A Democratic party commission has recommended rule changes that would delay the start of the caucuses and primaries - avoiding the kind of drawn-out primary battle seen in 2008 - and check the power of the superdelegates.

Washington

Remember those interminable Democratic primaries of 2008, with Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton duking it out well into spring?

The Democrats want to avoid a rerun, and a party commission has recommended fixes to the system: Change the voting rules for "superdelegates" and delay the start of the caucuses and primaries until Feb. 1 at the earliest.

In 2008, the Democrats' first nominating event, the Iowa caucuses, was held on Jan. 3, and the first primary, New Hampshire, was just five days later, on Jan. 8. The candidates' final push for those crucial first contests overlapped with Christmas and New Year - not much fun for anybody.

As for the superdelegates, party higher-ups who could back whomever they wanted for the nomination, the commission proposed that they be required to vote for whomever their state has backed in its primary or caucus.

Party chair Tim Kaine, governor of Virginia, applauded the commission's recommendations as "consistent with the goals of the Democratic Party and President Obama."

"Openness, fairness, and accessibility are central to our ideals as Democrats, and the commission's recommendations to reform the delegate selection process will ensure that voters' voices and preferences are paramount to our process of nominating a presidential candidate," Governor Kaine said in a statement Wednesday evening.

Next, the commission recommendations go to the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee. But whether the proposals sail through is an open question.

"You never know what's going to happen, in either party, because at every stage there are people with different views," says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

He predicts the effort to delay the start of the process will succeed, but isn't sure about reining in superdelegates, who represent 20 percent of the total delegate count. Many party activists think that proportion is too high, so perhaps a compromise will be forged, Mr. Sabato suggests.

Another element that may give party leaders pause is the fact that, despite the length of the contest, the Democrats did win the presidency in the end. Why mess with success? In fact, many people argue that the drawn-out contest between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton made Obama a better candidate, ultimately, and by forcing him to set up an electoral apparatus in all 50 states during the primaries, he was in excellent shape for the general.

Chances are the Democrats were going to win the 2008 election anyway, no matter how messy their nomination battle, given the state of the economy and unpopularity of the Republicans. So in the future, when the playing field isn't so tilted, the Democrats want to make sure they give their nominee every best chance at ultimate victory - and that means a primary season that doesn't drag on to the bitter end.

By Linda Feldman, The Christian Science Monitor, December 31, 2009

Hillary Rodham Clinton edged out Sarah Palin as most admired woman in this year's Gallup poll. But Palin won handily among Republicans, and she tied Clinton among Independents.

Washington

They're both steely, gutsy women, admired by some and loathed by others. And when the Gallup poll asked Americans to name, without prompting, which woman they admire most, Hillary Rodham Clinton beat Sarah Palin - barely.

Mrs. Clinton won "most admired woman" for the 14th time since 1993, the year she became first lady, and has continued to win most of the time as a New York senator and now Secretary of State. She took the prize with 16 percent. Former Alaska Governor Palin, who debuted on the Top 10 list last year at No. 2, came in second again with 15 percent, four points higher than last year. Clinton lost four points off her 2008 total of 20 percent.

President Obama won "most admired man" going away, with 30 percent, in results released by Gallup on Wednesday. Former President George W. Bush came in a distant second, with 4 percent. Last year, Mr. Obama beat Mr. Bush 32 percent to 5 percent.

On both lists, partisan leanings mattered. Obama won among Democrats and independents, but Bush beat him among Republicans. The women's list is just as polarized: Clinton won among Democrats with 28 percent, followed by Michelle Obama (14 percent), Oprah Winfrey (13), Maya Angelou (2), and Sonia Sotomayor (2).

Among independents, Palin and Clinton tied with 14 percent, followed by Ms. Winfrey (8), Mrs. Obama (3), and Queen Elizabeth II (3). Among Republicans, Palin rules with 34 percent, followed by Clinton (6), Winfrey (4), Condeleezza Rice (3), and Obama (2).

But even if next year could be crucial in the Palin vs. Clinton duel, the former Republican vice presidential nominee has a long way to go to catch up to Clinton for all-time mentions. Clinton has appeared on the Top 10 list 18 times, while Palin, still relatively new on the national stage, has appeared twice. The all-time winner for Top 10 appearances among women is Queen Elizabeth II, at 42. The overall winner, men and women, is the Rev. Billy Graham, who has appeared 53 times. This year, he came in sixth at 2 percent.

Gallup first polled on "most admired living person" in 1946 (when Gen. Douglas MacArthur won). In 1948, Gallup began polling separately for most admired man and most admired woman.

By Linda Feldman, The Christian Science Monitor, December 30, 2009

A group of Democratic leaders said Wednesday that it has recommended revamping the party's presidential primary calendar and eliminating the much-talked-about superdelegates from the presidential nomination process.

The Democratic Change Commission - established in the wake of the grueling 2008 nomination battle between President Obama and his now secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton - has proposed that the elected officials and party higher-ups known as superdelegates cast their votes based on state primary or caucus results. In recent battles for the Democratic nomination, superdelegates, also called unpledged delegates, were not obligated to follow the primary or caucus result in their state.

"Openness, fairness, and accessibility are central to our ideals as Democrats, and the commission's recommendations to reform the delegate selection process will ensure that voters' voices and preferences are paramount to our process of nominating a Presidential candidate," Gov. Timothy M. Kaine of Virginia, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement.

The commission, a group of 36 headed by Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, also recommended that voting not begin until at least Feb. 1 in future presidential election years. In 2008, Iowa held its caucuses on Jan. 3, while the New Hampshire primary was held on Jan. 8.

The commission's recommendations now head to the D.N.C.'s Rules and Bylaws Committee. (Its report was due to make it to the rules committee no later than Jan. 1)

By Bernie Becker, The New York Times, December 30, 2009

Eighteen months removed from a protracted presidential primary fight, a group of Democrats gathered by President Obama has recommended that the party effectively eliminate the influence of so-called superdelegates by redefining their voting power.

The Democratic Change Commission, which was convened last August to examine the nominating process, is recommending that superdelegates -- also known as unpledged delegates -- be required to vote along with the electoral majority of their state.

"We need to show deference to what the party members in our state have done," said Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, one of the co-chairmen of the commission.

The elimination of free-agent superdelegates comes after the party split during the 2008 primary over how they should vote. Then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) argued to unpledged delegates -- members of the Democratic National Committee, House members and senators, and former party leaders -- that it was not their responsibility to vote as their state had voted, but rather to back the candidate they thought would be the best person to represent the party.

Obama allies insisted this was an attempt to subvert the will of the people. Clinton loyalists shot back that the very role of superdelegates was to resolve a close race in which the will of the people was very closely divided.

Superdelegates were created in the early 1980s to give the establishment of the Democratic Party more say in choosing a presidential nominee, but until the 2008 contest, such delegates had never been a serious factor.

The Change Commission included several Obama loyalists, including Jeff Berman, who spearheaded the delegate operation for the campaign, and David Plouffe, who managed the then-Illinois senator's candidacy.

North Carolina state Sen. Dan Blue, a member of the commission, offered a dissenting voice in a conference call announcing the proposed changes. "There is no escape when something unforeseen occurs," Blue said of the potential consequences of eliminating unpledged delegates.

The commission's recommendations will now go before the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee.

By Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post, December 31, 2009

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most popular political leader in the nation's capital, according to a poll.

The survey taken by Harris Interactive shows that respondents gave Clinton a 48 percent positive rating as opposed to a 34 percent negative rating. The only other D.C. leader included in the poll who was ranked more positively than negatively is Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (28 percent to 21 percent).

Other leaders about which respondents were asked are Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

President Barack Obama was not a part of the list.

The poll surveyed 2,276 adults online between Dec. 7 and 14. It was taken before the Senate passed its version of healthcare reform.

A majority of those polled were not familiar with all the leaders besides Clinton, Biden and Pelosi. Forty-nine percent were familiar with Gates.

"These findings confirm that only a minority of the public is familiar with more than a small number of leaders in D.C.," Harris analysts wrote.

Among respondents who were familiar with the leaders, all except Clinton and Gates were ranked more negatively than positively.

"Most people with opinions continue to hold much more negative than positive feelings about Washington and most of our federal government leaders," its analysts said. "It is reasonable to expect this to continue until the economy is seen to be improving."

Harris points out that secretaries of state are often ranked highly.

"Whether that is because fewer people blame them for the country's economic and domestic problems or because they are often seen on a world stage, this survey does not tell us," its analysts wrote.

By Jordan Fabian, The Hill, December 29, 2009

The close finish by Clinton, named by 16% in the open-ended survey, and Palin, named by 15%, reflects the nation's partisan divide. Clinton was cited by nearly 3 in 10 Democrats but only 6% of Republicans, Palin by a third of Republicans but less than 1% of Democrats.

Obama dominates the field among men at 30%, though his support also shows a partisan split. He was named by more than half of Democrats but just 7% of Republicans.

While the president's job-approval rating has eroded during his first year in office, his standing as the most-admired man demonstrates "a very strong fan base," says Frank Newport, Gallup's editor in chief. The only past presidents to score higher were George W. Bush in 2001, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and John Kennedy in 1961.

First lady Michelle Obama ranks as the fourth most-admired woman, behind Oprah Winfrey.

The survey, taken by Gallup almost every year since 1948, shows the nation's broad judgment - and name recall - of politicians, popes and talk-show hosts. Presidents often lead the list, though as president-elect, Obama swamped Bush in 2008. This year, as last, Bush finished a distant second.

South African leader Nelson Mandela is third and conservative commentator Glenn Beck fourth. Evangelist Billy Graham, who has been on the top-10 list every year the survey has been taken since 1955, is sixth, just after Pope Benedict XVI.

Among women, Clinton continues an unprecedented 17-year run as the first or second most-admired woman. She first led the list in 1993 as first lady and has held the top spot for the past eight years as a New York senator and, now, the nation's top diplomat. She lost a bid for the Democratic nomination last year. Palin was the GOP vice presidential nominee.

Among men, former president Bill Clinton ties for 10th with Tiger Woods, the golfer engulfed in scandal. Elin Nordegren Woods, the athlete's wife, ties with German Chancellor Angela Merkel as the ninth most-admired woman.

The poll of 1,025 adults, taken Dec. 11-13, has a margin of error of +/-4 percentage points.

Over the years, the list has reflected women's changing roles. In 1948, the top-10 list included presidential daughter Margaret Truman and Princess Elizabeth of England as well as their mothers. Only one, former House member Clare Boothe Luce, had held elective office.

Now, it includes three current or former heads of state, two U.S. secretaries of State, a former governor and a writer, Maya Angelou.

By Susan Page, USA TODAY. December 30, 2009

While most of the federal government was shut down by a snowstorm last week, there was one person in particular whom Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called in through the cold: Japanese Ambassador Ichiro Fujisaki.

Once he arrived, Clinton told him in blunt, if diplomatic, terms that the United States remains adamant about moving a Marine nase from one part of Okinawa to another. That she felt compelled to call the unusual meeting highlights what some U.S. and Asian officials say is an alarming turn in relations with Japan since Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama led an opposition party to victory in August elections, ending an almost uninterrupted five decades of rule by the Liberal Democratic Party.

Since the election, a series of canceled dinners, diplomatic demarches, and publicly and privately broken promises from the new government has vexed senior White House officials, causing new concern about the U.S. friendship with its closest Asian ally. The worry extends beyond U.S. officials to other leaders in Southeast Asia, who are nervous about anything that lessens the U.S. security role in the region.

A pledge of assertiveness

At the center of concern are Hatoyama and his Democratic Party of Japan. Hatoyama had campaigned on promises he would be more assertive than previous Japanese leaders in dealings with the United States. He and his coalition partners opposed parts of a $26 billion agreement between the two nations to move the Marine base to a less-populated part of Okinawa and to transfer 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam.

The United States has seen the moves as central to a new Asian security policy to assure Japan's defense and to counter the rise of China. But Hatoyama and his allies saw the agreement as the United States dictating terms, and wanted the base removed.

Increasingly, U.S. officials view Hatoyama as a mercurial leader. In interviews, the officials said he has twice urged President Obama to trust him on the base issue and promised to resolve it before year's end -- once during a meeting between the two in Tokyo last month and another in a letter he wrote Obama after the White House had privately expressed concerns about the Japanese leader's intentions.

On Dec. 17, Hatoyama officially informed the Obama administration that he would not make a decision about the air base by the end of the year. He told Clinton the news in conversation at a dinner in Copenhagen at the conclusion of the United Nations climate-change summit.

After the dinner, Hatoyama told Japanese reporters that he had obtained Clinton's "full understanding" about Tokyo's need to delay. But that apparently was not the case. To make sure Japan understood that the U.S. position has not changed, Clinton called in the Japanese ambassador during last week's storm, apparently having some impact.

"This is a thing that rarely occurs, and I think we should take this [Clinton's action] into account," the ambassador told reporters as he left the State Department.

Hatoyama's moves have befuddled analysts in Washington. So far, most still think he and his party remain committed to the security relationship with the United States.

They explain his behavior as that of a politician who is not accustomed to power, who needs to pay attention to his coalition partners -- one of which, the Social Democratic Party of Japan, is against any U.S. military presence in the country. They note that Hatoyama has put money aside for the base-relocation plan in Japan's budget and that other senior members of his party have told their U.S. counterparts they will honor the deal.

Shifting policy?

But some U.S. and Asian officials increasingly worry that Hatoyama and others in his party may be considering a significant policy shift -- away from the United States and toward a more independent foreign policy.

They point to recent events as a possible warnings: Hatoyama's call for an East Asian Community with China and South Korea, excluding the United States; the unusually warm welcome given to Xi Junping, China's vice president, on his trip to Japan this month, which included an audience with the emperor; and the friendly reception given to Saeed Jalili, the Iranian national security council secretary, during his visit to Japan last week.

Michael Green, senior director for Asia at the National Security Council during the Bush administration, said the concern is that senior officials in Hatoyama's party with great influence, such as Ichiro Ozawa, want to push Japan toward closer ties with China and less reliance on the United States. That would complicate the U.S. position not just in Japan but in South Korea and elsewhere.

"I think there are questions about what kind of role Ozawa is playing," Green said, adding that Ozawa has not been to the United States in a decade, has yet to meet the U.S. ambassador to Japan, John Roos, and only grudgingly met Clinton during an earlier trip to Japan.

"The prevailing view is that this is basically a populist, inexperienced government sorting out its foreign policy," he said, "but now there is a 10 to 20 percent chance that this is something more problematic."

U.S. allies in Singapore, Australia, South Korea and the Philippines -- and Vietnamese officials as well -- have all viewed the tussle between Washington and Tokyo with alarm, according to several senior Asian diplomats.

The reason, one diplomat said, is that the U.S.-Japan relationship is not simply an alliance that obligates the United States to defend Japan, but the foundation of a broader U.S. security commitment to all of Asia. As China rises, none of the countries in Asia wants the U.S. position weakened by problems with Japan.

Another senior Asian diplomat, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid, noted that recent public opinion polls show Hatoyama's approval rating slipping below 50 percent, while Obama remains popular.

"Let's hope Hatoyama gets the message that this is not the way to handle the United States," he said.

By John Pomfret, The Washington Post, December 29, 2009

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's approval ratings are soaring. Sarah Palin is now a best-selling author. From this vantage point, it almost seems obvious: the United States is going to elect a woman president. Someday soon. Right?

It would be easy, in the gauzy view of history, to forget how ugly the contest became for the two women who broke new ground in the 2008 presidential campaign. Remember Clinton's sagging eyes, splashed across the Drudge Report, as Rush Limbaugh asked whether the country would want to watch a woman grow old in office? Remember the collective gasp as the Sarah Palin baby controversy -- over whether her fifth child was really hers, followed by the news that her teenage daughter was pregnant -- threatened to overshadow the Republican National Convention?

Most people, including the candidates, would rather forget those moments and focus instead on the breakthrough we did witness in 2008: an election decisively waged and won by Barack Obama, the country's first African American president.

That other milestone still beckons though. Women are running for some of the most critical seats this year, in Massachusetts, California, Texas, Florida and elsewhere. Despite "lipstick on a pig," "beat the bitch," and "iron my shirt," the 2008 election wasn't just a collection of lowlights for female candidates. It was a chance for the country and for women running for high office to learn what it will take for a woman to someday assume the Oval Office.

As a political reporter, I spent more than two and a half years covering the Clinton campaign, and traveled with Palin after her nomination. Here are some lessons, culled from what I witnessed on the campaign trail, for the next female candidate who's aiming to break what Clinton called "the highest, hardest glass ceiling of all."

Don't take women -- especially young women -- for granted.

Hillary Clinton's top strategist, Mark Penn, posited, according to internal campaign documents, that she would win 94 percent of the young female vote -- and that women overall would automatically flock to her side. By the end of the campaign, they did, but that was not the case in the first caucus state, Iowa, where Clinton came in third, behind Obama and former senator John Edwards, and her support among young women was in the teens.

Clinton erred strategically early on, ceding college campuses -- including college women -- to Obama. She also struggled with whether to portray her campaign as "historic," debating the idea of a speech on gender for months. Focused on proving her toughness, she missed out on key endorsements from women, including Oprah Winfrey and Caroline Kennedy. Only when women began to see her as under siege during the New Hampshire primary campaign did Clinton begin to pick up steam among the constituency that would rally to her side for the rest of the primaries. But it was too late.

Advisers to Sen. John McCain made a similar mistake with Palin, assuming that the millions of women who supported Clinton would cross over to vote for a McCain-Palin ticket in order to make history. That was not the case; among Democratic women who said they supported Clinton, 82 percent voted for Obama, according to exit polling, demonstrating once more that party is more powerful than gender.

Prepare your family.

It used to be that female politicians worried excessively about the three H's -- hair, hemlines and husbands. Thanks to an increasingly equitable political landscape, where men's fashion is also under scrutiny (remember Al Gore's earth tones? Dick Cheney's unfortunate parka?) only one area is still a bigger problem for women: husbands. And families overall.

That was certainly the case for Hillary Clinton, who from the outset must have known that having a former two-term president for a husband was bound to bring extra scrutiny.

Clinton was less prepared for commentary about her daughter: When she learned that a television anchor had quipped-on-air that Chelsea Clinton was being "pimped out" by the campaign, the candidate broke down in tears on a conference call, aides said.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri, endured withering attacks on her husband during her campaign for governor in 2004, which, had she won it, would have made her the first female governor of Missouri. Rivals accused her husband of running nursing homes where residents died because of neglect and were raped -- and charged McCaskill with ignoring the crimes. It was, according to political operatives, a classic example of a time-tested strategy: effectively undercutting a female candidate through a flaw in her family. Dianne Feinstein had been bypassed as Walter F. Mondale's running mate in 1984 because of questions about her husband's business. Geraldine Ferraro, whom Mondale did pick, was besieged with questions about her husband's finances, which became a focal point of the Republican case against the Democratic ticket.

Perhaps the most vivid example is Sarah Palin, whose daughter's pregnancy was never a source of overt political attack -- Obama declared it off-limits when the news broke -- but became a staple for comedians and commentators who raised questions about whether Palin could serve as vice president and raise so many children at once. The attention proved distracting, if not outright damaging. Yet even that wasn't new: Jane Swift, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts, had been discouraged from running for reelection after giving birth to twins while in office. To this day, her allies believe her role as a mother was too uncomfortable for the political class to bear.

Expect them to hate you because you're beautiful.

When Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, was running for office, her advisers discovered something surprising. Voters, especially female voters, said in focus groups that they thought she looked too gorgeous to be a governor.

Their solution? Her advisers shot photographs of Granholm in black-and-white, running them in her television ads instead of video. "Women could not envision a female governor with her beauty," one of her advisers said. "When we took it down a notch, people said, 'Okay, she can be governor.' "

The lesson? Voters can find a woman attractive, but they don't necessarily think that translates into gravitas. Another case: Sarah Palin, who learned that having delegates wear "hot VP" buttons at a national party convention does not translate automatically into votes in November.

Speak softly and carry a big statistic.

It's a well-known saying among strategists who have run female candidates for higher office: Speak softly and carry a big statistic.

Democrat Amy Klobuchar, who was elected to the Senate from Minnesota in 2006, said she followed not only this advice but also the example of Janet Napolitano, who was then the governor of Arizona. Napolitano, also a Democrat, had won election in Arizona, a Republican stronghold, in part by building up a strong resume as a prosecutor. Klobuchar decided to do the same. "Our backgrounds were similar, and our states were a lot tougher for Democrats," Klobuchar said of Napolitano. "What I noticed about her is, she would answer every question. She had specific proposals for things." Today, Klobuchar is the senior senator from her state, and Napolitano is the secretary of homeland security.

Beat breast cancer? You may beat your opponent.

When Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) disclosed in early 2009 that she had been diagnosed with -- and successfully treated for -- breast cancer during the previous year, she said she had hidden her illness from the public because she wanted to keep the focus on her work.

"I didn't want it to define me," Wasserman Schultz said at a tearful press conference.

But if history is any guide, the public may hold her in higher regard for having beaten back the disease. Napolitano, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, and Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, all experienced as much, in 2000, 2003 and 2004, respectively.

Once an awkward, taboo subject, breast cancer has become as familiar in politics as in the rest of society. And as female politicians have increasingly acknowledged the disease, voters seem to have responded positively, viewing it as a badge of courage. It is, some strategists believe, the equivalent of a man's war wound. "For women it confers courage, that you've faced up to something really difficult in your life," said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster. "It is described very much in terms of fighting a battle, and women who have gone through this successfully are described as survivors, and what it means to be a survivor goes beyond just a medical term."

Seize the moral high ground.

In the 2006 midterm elections that launched her into the House speaker's role, Democrat Nancy Pelosi had an idea: Give female candidates brooms, and hold a news conference declaring that it would take women "to clean out the House." The event never happened -- and in fact a number of female candidates that year lost -- but Pelosi was on to something. Voters instinctively view women as more honest, a trait they can use when running against men.

Pelosi has taken the idea of female saintliness to great heights in the speaker's role: She has repeatedly said that women's maternal skills translate into politics, and the photograph of her wielding the gavel with a passel of children on the House floor remains an enduring image of her tenure. Not every female lawmaker could pull this off. Even Pelosi, in an interview, said women should be associated as much with national security priorities as with children-related issues such as education and health care. But that has not stopped her from invoking babies where possible.

When she was debating the budget with the minority leader, Republican John A. Boehner, on the House floor this year, she wielded a photograph of her newest grandchild, her eighth. "This is what our commitment is about," she said, holding up the picture. In our interview, Pelosi elaborated: "I firmly believe that nothing has been more wholesome for the political and governmental process than the increased participation of women. This is absolute, without any question."

Anne E. Kornblut covers the White House for The Washington Post. This article is adapted from her book "Notes from the Cracked Ceiling: Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin and What It Will Take for a Woman to Win," to be published Tuesday.

By Anne E. Kornblut, The Washington Post, December 27, 2009

Geraldine Ferraro recalls the specific moment in 2008 when she lost it. It was Super Tuesday, the day in early February when millions of Democratic primary voters across the nation headed to the polls. Ferraro, the former vice presidential nominee and at that point the only woman ever to have run on a national presidential ticket, anxiously waited for the results to come in -- desperately hoping that Hillary Clinton had managed to turn around her campaign for the presidential nomination.

And then Ferraro got a call from one of her grown daughters, who had just returned from a polling station in Massachusetts.

"Did you vote?" Ferraro asked.

"Yes," her daughter replied.

"Who'd you vote for?" Ferrraro asked.

There was a pause.

"Barack Obama," her daughter quietly confessed.

Ferraro flipped -- becoming, in her words, "a lunatic."

"What is the matter with you?" she screamed into the receiver. "You know Hillary. You have seen my involvement with her."

Her daughter struggled to explain, saying Obama just inspired her. "What does he inspire you to do, leave your husband and three kids and your practice and go work for Doctors Without Borders?" Ferraro snapped in response.

Ferraro was livid, and distraught. What more did Hillary Clinton have to do to prove herself? How could anyone -- least of all Ferraro's own daughter -- fail to grasp the historic significance of electing a woman president, in probably the only chance the country would have to do so for years to come? Ferraro hung up enraged, not so much at her daughter but at the world. Clinton was being unfairly cast aside, and, along with her, the dreams of a generation and a movement.

As the primaries played on that spring, the same scene played out in living rooms from coast to coast. Mothers and grandmothers who saw themselves in Clinton and formed the core of her support faced a confounding phenomenon: Their daughters did not much care whether a woman won or lost. There was nothing, in their view, all that special about electing a woman -- particularly this woman -- president. Not when the milestone of electing an African American president was at hand.

Clinton, the former first lady and one of the most famous women in the world, had spent all of 2007 as the overwhelming front-runner, leading in all the national polls and raising huge amounts of cash. She looked like the inevitable nominee, and her effortless climb reinforced what young women thought they knew: Pretty much every battle of the sexes had already been waged and won. Raised in a world where women made up more than half of all undergraduates on college campuses and half of the students in all law and medical schools, where discrimination was illegal, where nearly half the work force was female and their mothers had been free to work -- or not -- younger women were not drawn to Clinton by any sense of history, and they recoiled at being told they should be. Feminism had long ago been declared dead, then rendered meaningless.

To younger voters, Clinton was both a relic of that era and a victim of its success. She was the wrong woman at the wrong time; she was a Clinton; she hadn't gotten there on her own; a woman could be elected another year. After all, the reasoning went, it would be easy enough next time. Look how simple it had been for her.

The generational divide would rip through families and the feminist movement, exposing a fault line that had been lurking under the surface for years. Daughters heard from mothers everywhere. When Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) decided to endorse Obama rather than Clinton, she got an earful from her mother back home. "I guess some people will do what some people have to do," her mother said in an acerbic voice mail message, adding: "but for some of us, this will be our last election."

By Anne E. Kornblut, The Washington Post, December 27, 2009

THE OBAMA administration's commitment to the traditional American cause of promoting democracy and human rights has been widely questioned, and not without reason. So some rights advocates were pleased by an address that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered at Georgetown University, in which she laid out "the Obama administration's human rights agenda for the 21st century." We're not so happy.

Ms. Clinton said that the administration, "like others before us, will promote, support and defend democracy." She pledged that it would publicly denounce abuses by other governments and support dissidents and civil society groups. While saying that "principled pragmatism" would govern human rights discussions with "key countries like China and Russia," Ms. Clinton went on to spell out specific U.S. concerns with those nations, including Beijing's persecution of peaceful reformers and the murders of journalists in Russia.

As Ms. Clinton herself suggested, such pledges have been the common currency of American governments. But she did not limit herself to past principles. She offered an innovation: The Obama administration, she said, would "see human rights in a broad context," in which "oppression of want -- want of food, want of health, want of education, and want of equality in law and in fact" -- would be addressed alongside the oppression of tyranny and torture. "That is why," Ms. Clinton said, "the cornerstones of our 21st-century human rights agenda" would be "supporting democracy" and "fostering development."

This is indeed an important change in U.S. human rights policy -- but the idea behind it is pure 20th century. Ms. Clinton's lumping of economic and social "rights" with political and personal freedom was a standard doctrine of the Soviet Bloc, which used to argue at every East-West conference that human rights in Czechoslovakia were superior to those in the United States, because one provided government health care that the other lacked. In fact, as U.S. diplomats used to tirelessly respond, rights of liberty -- for free expression and religion, for example -- are unique in that they are both natural and universal; they will exist so long as governments do not suppress them. Health care, shelter and education are desirable social services, but they depend on resources that governments may or may not possess. These are fundamentally different goods, and one cannot substitute for another.

Ms. Clinton said that in adding "human development" to human rights and democracy, "we have to tackle all three simultaneously." But there are two dangers in her approach. One is that non-democratic regimes will seize on the economic aspect of her policy as an substitute for political reform -- as dictators have been doing for decades. Another is that the Obama administration will itself, in working with friendly but unfree countries, choose the easy route of focusing on development, while downplaying democracy.

Judging from Ms. Clinton's own rhetoric, that is the approach the State Department is headed toward in the Arab Middle East. In a major speech last month in Morocco, she said that U.S. engagement with Islamic countries would henceforth focus on education, science and technology, and "entrepreneurship" -- all foundations of "development." She made no mention of democracy. If the Obama administration believes that liberty is urgently needed in the homelands of al-Qaeda, Ms. Clinton still has offered no sign of it.

The Washington Post, December 27, 2009

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton this morning praised authorities for reuniting a New Jersey man with his 9-year-old son in Brazil, resolving a five-year custody battle that turned into an international political and media incident.

David Goldman and his son, Sean, left Rio de Janeiro this morning en route to Tinton Fall, N.J. They were chased by journalists and photographers who have followed an odyssey that was as much political as familial.

"I am thrilled that 9-year-old Sean Goldman was reunited with his father, David Goldman, earlier today in Rio de Janeiro and that they are flying home to New Jersey," Clinton said in a statement.

"I want to thank everyone who helped bring this long process to a successful conclusion, including a number of members of Congress and many concerned parties both here and in Brazil. We also appreciate the assistance and cooperation of the government of Brazil in upholding its obligations under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction," she said.

Sean was brought to Brazil in 2004 by his mother, Bruna Bianchi, Goldman's then-wife. Bianchi divorced Goldman and remarried. Goldman began legal efforts to get his son.

Bianchi died last year and her husband, Joao Paulo Lins e Silva, a prominent attorney, won temporary custody of Sean. Despite numerous court findings in favor of Goldman, Lins e Silva was able to maneuver through the Brazil legal system to delay turning over the boy.

After five years of rulings and appeals, the Supreme Court's chief ruled Tuesday that Sean be returned to Goldman. On Wednesday, the Brazilian family dropped its legal challenges.

The battle between Goldman and the powerful Brazilian family was chronicled by the news media and became a cause celebre, eventual enlisting American politicians.

"David Goldman is one terrific guy," New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg said this morning on the Fox News Channel. "It won't be long before [Sean] is a regular American boy."

By Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times, December 24, 2009

Instead of expressing support for participants in Iranian protests, which the regime could use against them, the Obama administration is focusing on Iran’s human rights violations.

Washington

The Obama administration has settled on a policy of speaking out modestly but regularly against human rights violations in Iran, even as it continues to focus on Tehran's nuclear program and the fading hopes of a dialogue with the Iranian regime.

The administration endured months of criticism over its decision not to offer strong and sustained public support to the opposition movement that blossomed after Iran's contested presidential election in June. Now, it's adjusting its approach. Instead of expressing support for Iranian dissidents - support that the regime could try to turn around as a weapon against the protesters - the administration is focusing on Iran's violations of human rights.

The new approach debuted in a number of recent speeches by President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, as well as in statements from their spokesmen on recent events in Iran.

"The administration was being very careful not to do anything that could be used against the forces of opposition in Iran. But in striking the balance they settled on, they may have erred on the side of caution," says Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, a grass-roots Iranian-American organization in Washington. "In the last couple of weeks, there's been an effort to rectify that," he adds, "and they're doing it by shifting the focus to human rights violations in Iran."

On Sunday, the White House acknowledged the death in Iran of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri by declaring, "Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who seek to exercise the universal rights and freedoms that he so consistently advocated." Mr. Montazeri had emerged in recent months as a voice for Iranian dissidence, commonly referred to as the Green Movement, and as an advocate for dialogue with the United States.

As some Iranians have gathered to commemorate Montazeri this week, security forces have cracked down.

The White House statement on Montazeri followed a speech last week on human rights by Secretary Clinton at Georgetown University in Washington. She referred to American support for the universal rights for which the Iranian people are now striving.

Earlier this month, in his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Mr. Obama took note of the struggle for human rights in countries like Iran and said, "These movements of hope and history, they have us on their side."

Those statements came even as the president's year-end deadline for Iran to respond to invitations for dialogue was fast approaching. On Tuesday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that the Dec. 31 date for Iran to accept a dialogue on its nuclear program "is a very real deadline for the international community." The administration, he added, is already exploring subsequent steps, including the possibility of another round of international sanctions.

Although Obama at times has encountered withering criticism for the cool response to the Iranian opposition, some otherwise strong critics of the administration's foreign policy say they are more sympathetic to the "difficult" situation that Obama is in.

"The absence of rhetoric from Obama doesn't bother me so much," says John Bolton, a former US ambassador to the United Nations during the Bush administration who supports regime change as a means of stopping Iran from building a nuclear weapon. "There's something to be said for not speaking out unless you are prepared to back it up with credible assistance," he adds, "and there's no way Obama will do anything tangible to help them out."

The US, Mr. Bolton says, has a history of failing to back up verbal support for uprisings with deeds - Hungary in 1956, Iraq's Kurds and Shiite population in 1991. So Obama, at least, is not committing the error of empty promises, he says.

"It's really a difficult question, because supporting an opposition is not something easy to implement," he says. "And obviously you don't want to taint the very people you are trying to empower."

The Obama administration's new policy also flows from a realization that dialogue with the West, along with a possible accord on the nuclear program, was "shot down because of Iran's inability to find a consensus on the issue" among key regime players, Mr. Parsi says.

"Things haven't settled down in Iran, and they are not going to," he says. "So the administration was faced with coming up with a new policy for the new circumstances."

By Howard LaFranchi, The Christian Science Monitor, December 23, 2009

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have coalesced around a plan to send 30,000 or more troops to Afghanistan, although there are variations in their positions and they are not working in lock step.

President Barack Obama is likely to announce his new Afghanistan strategy from one of three options. The announcement probably will be in the first week of December, administration officials say.

Should the president decide to send 40,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan, the most ambitious plan under consideration at the White House, the military would have enormous flexibility to deploy as many as 15,000 forces to the Taliban center of gravity in the south, 5,000 to the critical eastern border with Pakistan and 10,000 as trainers for the Afghan security forces.

The rest could be deployed across the country, including to the NATO headquarters in Kabul, the capital, and in clandestine operations.

If Obama limited any additional American troops to 10,000 to 15,000, the military would deploy them largely as trainers, with some reinforcements likely in the southern province of Kandahar, the Taliban's spiritual home. The neighboring, and opium-rich, Helmand province and the eastern border with Pakistan, military analysts say, would receive few if any American troops.

Such trade-offs are part of the discussions as Obama and his top advisers debate escalating the 8-year-old war. And they drive home the basic point that while the numbers will dominate the headlines, what is really at stake is how to fight the war.

The difference between 30,000 and 40,000, military analysts say, is that there might be 5,000 trainers rather than 10,000, and fewer troops to spread flexibly across the country overall, although there would still be a strong concentration in the south.

"Kandahar is pretty crucial, and we should not skimp there," said Michael O'Hanlon, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution who just returned from a trip to Afghanistan.

Administration officials say that the additional troops would also be deployed to protect some dozen population clusters across the country, including not only Kandahar and Kabul but Mazar-i-Sharif and Kunduz in the north, Herat in the west and Jalalabad in the east.

Military officials say that three-quarters of any additional troops sent, no matter the number, will be working side by side with Afghan security forces. They will be separate from American trainers, whose job is to put raw recruits through a basic military training regime.

Under the partnering arrangement, Afghan troops will share bases with Americans, a defense official said, and although there will be separate sleeping quarters and dining facilities, "they're going to live together, work together, plan together and operate together."

By Elisabeth Bumiller, The New York Times, December 22, 2009

Its foreign policy is vastly different in many ways from the Bush era, but human rights activists in many places are still wondering just how committed the White House is to real change.

Historically, when U.S. leaders have spoken of pragmatism or realism in foreign policy, it has often been code for subordinating ideals to other strategic and geopolitical priorities. That's why alarm bells went off among human rights activists last week over Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's policy of "principled pragmatism," which she laid out in a speech at Georgetown University. Just days before, in his Nobel acceptance lecture, President Obama had grandly reaffirmed the role of the United States as a standard-bearer for the universal aspirations of human rights and dignity. Clinton also committed firmly to those lofty goals, saying people must be free not only from tyranny but from hunger and "the oppression of want." But her admonition that tactics must be "pragmatic and agile" led some to wonder if the rhetoric would be matched by action. Coupled with the administration's policy of engagement with adversaries such as Iran, North Korea and Myanmar, some worried this would signal to U.S. diplomats and foreign leaders alike that the Obama administration might turn a blind eye to abuses.




Los Angeles Times, December 20, 2009

COPENHAGEN -- With an offer of significant new aid to help poor nations cope with the effects of global warming, the Obama administration began a major diplomatic effort Thursday aimed at saving the troubled climate talks before the president's expected arrival Friday morning.

The United States is pressuring developing countries to agree to emissions cuts along with the industrialized world for the first time, and insisting on transparent monitoring of those reductions. High-ranking U.S. officials were assuring nations behind the scenes that after years of resistance, Washington is also serious about reducing emissions at home and doing more to prevent global warming.

Concerned that the process had broken down so badly that world leaders would not have a document to consider Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pushed to establish a small, representative group of nations that could work through the night to produce a text that President Obama and others could use as a basis for final negotiations.

In a private meeting, Clinton told Brazilian officials that a climate change bill that was passed by the House would set aside billions to help preserve tropical rain forests in developing countries. U.S. negotiators also labored to distinguish themselves from George W. Bush's administration, which did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, U.S. officials added, the new administration is taking steps with or without Congress to reduce carbon emissions through new fuel standards and other measures. "They are saying, 'Trust us that we can do better,' " said Brazil's climate change ambassador, Sergio Serra, who attended the meeting with Clinton on Thursday.

Though the talks remain fragile, the U.S. moves appeared to rebuild momentum after comments by major participants, most notably China, that chances of even a modest deal were fading. The shift happens as the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause -- in a sense offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth.

Clinton pledged that the country would help mobilize $100 billion a year in public and private financing by 2020 -- an amount that is almost equal to the total value of all developmental aid and concessional loans granted to poor nations by the United States, Europe and other donors this year. She did not specify how much the U.S. government would commit to giving, but a senior administration official said it would be 20 to 30 percent. Administration officials said they envisioned most of the money coming from private sources, or from revenue generated by a cap-and-trade scheme, but other sources could include redirecting existing subsidies or a tax on bunker fuel.

'Running out of time'

Any new assistance -- as well as Obama's signature on an agreement here, Clinton said -- would depend on "transparency" and "monitoring" of emissions cuts. Clinton said the historic talks must result in an international accord that includes reduction commitments from developed and major developing countries; financial and technological assistance for poor nations; and a way to independently verify the cuts all countries make. Such language is essential to U.S. senators, who have yet to pass climate legislation and would vote on ratification of any climate treaty.

Clinton specifically warned that China -- which has resisted attempts for international verification of emissions cuts and told officials here before Clinton spoke that a global pact seems unlikely -- must agree to monitoring if a deal is to be reached.

"We're running out of time," Clinton said at a news conference. "Without the accord, the opportunity to mobilize significant resources to assist developing countries with mitigation and adaptation will be lost."

The ultimatum appeared to sway many of the small island states, which are vulnerable to sea-level rise and have been demanding a legal treaty that would aim to prevent the average global temperature from rising higher than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels. In a meeting between Clinton and representatives from 30 island nations, according to a participant, delegates said they would accept a higher temperature threshold of 3.6 degrees but expected the United States to offer more money for adaptation in the short term. Clinton said that would happen.

Yet most analysts have diminished expectations for the document that leaders may ultimately sign Friday. Rather than a formal new treaty, most are expecting a political agreement that would form the basis for a broader, more detailed accord perhaps by mid-2010.

The current emissions cuts that would be incorporated as part of any future pact have come under fire as too weak to curb dangerous global warming. An internal U.N. analysis that surfaced Thursday afternoon predicted that even under the most ambitious targets countries have pledged, future global temperature rise is likely to exceed 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Reaching a less far-reaching agreement has proved tough, with poor nations staging a temporary walkout earlier this week. Though a failure of talks here could embarrass the leaders of the 193 countries attending the summit, many heads of state have suggested it would be worse to sign on to a bad agreement.

"Coming back with an empty agreement, I think, would be far worse than coming back empty-handed," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

Unlike many international summits, where most of the major details are typically worked out by lower-level diplomats before the leaders arrive, Obama will land here with big issues still in contention.

Though their differences are narrowing, nations remain at odds over how deep emissions cuts will be, which countries will need to make them and by when. The U.S. offer to contribute to a $100 billion fund -- a figure close to what the Europeans have previously suggested -- appeared to boost the chances of settling how much poor nations would get to help roll out green energy grids of their own, as well as cover the cost of dealing with rising sea levels and increasing temperatures.

Though some developing nations are holding out for as much as $200 billion a year, Clinton's proposal appeared similar to what some leading nations of emerging economies have called for this week. Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh, who met with U.S. representatives Wednesday morning, said the financing offer "demonstrates a seriousness on the part of the Americans" as world leaders continue to arrive in the Danish capital and attempt to work out their differences.

'A big risk'

To a large extent, the administration's gestures ahead of Obama's arrival amounted to an elaborate trust-building exercise, in which officials assured their overseas counterparts that they will deliver on promises in a way the United States has not done in the past. In private meetings, Clinton bluntly told foreign leaders that her husband had negotiated and signed Kyoto, but could not persuade senators to approve it. That inaction, she said, was followed by eight years in which the Bush administration did little to push for movement on climate change.

Even so, Michael A. Levi, senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, said administration officials are "taking a big risk."

"They appear to be betting a good deal that Copenhagen will do more to help legislation on the Hill than this finance offer will hurt," he said.

Other delegates said that while they appreciate the White House's willingness to embrace a long-term financial package for the developing world, they wonder why the administration waited so long to announce it.

"It could have been a lot better if it was done earlier," said Rae Kwon Chung, South Korea's climate change ambassador.

Senate Republicans were quick to question the move. Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.), who was on the ground in Copenhagen for three hours Thursday, said in a statement, "Given the current state of our economy, it is shocking that the Obama administration is pledging to hand over billions of dollars to developing nations for a global warming fund."

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) said that no matter how the money is generated, it will "come out of the pockets of American taxpayers."

By Juliet Eilperin and Anthony Faiola, The Washington Post, December 18, 2009

Obama Jets to Denmark, U.S. Backs $100 Billion Annual Aid to Clinch Carbon Deal

COPENHAGEN -- The Obama administration launched an eleventh-hour attempt to pull off a deal from the stalled United Nations climate talks here, offering to get behind efforts to raise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor nations as President Barack Obama headed for the Danish capital.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and leaders of major players at the summit -- from Europe to Asia to Africa to Latin America to the Maldives -- emerged from a meeting at about 3 a.m. local time Friday, saying they would discuss a new draft agreement later in the morning, on the two-week conference's final day. "We're not there yet," said Denmark's prime minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen. He said the late-night discussion had been "very fruitful."

But Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh described the meeting differently, saying it had been "stage-managed" by European officials "to show they consulted everybody."

The White House tried to lower expectations Thursday. White House officials said they don't anticipate any new offers by the president, since the targets and financing figure have already been announced. But depending on the status of negotiations Friday, that could change. On Friday afternoon Mr. Obama has one-on-one meetings with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

The White House left open the possibility Mr. Obama would choose to come back to Washington with no deal.

"Coming back with an empty agreement would be far worse than coming back empty-handed," said Robert Gibbs, Mr. Obama's press secretary.

President Obama played a big card Thursday, authorizing Mrs. Clinton to tentatively endorse European proposals that rich nations come up with $100 billion a year over the next decade to help poor nations fight climate change. The decision -- which surprised European officials who said they hadn't been flagged -- was made after the conference hit an impasse Wednesday.

All day Wednesday, U.S., European Union and Australian negotiators talked with representatives from the Group of 77 developing nations, floating aid figures that might satisfy those countries' demand for greater, longer-term financing for efforts to curb or cope with climate change.

Previously, the U.S. had stuck to a $10 billion annual figure by 2012, and declined to specify what it thought would be a longer-term financial target. The U.K. had long advocated for $100 billion by 2020, while other European nations wanted more.

Mrs. Clinton said in her speech Thursday that the money would be aimed at the "poorest and most vulnerable among us" -- a phrase that excludes fast-rising China, which many in the West think shouldn't receive aid. She said the money would come from "a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance."

"The private sector is going to be the engine that drives all of this," an administration official said. "A lot of this is not aid in the traditional sense of aid."

Any source of U.S. public funding remains in the hands of Congress, where lawmakers have stalled action on a climate bill and are focused on cutting the swelling budget deficit and funding jobs in the U.S.

House Democrats, some of whom traveled to Copenhagen Thursday, hailed the administration's announcement.

"The United States must take responsibility for our historical emissions, while also seizing the opportunity that will come with re-engaging with the developing world on emissions-cutting clean-energy technologies and other programs," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D., Mass.).

In a sign of the difficulties the administration may face, however, congressional Republican leaders Thursday said they would introduce a "disapproval resolution" blocking efforts to fund the U.S. financing offer, and scuttling the administration's efforts to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants.

"The administration wants to give billions in U.S. taxpayer dollars we don't have to other countries," said House Republican leader John Boehner. "This does nothing to get the American people back to work, nothing to get our fiscal house back in order, and nothing but add to our debt."

Ed Miliband, the British climate minister, cautioned that reaching a substantive deal was still a "race against the clock." Mr. Obama and others were expected to face contentious issues Friday -- such as how aggressively their nations will cut greenhouse-gas emissions -- while negotiators continue to finesse the text, he said.

Mrs. Clinton's announcement is the latest move by U.S. officials to counter accusations from developing nations that the U.S. hasn't done enough to break the climate-talk deadlock. President Obama was scheduled to arrive in Copenhagen Friday morning to meet with other world leaders and join a climate agreement -- if there is one.

Mrs. Clinton said the U.S. wouldn't commit to the plan if all major economies don't commit to key provisions, including carbon-emission controls that are transparent.

"If there isn't a commitment for transparency of some sort, that would be a deal breaker," she said.

He Yafei, China's vice minister of foreign affairs, said Thursday that China is ready for international cooperation that is "not intrusive, that does not infringe on China's sovereignty."

He also said China's target for reducing the amount of carbon it emits per unit of economic output shouldn't be subject to international monitoring.

There were some signs of movement on the issue of how rich countries can check the compliance of nations such as China. "We have 75% agreement on the verification issue," India's Environment Minister Mr. Ramesh told reporters. He said India had come up with a four-point formula on the issue.

Tension between the U.S. and China has dominated the Copenhagen summit, as the two largest greenhouse-gas emitters jockeyed to win support from developing nations.

The U.S. anticipated the Chinese could organize allies and countries economically dependent on China into a bloc to resist U.S. efforts to leverage a deal, particularly on monitoring promises to cut emissions.

Mrs. Clinton's statement Thursday appeared to sway some African delegates. But other G77 delegates gave it a cool reception.

Lumumba di-Aping, a Sudanese diplomat who is the group's chief negotiator, said the offer would need to be studied. "This is a good signal, but it's still insufficient," he said. "We need more money."

By Stephen Power, Guy Chazan, Elizabeth Williamson and Jeffrey Ball, The Wall Street Journal, DECEMBER 18, 2009

President Obama will arrive in Copenhagen today bent on applying a combination of muscle and personal charm to secure a climate-change agreement involving nearly 200 countries.