O discurso de Obama na Escola Superior de Economia de Moscovo

Mais um grande discurso de Obama, agora em Moscovo

Na Escola Superior de Economia, em Moscovo, o Presidente dos EUA falou na necessidade de uma «Rússia forte, mas pacífica».

«MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- A strong Russia is good for the United States, President Obama said Tuesday in a speech in Moscow, which he is visiting in an effort to "reset" the countries' relations.

President Obama and his wife, Michelle Obama, greet graduates at the New Economic School on Tuesday.

1 of 3 Addressing an audience including former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and graduates at a Moscow business school, Obama said Washington wants to work in partnership with a "strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia."

"This belief is rooted in our respect for the Russian people, and a shared history between our nations that goes beyond competition," he said.

On Monday, Obama met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and concluded a series of agreements -- including one on nuclear arms reduction -- as part of an effort to strengthen ties between the former Cold War rivals. Watch Obama's full opening statement in Russia »

The two-day summit in Moscow was needed to help "reset" a relationship that, according to Obama, "has suffered from a sense of drift" in recent years.

The president reiterated that in his speech Tuesday.

"This must be more than a fresh start between the Kremlin and the White House, though that is important. ... It must be a sustained effort among the American and Russian people to identify mutual interests, and to expand dialogue and cooperation that can pave the way to progress."

Obama was due to meet with Medvedev again Tuesday, and with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, before heading to Italy for the Group of Eight summit. The G-8 agenda is packed with issues including Iran, the global financial crisis, climate change and world poverty.

Medvedev and Obama on Monday signed a deal on parameters for negotiations to replace the Start treaty, with the goal of reducing nuclear weapons. The Start treaty expires December 5. Watch Obama discuss arms control pact »

Under Monday's agreement, Russia and the United States will reduce their strategic warheads to a range of 1,500 to 1,675, and their strategic delivery vehicles to a range of 500 to 1,100. The new numbers would be a reduction from the expiring Start treaty which allowed 2,200 warheads and 1,600 launch vehicles.

After his speech, Obama sat down with CNN's senior White House correspondent Ed Henry for a brief interview.

Obama spoke about a range of issues including relations with Iran and Michael Jackson's legacy.

On Iran, Obama reiterated statements he had made recently about the post-election protests in the country.

"Events in recent weeks have disturbed the world. They are not only heartbreaking, but raise questions over where leaders want to take the country," Obama said. "We have to wait and see how the dust settles. But we have to speak out and say that the Iranian people have to be treated with justice."


The president also spoke about the legacy of Michael Jackson, on the day of the pop star's public memorial program.

"No doubt he was one of the greatest entertainers of our or any generation. Like Elvis, Sinatra, the Beatles, he became a core part of our culture," Obama said. "His extraordinary talent and music was mixed with a big dose of tragedy in private life. It is important for us to affirm the best of him."»

in CNNpolitics.com

Sarah Palin: «Sou uma lutadora, não sou uma desistente»

Obama visita a Rússia pela primeira vez

O Presidente dos EUA vai encontrar-se com o seu homólogo Medvedev e, antes de partir para Moscovo, teve frase curiosa, à AP: «Putin ainda vê as coisas numa lógica de guerra fria. Com Medvedev, acredito que poderemos olhar para o futuro».

Quem disse que Barack Obama não tem coragem de fazer rupturas?

Um artigo de Steven Hurst, na Associated Press:

«Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev end a seven-year hiatus in U.S.-Russian summitry on Monday, with both men declaring their determination to further cut nuclear arsenals and repair a badly damaged relationship.

Both sides appear to want to use progress on arms control as a pathway into possible agreement on other, far trickier issues — like Iran and the tiny country of Georgia, a former Soviet republic. Those difficulties and many others have soured a promising linkage in the first years after the Cold War and pushed ties between Moscow and Washington to depths not seen in more than two decades.

Obama arrives here Monday afternoon, the first stop on a weeklong trip that will also take him to Italy and Ghana.

"It's not, in our view, a zero-sum game, that if it's two points for Russia it's negative two for us, but there are ways that we can cooperate to advance our interests and, at the same time, do things with the Russians that are good for them, as well," Obama's top assistant on Russia, Michael McFaul, said in a pre-summit briefing.

He seemed to be of one mind with the Russian leader, Medvedev.

"Russia and America need new, common, mutually beneficial projects in business, science and culture," the Russian president said in his weekly Internet address. "I hope that this sincere desire to open a new chapter in Russian-American cooperation will be brought into fruition."

Two things appear certain to be on the agenda:

-- The Russians have said they will agree to allow the United States to use their territory and air space to move munitions and arms to U.S. and NATO forces fighting Taliban Islamic extremists in Afghanistan. The Kremlin announced the deal three-days before the summit as a significant sweetener for Obama.

-- A directive by both presidents for negotiators to work on a nuclear agreement that would further reduce warheads and replace the 1991 START I accord that expires Dec. 5. Both sides are agreed in principle to cut warheads from more than 2,000 each to as low as 1,500 apiece.

Those deals are likely to be announced at an Obama-Medvedev news conference.»

John McCain: a versão republicana da mensagem do 4 de Julho

Um pouco mais de luz sobre a demissão-surpresa de Sarah Palin

«Sarah Palin, the Republican Alaska governor who captivated the nation with a combative brand of folksy politics, announced her resignation yesterday in characteristic fashion: She stood on her back lawn in Wasilla, speaking into a single microphone, accompanied by friends and neighbors in baseball hats and polo shirts.

The announcement that she will step down by the end of July stunned the political establishment, fueling speculation about why she is leaving office with 18 months left in her first term and whether her future will include a run for the presidency.

Palin offered few clues about her ambitions but said she arrived at her decision in part to protect her family, which has faced withering criticism and occasional mockery, and to escape ethics probes that have drained her family's finances and hampered her ability to govern. She said leaving office is in the best interest of the state and will allow her to more effectively advocate for issues of importance to her, including energy independence and national security.

"I love my job and I love Alaska, and it hurts to make this choice, but I'm doing what's best for them," Palin said, the sun glinting off a seaplane on Lake Lucille behind her.

Palin, 45, said that, after deciding not to run for reelection as governor, she realized she did not want to finish out her term merely for the sake of doing so.

"As I thought about this announcement that I would not seek reelection, I thought about how much fun other governors have as lame ducks: They maybe travel around their state, travel to other states, maybe take their overseas international trade missions," she said.


"I'm not going to put Alaskans through that," she continued. "I promised efficiencies and effectiveness. That's not how I'm wired. I'm not wired to operate under the same old politics as usual."

She stood at a makeshift lectern surrounded by the family that accompanied her along one of the more improbable arcs in modern American politics: from obscure small-town mayor to Sen. John McCain's running mate; from mother of five to tabloid sensation; and from making a much-noticed speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention to delivering the circuitous resignation speech yesterday at her waterfront home.

Eleven minutes into an 18-minute talk that covered the history of Alaska and her dedication to the state, Palin said she will relinquish the governorship to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell (R).

"All I can ask is that you trust me with this decision and know that it is no more politics as usual," she said.

Palin, who was elected governor in 2006 and has widely been seen as a leading 2012 presidential contender, said she had tired of "superficial, wasteful political blood sport." She said the decision has been "in the works for quite a while."

Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapleton rejected the notion that the governor was better positioning herself for a national bid. "She is not focused on 2012. She is focused on making a difference on the topics she finds so dear: energy independence [and] national security," Stapleton said.»

in Washington Post

Mensagem semanal: neste 4 de Julho, Obama fala sobre o Dia da Independência

Iraque: Joe Biden está no terreno a liderar o início da retirada

O vice-presidente foi nomeado por Obama como supervisor do longo processo de retirada, que durará até Agosto do próximo ano. E fala sobre os soldados que ainda lá estão:

O anúncio da demissão de Sarah Palin

De facto, um estilo muito peculiar..

Sarah Palin demite-se de governadora do Alasca

«Gov. Sarah Palin announced today that she will resign in a few weeks. Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell will take over at the Governor's Picnic in Fairbanks on July 26.

"People who know me know that besides faith and family, nothing's more important to me than our beloved Alaska," Palin said.

"Serving her people is the greatest honor I could imagine."

Palin made the announcement at a news conference at her home in Wasilla.

"I am determined to take the right path for Alaska even though it is not the easiest path," Palin said.

"Once I decided not to run for re-election, I also felt that to embrace the conventional 'Lame Duck' status in this particular climate would just be another dose of 'politics as usual,' something I campaigned against and will always oppose. It is my duty to always protect our great state. With that in mind, my family and I determined that it is best to make a difference this summer, and I am willing to change things, so that this administration, with its positive agenda, its accomplishments and its successful road to an incredible future, can continue without interruption and with great administrative and legislative success."

As for her future, Palin said: "I look forward to helping others -- to fight for our state and our country, and campaign for those who believe in smaller government, free enterprise, strong national security, support for our troops and energy independence."

During her press conference, Palin ran off a list of accomplishments during her two-and-a-half years as governor, from helping move forward a North Slope natural gas pipeline to rewriting oil taxes to revising state ethics laws.

Her list touched on a range of conservative, national and international themes including state's rights, smaller government and global warming. She also briefly discussed the barrage of ethics complaints she has faced in the past year or so, noting that she and her husband, Todd, have run up a debt of more than $500,000 to address the complaints.

After Parnell is sworn in as governor, Craig Campbell, head of the state Department of Military Affairs and National Guard, will become lieutenant governor.»

in AnchorageDailyNews.com

Corrida ao Senado em perspectiva?

Sarah Palin, 44 anos, anunciou a sua resignação ao cargo de governadora do Alasca.

A candidata a «vice» no ticket republicano de John McCain ocupava o cargo desde 2006 e passará a pasta a Sean Parnell, seu actual adjunto.

As razões ainda não foram reveladas, mas é muito provável que Palin esteja a preparar a corrida ao Senado dos EUA, em 2010, sendo que, se for eleita, reforçará, ainda mais, as pretensões de vir a concorrer à nomeação presidencial republicana em 2012.

Palin, talvez a personagem mais divisiva da alta política americana neste momento, pretende ser uma nova cara da ala conservadora do Partido Republicano.

Iraque: a retirada está em marcha

Iraque: tropas americanas começam a retirar, como prometera Obama

O deadline apontado pelo Presidente para que o Exército Americano retire por completo do Iraque é 31 de Agosto de 2010. Nos próximos 14 meses, é isso que acontecerá.

Editorial do New York Times:

«After six bloody, ruinously costly years, there is an end in sight to the American occupation of Iraq. Under an agreement with the Baghdad government, American combat troops are to leave Iraq’s cities by Tuesday. President Obama has pledged that by Aug. 31, 2010 — 14 months from now — all combat troops will be out of Iraq and by the end of 2011 all American troops will be gone.

For a badly overstretched American military it will certainly be time to go. Repeated deployments have taken a huge toll on soldiers and their families. The Iraq war — an unnecessary war — has diverted critically needed resources away from Afghanistan, the real front in the war on terrorism. Many Iraqis are eager to see the Americans gone. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has declared June 30 to be a day of “feast and festivals.”

But there is an enormous amount to do — and not a lot of time — to help Iraqis prepare for the withdrawal and to reduce the chances the country will unravel as American troops leave.

We once hoped that a clear timetable for an American withdrawal would finally persuade Iraq’s leaders to make the political compromises that are the only way to hold their country together without an indefinite occupation. That has not happened. The Parliament has still not passed a law to divide Iraq’s oil resources equitably.

Indeed there are worrying signs that Iraqi politicians are doing the opposite — looking for ways to shore up their communal interests in case the civil war reignites. Many of Iraq’s neighbors are making the same calculations. Violence is down, but extremists are still trying to spark a new cycle of attacks and retaliation. In June, more than 300 Iraqis and 10 Americans were killed.

Mr. Obama was right to commit to a carefully paced and responsible withdrawal, and he was right to say that the United States cannot solve all of Iraq’s problems before it leaves. But we are concerned that Iraq may not be getting all the attention it needs in Washington.

The top American military commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, is a strong leader, and Christopher Hill, the new American ambassador in Baghdad, is a talented diplomat. Still, Mr. Obama has a high-level adviser for Afghanistan and Pakistan, for Middle East peace negotiations, and for Iran, but there is no marquee name for Iraq to ensure that the president and the bureaucracy are fully engaged.

We understand that for political reasons, in both countries, the United States cannot be seen to micro-manage events. But there are still many problems that need sustained and high-level American attention.

Iraqi Readiness Until a few weeks ago, American commanders were hoping that Iraq’s government would invite them to keep combat troops in certain Baghdad neighborhoods and in the northern city of Mosul, where sectarian tensions are high and Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is still active. It didn’t, and Washington decided not to insist, given Iraqis’ sensitivities.

Most analysts give the American military training program good marks. They differ on whether Iraq’s army — still plagued by corruption, discipline problems, equipment shortages and security breaches — is ready to keep the peace in the cities. The police force and the interior ministry need even more work.

A January report to Congress by the Pentagon said that as of last fall, 17 of the Iraq Army’s 174 combat battalions were capable of conducting counterinsurgency operations without American support. All of Iraq’s army is dependent on the American military for intelligence, logistics and air support.

For now American troops — there are 130,000 in Iraq — are not going far. Baghdad’s sprawling Camp Victory has been designated as outside of the city limits, although it is just a 10-minute helicopter ride from the Green Zone.

Before American troops can really go, Iraq’s Army will need to develop enough of those missing capacities to be able to fight on its own. The United States is also going to have to help Iraq build an air force and a navy so it can defend its own borders — an effort that will stretch far beyond the 2011 withdrawal deadline

Iraq is in a dangerous neighborhood, but it also has its own history of menacing its neighbors. Washington is going to have to decide how much firepower it is willing to sell Iraq, knowing that Baghdad can buy elsewhere.

We are particularly concerned about the Iraqi government’s cavalier — or worse — treatment of the Awakening Councils. Those are the former Sunni insurgents who decided to switch sides, at Washington’s urging. Members have complained about delays in being paid. The government has barely made a down payment on its commitment to find jobs for the group’s 94,000 members in the security services, ministries or private sector.

Baghdad blames dropping oil prices and a budget squeeze for the employment problems. But keeping these fighters, and their relatives and neighbors, on the government’s side should be a top priority. Mr. Maliki has further alienated many Sunnis by ordering the arrest of several council leaders and a few high-profile Sunni politicians. Iraqi officials say the arrests are justified. United States officials need to impress on the prime minister the dangers he is courting.

Kurdish Ambition Speaking privately, many American officials say they are even more worried about rising tensions between Arabs and Kurds in northern Iraq.

The disputes are over boundaries, oil and the power of Iraq’s central government. The autonomous Kurdish regional government insists that it has a historical claim to towns and villages in three provinces just over the present regional border that were forcibly purged of Kurds and repopulated with Arabs by Saddam Hussein. Since 2003 — often with Washington’s blessing — the Kurdish government has deployed its militia, the pesh merga, to some of these areas and spent millions of dollars on services in an attempt to assert its control.

Fearing displacement or Kurdish domination, Sunni Arabs have turned to hard-line politicians or extremists, including Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, to defend their interests. American troops have had to defuse confrontations between government forces and the pesh merga. Tensions are particularly high in Nineveh Province and its capital, Mosul. The Sunnis won the majority on the provincial council in January’s election and immediately stripped the Kurdish bloc, which came in second, of all positions and patronage.

The most dangerous dispute, however, is over control of the oil-rich, multi-ethnic city of Kirkuk and the surrounding province. In April, the United Nations issued a report with several options for Kirkuk, including making it an autonomous region jointly run by Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens. Washington must press Baghdad and the Kurds to appoint responsible negotiators and urge them not to stake out extreme positions. If an agreement for Kirkuk cannot be reached, all three governments may have to consider outside administration, possibly United Nations-led, for some period.

Refugees One of the war’s great tragedies has been the forced flight of an estimated four million Iraqis — more than one out of 10 — from their homes. A small number, perhaps 100,000, have begun trickling back; a still smaller number have been permanently resettled abroad.

Millions live under extremely difficult conditions. Many are from the former Sunni elite. Others are Shiites whose mixed-population neighborhoods became Sunni during the upheavals of 2006-7. They all need the chance to return safely. Iraq needs their talents. Large numbers of refugees also put dangerous economic and political strains on Iraq’s neighbors.

Working out the politics and logistics of whether refugees return to their old homes (now occupied by others) or get new ones will require international aid and advice and enlightened leadership. While waiting for that to happen, millions of people need housing, food and education assistance. Syria and Jordan, which host the largest numbers of refugees, need continued international and American help. The United States needs to take in many more Iraqis, especially those who risked their lives to work with the Americans.

Governing More than anything, Iraq needs competent, inclusive government. To win public loyalties, the government must do a much better job of providing basic services to all Iraqis. With improved security, there has been an encouraging leap in electricity production, although there are still too many interruptions and shortfalls. Clean water is in desperately short supply.

Iraq’s politicians also need to show a far greater willingness to address and resolve long-deferred political problems. In February, on the same day he outlined his withdrawal plans, Mr. Obama said “ a lot of the ultimate outcome” in Iraq would depend on how difficult issues, including the oil law, are resolved. American officials now say that is unlikely to happen any time soon and they will be satisfied if legislators manage to pass a new election law in time for January’s national elections.

There are growing concerns that Prime Minister Maliki may be accumulating too much power, undercutting rivals and building a cadre of military and intelligence officers loyal only to him. Washington must make clear that it will not support any power grab and find ways to encourage other political leaders, while dissuading them from making their own power grabs.

Neighbors A stable Iraq is in the clear interest of all of its neighbors. Unfortunately few have seen it that way. Iran and Syria have meddled constantly — driving up the violence and backing off only when it looked as if the war could spin out of control and over Iraq’s borders or the Americans might retaliate. Tehran would still like to control Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government.

Meanwhile, many of America’s closest regional allies have withheld their support. Egypt’s Sunni-led government has only recently named an ambassador to Baghdad. Saudi Arabia’s Sunni royal family still has not.

Washington must do a lot more to persuade these allies that their interests would be far better served by building strong diplomatic and economic ties with Iraq. That is the best way to counterbalance Tehran. And with closer ties come more influence and more opportunity to help defend the interests of Iraq’s Sunni minority.

Relations with Tehran are particularly difficult right now, but at some point the Obama administration will have to renew its offer for dialogue. Iraq’s stability will have to be part of those discussions. We assume those discussions are already under way with Damascus.

The United States cannot fix Iraq. That is up to the Iraqis. But in the time left, this country has a responsibility and a strong strategic interest to do its best to help Iraq emerge from this disaster as a functioning, sovereign and reasonably democratic state.»

Desemprego nos EUA: a pior taxa desde 1983

O desemprego nos EUA atingiu os 9.5% -- o dobro dos anos Clinton e só comparável, em tempos recentes, ao início da década de 80.

Neil Irwin, no Washington Post, explica:

«Mounting job losses rattled hopes yesterday that the economy is on track to grow later this year, showing that prospects for American workers are terrible -- and still getting worse.

Employers reduced their payrolls by 467,000 jobs in June, the Labor Department said, far more than forecasters had expected. The unemployment rate rose to 9.5 percent, from 9.4 percent. And last week, another 614,000 people applied for unemployment insurance benefits.

The number of job losses had decreased every month since January before spiking again in June, and economists think it is highly likely that the jobless rate will hit double-digits later this year. A broader measure of unemployment, which includes people working part time who want full-time work and those who have given up looking for a job, has already risen to 16.5 percent. The nation now has the same number of jobs it did in 2000, meaning that nine years of employment gains have disappeared.

The stock market fell steeply on the news yesterday, with the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index off 2.9 percent. European stock markets fell sharply as well, after the European Central Bank left its target interest rate unchanged and its president indicated that he expects a recovery to begin in the middle of next year. Investors have wanted the bank to fight the recession more aggressively, which it seems disinclined to do.

Until yesterday, economic forecasters and government officials had become increasingly enthusiastic about signs that the U.S. economy is stabilizing. Many had begun to think as the year progressed, layoffs would taper off, companies would crank up their assembly lines and the troubled U.S. economy would get back on a path toward growth.

While that's still a possibility -- economic indicators send mixed signals during turning points -- yesterday's data, combined with other recent information, undermine the idea that a recovery is imminent.

"This sprayed some Round-Up on the green shoots," said David Shulman, a senior economist at the UCLA Anderson Forecast, using a metaphor for signs of economic improvement that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke popularized in the spring.

"The economy is in the process of bottoming, but that's different from saying it's recovering," Shulman said.

Forecasts for expansion in the second half of the year depend on consumers increasing their spending -- an assumption that looks increasingly questionable. Even as consumers got larger paychecks due to the government's stimulus program in May, they saved that money rather than spent it. Wages were flat in June, according to yesterday's report. Finally, job losses are continuing at a furious pace, and people without jobs tend not to spend much money.

Consumers and businesses alike are more confident than they were in the winter, according to various surveys, and the stock market is up sharply since March. But improved confidence isn't enough to kick-start an economy undergoing painful adjustments that are leading to continued layoffs. Indeed, economists said the best hope for improvement is for economic stimulus spending to kick in more vigorously.

"We're stuck in a very disappointing scenario, with the private-sector economy looking like it's going to be weaker longer than most anyone expected," said John Silvia, chief economist of Wachovia Corp. "In the second half of the year, the federal government is really going to carry the water for the U.S. economy."

Republicans in Congress assailed the weak numbers as evidence that the Obama administration's $800 billion economic stimulus package isn't working. "Americans were promised the 'stimulus' would keep the unemployment rate from going above eight percent," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. "Where are the jobs?"

Independent economists generally think that it is too early to judge the effectiveness of the stimulus plan, given that the spending package is only starting to ripple through the broader economy.

Speaking in the Rose Garden yesterday, President Obama predicted that recovery will take a long time. "As I've said from the moment that I walked into the door of this White House, it took years for us to get into this mess, and it will take us more than a few months to turn it around," Obama said.

The June job losses were broad based, with the steepest cuts among manufacturers, which shed 136,000 positions; the auto industry and its suppliers slashed 26,500 jobs. But white-collar jobs were shed in large numbers as well, with the professional and business services sector cutting 118,000 positions, information cutting 21,000 and financial activities losing 27,000.

Even the federal government shed jobs, 49,000 of them, as the Census Bureau eliminated temporary positions. Education and health-care sectors were the only major drivers of growth, creating 34,000 positions.

There were positive signs in the report, though less apparent than the overall numbers. The rise in the unemployment rate was the smallest in a year, noted Bernard Baumohl of the Economic Outlook Group. And manufacturing overtime hours were stable, which can be an early sign of improvement. In a separate report yesterday, the Commerce Department said factory orders rose 1.2 percent in May, which was better than expected.

"The picture that is emerging with increasing clarity is of an economy that has undergone a wrenching recession the last 18 months but is now gradually transitioning into recovery," Baumohl said.»

Aumento do desemprego nos EUA: «Notícias preocupantes», admite Obama

O Presidente comentou o aumento de 467 mil desempregados só no último mês na América, recordando: «Demorou anos a cairmos nesta trapalhada; demorará mais do que apenas alguns meses para sairmos dela»

Agora sim, não há o perigo de 'filibuster': Al Franken confirmado como senador pelo Minnesota

O democrata venceu uma longa batalha pela eleição, que se estendeu ao Supremo Tribunal do Minnesota. Ao ser confirmado, aumentou para 60 o leque de democratas no senado, garantindo ao Presidente Obama a maioria sem perigo de bloqueios republicanos...

O resumo do dia, em 37 segundos

Mensagem semanal: Obama insiste numa «economia ecológica»

Reforma da Saúde: poderão os democratas vencê-la?

É um dos maiores desafios internos do primeiro mandato de Obama. Será possível que consiga passar o seu projecto para a Saúde? Um artigo de Eleanor Clift, na Newsweek:

«It's clear to many Democrats that they'll need Republican support to enact President Obama's health-care reform. With Senators Kennedy and Byrd sidelined by illness, Al Franken not yet seated, and two more Democrats on record publicly opposing the public option that the president supports, the majority currently has about 55 votes—short of the magic 60 needed to avoid a bill-killing filibuster, according to Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

At a Capitol Hill breakfast on Wednesday, Conrad told an overflow crowd of health-care lobbyists and policy wonks that reform isn't optional. Despite the eyepopping cost, it must be done, he said, adding that the most expensive option is to do nothing.

Earnest and bespectacled, Conrad has the air of an accountant, appropriate for someone who spends his time staring at numbers that could take the country into the abyss. He spent the previous evening at a White House meeting with chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, among others. "As a country we are headed off the cliff," he told the breakfast audience, backing up his prediction with charts about the dire state of America's health-care system.

The way the battle lines are shaping up, Republicans and some Democrats are prepared to oppose any bill that has a public option, meaning a government-run, Medicare-like program that would be nonprofit and offer a basic benefit plan. Critics say it's a socialist takeover that would put a government bureaucrat between patient and doctor. But polls show that a surprisingly large majority of Americans want a public option, and that they're less fearful of government bureaucrats than the insurance companies they now have to contend with. How hard Obama will fight for a public option is a mystery. He gives lip service to it, but liberals who say reform will be a sham without it are worried he sees it more as a bargaining chip than the core of reform.

That's where Conrad comes in. So many stakeholders crowded in to hear him this week because of his idea for health insurance co-ops that would be nonprofit and run by members. That could get around the objections to a government-sponsored option. Saying his proposal wasn't "an epiphany," Conrad said co-ops are a way of life in rural America where he's from, and in floating the idea, he found it was the only plan that key Republicans said they could accept. Here's the rub: Democrats need only 51 votes for passage if health insurance is combined in a legislative maneuver with the budget, which can't be filibustered. Do Democrats want to get 80 percent of what they want with 51 votes? Or will they settle for 51 percent of what they want in order to get 80 votes?

For Democrats who voted for change, that's a no-brainer. But Conrad cautions that the legislative maneuver known as "recision" isn't a free ride, that any reform measure would have to reduce the deficit by at least $1 billion over six years, and anything that doesn't have a positive budgetary impact could be stricken from the bill. "We'd be left with Swiss cheese," he warns.

After playing nice for months, insurance companies, health-care providers, and pharmaceuticals are suiting up for battle. Dr. Steven Pribut, a Washington podiatrist, was on the elliptical at the gym when he heard former Republican speaker Newt Gingrich on one of the cable networks denounce a public option in his typically apocalyptic fashion. Nobody challenged him, so Pribut says he poked around on the Internet to learn more about Gingrich's expertise on the topic. He discovered that Gingrich was the founder of a health-reform organization that has as its members more than 20 large corporations, including GlaxoSmithKline and UnitedHealthcare. Pribut was moved to post an item on ++his blog++ [[http://www.drpribut.com/blog/]] suggesting that those making pronouncements should disclose their conflicts. (In the spirit of disclosure, I should say here that I get orthotics from Dr. Pribut.)

Pribut supports a public option as a way to set a minimal standard and put pressure on the insurance industry to conform to that standard without deception. Right now, competition too often means looking for ways to exclude people. Pribut calls insurers "holding companies—they hold patients' money and withhold payments they should be making." But he's not calling for their elimination; he thinks there's much they can do to make their services more attractive and add value for many people.

At the White House, policymakers envision a public option that would coexist with private insurers in the same way that UPS and FedEx compete with the post office, or the way that 401(k)s supplement Social Security. There would still be a vibrant private marketplace. White House support for a public option is strong. It's the political will that's uncertain.»

Histórias da Casa Branca - nova rubrica no site de A BOLA

A partir de hoje, pode ler no site de A BOLA, que tem desde 23 de Junho novas funcionalidades, em www.abola.pt, secção Outros Mundos (banner de cima, à esquerda), a rubrica «Histórias da Casa Branca».

Para arrancar, escrevi um texto sobre o primeiro semestre de Obama, intitulado «Mudança em aquecimento».

Aqui vai o link: http://www.abola.pt/mundos/ver.aspx?id=168600