Two new polls out this morning show that Americans are overwhelmingly optimistic about Obama's presidency, which is great, but also a little surprising considering the host of problems Bush is leaving behind on his desk.
Also, reaction to Obama's train ride and editorial boards across the country react to Holder's statements on torture and waterboarding.
Americans are optimistic about Obama, even though they are deeply worried about the economy, according to the new ABC News/Washington Post poll:
Even as they express deep concern about the current direction of the country, Americans are overwhelmingly optimistic about Barack Obama and are pinning their hopes for recovery from a massive economic collapse on the president-elect, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
It is still surprising to me that he is winning over so many McCain voters:
More than half of all Americans have high hopes for his presidency, almost three-quarters of the public say Obama's proposals will improve the struggling economy, and about eight in 10 have a favorable view of him -- more than twice the percentage now holding positive views of Bush. About seven in 10 say Obama understands their problems, and a similar proportion say his victory gives him "a mandate to work for major new social and economic programs."
About seven in 10 Americans say Obama has a mandate to enact "major new social and economic programs." So, when Republicans try to obstruct or raise a ruckus about health care or government spending, Democrats are going to wave those number in their faces, right?
CBS News/New York Times also has a new poll out this morning with similar numbers, showing 79% of Americans are optimistic about Obama's term, as are 58% who voted for McCain.
His favorable rating, at 60 percent, is the highest it has been since the Times/CBS News poll began asking about him. Overwhelming majorities say they think that Mr. Obama will be a good president, that he will bring real change to Washington, and that he will make the right decisions on the economy, Iraq, dealing with the war in the Middle East and protecting the country from terrorist attacks. Over 70 percent said they approved of his cabinet selections.
Such a contrast to Bush, huh? His favorable ratings are in the 20s and it is hard to believe that anyone will miss him as he slinks out the door.
::::::
The San Jose Mercury News sums up the hope and optimism that so many feel before this historic inauguration:
We hope Obama will rebuild relations with allies alienated by Bush's bellicose policies. We hope science, rather than politics, will govern environmental, energy and health policies. It's time to balance "homeland security" with Americans' right to privacy.
and:
We hope Obama reinvigorates idealism among America's young. We hope that he inspires them to see government as a calling. For starters, though, we'd settle for competent management in the White House.
I have to agree that "competent management" sounds like the best thing ever right now. Bush certainly has lowered our standards, hasn't he?
::::::
And, understandably, Obama is wasting no time putting those favorable numbers to work:
Obama said Organizing for America, the new network, would be used as a tool to press for policies on major issues, including the healthcare system, the Iraq war and the development of new energy sources. He also said the effort would be housed in a distinctly partisan place: the Democratic National Committee.
It is expected that the organization will have hundreds of staffers and an annual budget of $75 million.
::::::
Maya Angelou writes an op-ed looking at the optimism:
Over the past five decades, our national spirit has ebbed, our self-confidence has waned. The presence of Barack Obama seems to return us to our national motto: "Yes, I can. I am an American."
Speaking of optimism, the Obama HOPE portrait, painted by Shephard Fairey, is now on display at the National Portrait Gallery. The Los Angeles Times also has a review of Fairey's book, which has been reissued.
::::::
What did you think of the inaugural train ride? I didn't see any of it, but from the news reports it sounds like quite the event. Michael Scherer had reaction at TIME:
But on this day, many of those neighborhoods came to life. Most people could only see Obama's train for a matter of seconds. It rarely slowed, and Obama only stepped outside the caboose to wave on a few occasions. But none of this seemed to dent the enthusiasm of the crowds. They cheered as if the train was coming to see them, as if Obama's victory had been their victory, and it was only now just beginning. For miles and miles, for people in dress coats and work clothes, it was the same--Americans literally jumping for joy over a president who has changed his country without yet taking office.
Alex Koppelman describes a similar scene of enthusiasm in Baltimore, where thousands of people waited for hours in the freezing cold to see Obama and Biden.
::::::
All the evidence of optimism and hope is great, but it is hard to forget how many problems Obama is inheriting and how badly Bush has trashed this country. And,yes, Mr. Mukasey, I think that is kind of the point:
Attorney General Michael Mukasey raised concerns that government agents and national security lawyers may be at risk for criminal prosecution after his likely successor, Eric Holder, declared that waterboarding of terror detainees is torture.
Yet another person who is worried about their own career, and the careers of their colleagues, rather than upholding American laws and values.
"Torture is a crime," Mr. Mukasey said in an interview Friday, adding that he worried "about the effect on…the work of fine intelligence lawyers who are called on to make judgments on questions like that, often under tremendous time pressure -- not to mention the pressure of an attack that killed 3000 people [and caused worry that] maybe there was going to be another one."
This whole talking point about "judgements" and "questions" about what constitutes torture is ridiculous. The fact that we even have to have this conversation just strikes me as completely absurd. If you have to stop and ask yourself if something is torture, then you are probably already over the line. Not to mention the various international treaties we have signed that clearly define torture. The fact that we are even having this debate is an outrage.
::::::
The Anchorage Daily News editorial board argues the assertion that waterboarding is torture is obvious:
In the fight against terrorism, our country has resorted to torture. Attorney general nominee Eric Holder was asked at his Senate confirmation hearing if waterboarding is torture. Unlike President Bush's attorneys general, he did not duck the question or equivocate. He stated the obvious: Yes, waterboarding is torture.
There is no other way to describe it. Interrogators restrain a victim and pour water down the mouth or nose, so he can't breathe. Often called "simulated" drowning, there is nothing simulated about the physical and mental agony it inflicts.
Waterboarding uses water to suffocate a person. Just because the suffocation stops short of death doesn't make it acceptable behavior by a supposedly civilized nation.
The editorial board of the New York Times agrees, saying it "is appalling that an attorney general nominee has to say he respects the law, but such is the Bush legacy." The Kansas City Star agrees.
::::::
What's on your mind this morning?