisions that are geared to domestic political and economic constituencies rather than international best practice and assessments of need. At the same time, global HIV/AIDS policy raises larger questions about how the US engages with the world that the new President will also have to confront.

PEPFAR has been very closely linked to other aspects of US foreign policy, echoing their problems. In 2007 the US Institute of Medicine identified a lack of transparency and accountability to partners and recipients within the programme. The vast majority of PEPFAR funding is channelled bilaterally via US embassies and focuses on selected countries. This contrasts with the multilateral Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which is by no means perfect but aims to support all countries with viable action plans and is guided by scientific criteria. However, it remains underfunded. Meanwhile, the Bush administration has placed the fight against HIV/AIDS on the agenda of the Pentagon's new Africa Command, which has been hastily assembled and has proven deeply unpopular. A substantial shift towards a dialogue-based and partnership-driven approach is therefore required in global health and foreign policy alike. Other countries are well ahead of the US in setting themselves standards for the relationship between health and foreign policy. Though there is a long way to go in holding them to account, this does provide new openings for social movements to articulate their visions of global health.

It should be remembered that the biggest challenge in global health right now is not HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, pandemic influenza or any individual disease. It is the chronic weakness or complete absence of health systems in the world's poorest countries, compounded by deep inequality and an overall lack of public health infrastructure. While PEPFAR has delivered life-saving drugs to hundreds of thousands of people, there is widespread concern that the international drive to focus on individual diseases is weakening health systems rather than strengthening them, a problem compounded by the Bush administration's preference for the contracting-out of foreign policy to private actors and its scepticism towards public bodies. Health system strengthening, increasingly a focus within global health, must be placed at the fore of US policy under Obama, but to achieve real progress a deeper rethinking of the political and economic forces shaping health and health systems is also required.

Ultimately, this calls for a new global health paradigm that confronts the deeply asymmetric nature of global economic interdependence and pervasive deficits of accountability and responsibility in the conduct of foreign policy. It must also reflect the balance of need rather than the balance of power. Developing such a paradigm can only be a collective endeavour.

--------

Alan Ingram is Lecturer in Geography at University College London. He researches relationships between global health, foreign policy and security and is a contributor to Global Health Watch. 

Kris Peterson is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at UC Irvine and co-chair of the Association of Concerned Africa Scholars

With the margins that small, the one thing we can be sure of is that the eventual victor - whoever he may be - will have a hard time convincing his opponents that he won fair and square. For a taster of what is to come, take a look at politico.com's latest article on the subject. It is an extremely biased piece of work entitled 'Sloppy Dems may spell Franken advantage' (the title alone cries out for the attention of an editor). It relies heavily on the opinions of a "veteran Minnesota election law attorney" named Robert Hentges, who has this to say:

“Democrats are [thought to be] more creative, free-spirited, so the idea is that they’re more likely to make a mistake that the optical scan won’t pick up. But when they recount the hard copy, those votes will be counted for Franken. If you talk to Republicans, they say it will be Franken’s advantage, because Democrats are stupid and will screw up ballots more often.”  

Since the Politico reporter seems to take Hentges' suggestions at face value, it's a fair bet that this meme will have legs. Of course, many Minnesota Democrats are poorer than the average citizen, and so often have to deal with longer lines to vote, and less reliable equipment when they do. But that was also true in Florida eight years ago, and didn't stop Republicans from labelling Al Gore's supporters as undereducated African-Americans and senile old fools. The suggestion was, of course, that these voters didn't really deserve their votes in the first place. Expect to hear more of that if Franken manages a victory.

Update: It turns out that the headline of the Politico piece genuinely was in need of some editing. I e-mailed the author, Daniel Libit, with my concerns, and he agreed that the piece's title - which he didn't choose - was inappropriate. It has now changed to 'Franken hopes may turn on absentee issue', which is decidedly more neutral.

I got my last "tweet" from Obama on the morning of the 5th: "We just made history. All of this happened because you gave your time, talent and passion. All of this happened because of you. Thanks". My.BarackObama.com now offers it services as a blank and vague portal for "local organising"; activity has slowed markedly on the site. Electoral victory put an end to the campaigning purpose of such tools, which in the previous months had been meticulous in their direction. Once the means achieve their desired end, they end themselves.

Yet the President-elect rolled out a new website, Change.gov, aimed at making the process of transition more transparent. A noble intention, of course, but when that intention is bolstered by such saccharine and cringe-worthy blog posts as this, it seems risible at best, propagandist at worst. We don't need the organ of the President-elect to tell us that "Words like 'brilliant,' 'sharp,' 'energetic,' and 'visionary' are coming from across the political spectrum in praise for President-elect Barack Obama's choices to lead his economic team." As a friend pointed out, much of the site reads like official Chinese Communist Party newspapers.

It is disappointing that the energy and dynamism of the previous months seems lost on Change.gov. In the hands of Obama's campaign, the internet was perfectly harnessed to build momentum and galvanise support. His new venture on the internet is on the path to becoming a reminder of the stultifying effect of power.