David Axelrod, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama said Sunday that the Republicans seeking the presidential nomination don’t understand the reasons behind the “Occupy” protests that haves sprung up around the country, including Boston.

Axelrod told ABC’s “This Week” that people “want a financial system that works on the level. They want to get a fair shake.”

The remarks came the day after dozens of protesters from Occupy Wall Street were arrested in Times Square in a violent clash with police.

Meanwhile, the Occupy Boston protest has continued to grow after two weeks, and a similar movement has begun in Providence.

Axelrod said that American’s aren’t “impressed” by GOP presidential candidates saying they want to “roll back Wall St. reform.”

He also slammed frontrunner Mitt Romney for changing positions on issues throughout his political career.

“I think there’s this question about what his core principles are,” Axelrod said, citing changes in Romney’s positions from earlier in his political career when he was running for U.S. Senate and Massachusetts governor. “Then he was a pro choice, pro gay rights, pro environmental candidate for office. Then he decided to run for president. Did a 180 on all of that.

“So time and time and time again he shifts – and you get the feeling that there is no principle too large for him to throw over in pursuit of political office.”

Axelrod has specifically targeted Romney recently.

“If I were Governor Romney I’d be worried about all these changes in position and what kind of message that sends to voters,” Axelrod told “This Week” anchor Christiane Amanpour.

President Jimmy Carter was at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum Tuesday afternoon to promote his new book, “White House Diary,” a daily account of his 1977-1980 time in the Oval Office. He described the journals that went into the book as “personal diaries” that he never meant to publish, although he did acknowledge he was always aware they would be of interest to posterity.

Carter, 86, also spoke about Middle East peacemaking efforts during his presidency. He said while not wanting “to get too personal” when discussing the Reagan administration, “hardly a word was said about Middle East peace for the next eight years. Those things hurt.” Talking about the 21st century, Carter said there are “chances now to see peace in the Middle East that were dormant last year.”

He was critical of certain US policies in past eras, noting that the Islamic fundamentalist group Hamas was not deemed a terrorist organization until after its candidates prevailed in lawful elections. He added, “It’s not a very popular thing in our country to say anything that criticizes the incumbent government of Israel.”

Describing US foreign policy during the Cold War, Carter asserted that “presidents were in bed with dictators, particularly in the Latin American world…corporations would gain great benefits from us getting cozy with dictators.” He went so far as to describe how the US would help dictators crush free speech and legitimate efforts at reform under the pretext of fighting Communism.

Asked about the unique role of Roslynn Carter during his presidency, the former president said “Roslynn could speak more accurately for me than the Secretary of State or the National Security Advisor.” He described the surprise of foreign leaders when Roslynn would confront them face-to-face about corruption in their governments or civil injustice in their nations. Flashing his wide, often-caricatured smile Carter added, “She was very willing to do it, to put in mildly.”

Carter described eventually inviting his wife to sit in on cabinet meetings so he “didn’t have to spent half the week” bringing her up to date on what was going on. Not withstanding the First Lady’s involvement with so many important issues, Carter said that one of the proudest moments of his presidency was when someone identified Roslynn as being one of ten women who had the most beautiful legs on Earth.

Reflecting on the time between leaving office and the present day, Carter said, “I think I’m basically still the same person with the same commitment…as I was at my inauguration speech.” But he added that his awareness has increased, particularly regarding the “poverty stricken, neglected and forgotten people of the world.” Talking about many in such circumstances, Carter said “they’re just as intelligent as I am, and just as ambitious. Their family values are just as good as mine.” The difference, he said, was the level of opportunity available to them.

Carter compared the success of the recent mission to get Osama bin Laden with Operation Eagle Claw, his administration’s failed 1980 attempt to rescue the hostages held captive in Iran. “When people ask me what I would change from when I was in the White House” said Carter ruefully, “I always say I would send one more helicopter…if I knew then what I know now, I would have sent one more helicopter.”

Carter’s appearance, part of the Kennedy Library Forums series, was moderated by Ray Suarez, senior correspondent for PBS NewsHour. Jimmy and Roslynn Carter have a long and seemingly close relationship with the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. While president, Jimmy Carter spoke at the library’s October 20, 1979 dedication ceremony. The two have been back there, alone and together, on many occasion since – most recently in November of last year when the 83-year old Roslynn Carter spoke about “Within Our Reach: Ending the Mental Health Crisis,” a new book she published with Susan K. Golant and Kathryn E. Cade.

As Prepared for Delivery—

Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya – what we have done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.

I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved. Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda around the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I am grateful to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and their families, as are all Americans.

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.

Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt – two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.

Last month, Gaddafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.”

Faced with this opposition, Gaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our Embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gaddafi’s aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime’s assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.

In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.

Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No Fly Zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.

Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Gaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.

At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance.

In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people.

To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.

Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.

Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly.

So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do.

That is not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us – it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it.

Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.

Despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Gaddafi does leave power, forty years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and – more importantly – a task for the Libyan people themselves.

In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all – even in limited ways – in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home.

It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.

Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gaddafi and usher in a new government.

Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.

As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.

Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.

As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.

There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

That’s the kind of leadership we have shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States – in a region that has such a difficult history with our country – this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies.”

This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed.

The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.

Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith – those ideals – that are the true measure of American leadership.

My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas – when the news is filled with conflict and change – it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength at home. That must always be our North Star – the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring of our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.

But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

###

Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak has resigned as president after 18 days of protests by the country’s people, and 30 years as the country’s ruler.

The move was a surprise, as many thought Mubarak planned to step down yesterday during his speech. Emergency law however is still in place and will be until the military sees fit to remove it. The Supreme military council, now in control of the country, also asked protesters to return to their homes in an address on Egyptian state television.

Blast reported this morning that Mubarak left Cairo for Sharm-el Sheikh, a resort town a few hundred miles away from the capital.

The news was announced by appointed vice-president Omar Suleiman, in an address this morning: “My fellow citizens. At these hard circumstances our country is experiencing, President Mohamed Hosni Mubarak has decided to waive the office of the President of the Republic, and instructed the Supreme council of the Armed forces to run the affairs of the country. May God guide or steps.”

It is still unclear if elections will take place soon, of if their are plans to institute a civilian-controlled government.

However, today, the mood in the streets of Cairo has changed from anger and agitation, to joy and relief, now that the ruler the people so despised has finally given into their demands.

“Feb 11 is (a) Historic day in Egypt! We will celebrate it forever,” tweeted Egyptian Blogger Mahmoud Salem, 29, a 2004 graduate of Northeastern University, who has been active in the protests since the beginning.

Salem, who was nearly beaten to death in Tahrir Square last week, returned on Friday, victorious.

“People (are) jumping up and down. Everyone hugging. We did it. I wanna cry from happiness,” he tweeted.

Click here for a live stream of the celebration in Egypt from Al Jazeera English.

NEW YORK — This all started with a press release. Monday. A press conference in Times Square, being held by none other than the lovable Naked Cowboy.

The press release was embargoed until after a press conference on Wednesday, so here we are.

Robert Burck, best known as the guitar-playing Naked Cowboy of New York, was going to host his press conference Wednesday and discuss his bid to enter the 2012 race for President of The United States.

That, alone, is hilarious.

Blast showed up. Why not, right?

At 11:30 a.m., the podium was there with two men wearing sunglasses in black suits (think "Men in Black"). We were waiting for the announcement, but there was definitely something wrong because there were only four press people there, including the Blast reporter.

Some MTV News reporters were around, trying to get comment from people around Times Square regarding last night’s "Glee" Britney Spears’ episode. They were obviously using their time more wisely.

At noon, a woman (seen in several Twitpics with the Cowboy — maybe she’s the Naked Cowgirl?) approached the podium and declared, officially, that something was “wrong.”

Ha, yes obviously.

The woman was Cindy Fox, Naked Cowboy’s real-life fiance. She’s going to be First Lady when he’s elected president.

"I don’t know but something happened. This was supposed to be a big conference but no one knew that it was going to happen. So it will be rescheduled,” she said.

One of the reporters asked if he was not going to show up just because he only got 4 press people. She responded: “Yes, well he is actually over there around the corner.”

We never saw him.

The “Men in Black” guys started to clean up the whole set and the podium.

We wish we had some news for you today. But maybe, in two years, you’ll tell your kids that you read it on BlastMagazine.com first: The Naked Cowboy may be running for president. He just haven’t … uh … announced yet.

This story was reported by Eiko Watanabe and John M. Guilfoil of the Blast staff. It was written by Guilfoil.

A billboard just outside Wyoming, Minn. has sparked a national conversation regarding our current president’s relative effectiveness as compared to former President George W. Bush.

The billboard shows a picture of a smiling President Bush with the words “Miss Me Yet?” printed beside the photo. The billboard’s creators want to stay anonymous, though an employee from Schubert & Hoey Outdoor Advertising says the creators are a ” group of small businessmen and individuals who just felt like Washington was against them,” the Christian Science Monitor reports.

The billboard has drawn strong opinions from both the right and the left. It comes at a time when Republicans and Democrats are pulling further away from each other on key issues like health care, and as Obama’s approval rating drops to record lows.

What do you think? Do you miss him yet?

Do you?

Reggie Fils-Aime, Nintendo of America President, today said the Wii’s recent $50 price-drop has had a significant positive impact on the campany’s numbers.

Speaking with the Financial Times, the Reginator said: “The consumer response has been very strong to the price reduction.”

The Nintendo President said he couldn’t reveal hard sales data, but did confirm the Wii’s drop in price was part of a company-wide strategy to get the Wii into more homes this Holiday season.

“There are literally millions of consumers out there who want a Wii and had been on the sidelines,” he explained.

“They’d been waiting for that little nudge to go out and pick it up – the price decline, the sampling, the launching of key software like Wii Fit Plus – we believe it’s what’s pushing them over the edge to get into the category.”

Additionally, Fils-Aime added that third-party publishers will release 140 titles on the Wii over the next three months. Wow.

Source: IGN

EAST CHOP — After several hours at Blue Heron Farm, President Obama and the First Lady moved on to visit with Valerie Jarrett, a longtime friend and senior White House adviser, at her Oak Bluffs home.

White House officials did not confirm if the first daughters, Sasha and Malia, joined their parents for the visit. It’s unclear if the couple plans to stay for dinner at Jarrett’s oceanfront home on East Chop Drive.

Black Chevy Suburbans in the presidential motorcade lined the road. Neighbors and onlookers gathered at the top of the street, peering down toward the home, but the press was not permitted within viewing distance.

Some neighbors and guests were seen coming and going from a nearby house believed to be owned by John Payton, an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

The ride from the farm to the Oak Bluffs neighborhood took about 30 minutes, winding through Edgartown and East Chop. A small number of viewers gathered along the road, waving and cheering as the motorcade passed. Traffic backed up as many as 20 cars as state police blocked off crossroads.

Having left the Jarrett’s house around 7:10, the president and the first lady arrived at The Sweet Life Cafƒ© on Circuit Avenue in Oak Bluffs, across from the town’s gingerbread cottages.

Hundreds of people filled the streets looking for a glimpse of the first couple. They waved to the crowds and quickly ducked into the restaurant, onlookers said.

President Obama closed out his day shortly after 9:30 p.m., waving to cheering crowds after finishing dinner. Hundreds of appreciative onlookers bid goodnight to the president and first lady after their dinner with shouts of “We love you” and “Thank you for everything.”

White House officials did not confirm what the couple had for dinner but both looked happy and well-fed as they waved to crowds and got into their black Chevy Suburban. The presidential motorcade then led the couple under the cover of dark back to their vacation home for the night.

The first couple got back to the farm at 10 p.m.

– Jake Berry (Press Pool Report)

According to this blog, nothing has happened in world news for three weeks. That’s my bad. First off, I just want to say sorry for not posting in almost a month. I was swamped with school work, finals and assignments to end off the year. But now I’m in the clear so I can again devote some time every day to writing for Blast.

Again, my bad.

Instead of reviewing what has happened in the past few weeks, let’s just skip ahead to now. There is one particular story that I want to tell you about. I saw it this afternoon and it sort of stood out from the rest.

According to the Wall Street Journal, after a meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah today, President Obama told reporters he has left open the possibility of pursuing legal action against those in the CIA who created the policies that, in large part, led to torture and extreme methods of interrogation during the war.

He does stand by his promise to not pursue any course of legal action against those who actually executed the torture (the Jack Bauers). Obama did however make a clear distinction between the contractors and those who formulated the policy behind which the contractors operated.

The president told reporters that the Department of Justice is looking into memos from Bush’s term that green lit extreme interrogation. He also added that he doesn’t want to “prejudge” what is in the memos based solely on the character (or lack thereof) of our previous president.

He also spoke of a bipartisan committee that may be established to examine the use of torture and other extreme interrogation since 9/11. He said that talks during open congressional hearings (which is the way that these issues are currently addressed) tend to break down over partisan banter, and that it would be more “sensible” to start a committee of ““independent participants who are above reproach” to examine these issues.

However, he made it clear that he does no fully endorse the idea.

The president released the interrogation memos last week, in a decision he says was one of his hardest as president to date. Former VP Dick Cheney and other republicans have called this release a “breach of national security.”

I like the idea of a bipartisan tribunal. Its members would of course need to be carefully chosen however talks would never be interrupted or broken down over political differences. This issue is a moral one, an ethical one, not a political one. The ethics and morals of U.S. Army tactics overseas must be examined and open congressional hearings just aren’t the way to do that effectively. The committee’s creation would ensure ethics are at the forefront of the debate, and whether you’re red or blue would never be an issue.

Lava lamps have commemorated popular characters like Elvis or Superman through the years. But in the 45 year history of the original company, Lava Lamp LLC., they never got involved like this. That is, until Obama was elected. The Chicago-founded business has created these groovy lamps since 1965 and the company felt it was important to represent such a well-known fellow Chicago resident.

“This has never been done in 45 years, but he really impressed me,” said Larry Gutkin, Lava Lite’s chief executive officer. “Originally we both have Chicago roots and he is really a Chicago politician. I thought it was attribute to him and a fun product to offer, without making fun of him. When it was all together the product came out beautifully, we are very happy with the outcome.”

The custom designed resin base and cap of the lamp feature three dimensional stars, stripes and bunting in a patriotic red, white and blue color scheme. A color photograph of a smiling President Obama is set against a blue and red background and framed in a star rimmed medallion in the center of the Lava Lamp base.

Topping the base is the distinctive Lava Lamp globe, containing a proprietary formula of blue liquid and white wax. Finally, the commemorative package, a colorful red and blue cylinder, complements the Special Edition Obama Lava Lamp perfectly.

Retailing at $39.99, the limited-edition lamp is currently available online and select retailers nationwide will soon sell it.

“This is really a collectors edition so I think a lot of people are picking this one up thinking that in years it will be a very valuable collectors item and I think they may be right,” added Gutkin.

But the lamp may not just serve as a collector’s item. Gutkin tells Blast that as a businessman who travels continuously, the past eight years have been a little hard. Being told that his country’s leader was making foolish mistakes became a common experience. Now, he said it feels good to be proud of our commander-in-chief. He hopes the country understands a process is needed to better the nation and effective change will come slowly rather than from one day to the next.

In the meantime, Gutkin is working on getting a lamp to Sasha and Malia, the first daughters, after already getting one to Vice President Biden.

“It’s a little tough to send to send something to the President. I’ve tried, but we’ll try to get one to his daughters,” said Gutkin. “We’ll get one to them and hopefully the President will see one and think its pretty cool. I can’t imagine why he wouldn’t!”

Thankfully you don’t have to wait to get your own Obama Lava Lamp. Enter to win a limited edition lamp by February 28 now!

President Obama. It feels nice to write that phrase without the word “elect.”

For those who watched history today, you saw the overwhelming support with which Obama was presented at National Mall in Washington D.C. He told the crowd he was humbled, and really, there is no other emotion he could have felt when he stepped out onto that podium and looked out at the crowd of nearly two million adoring supporters, all there not to see him recite a simple, yet groundbreaking oath.

Obama’s inaugural toast was fantastic, but the best thing I think he said was this: “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West “" know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.” People will judge you by what you build, not what you destroy. Just a longer way to see “peace shall overcome.”

He spoke of laying the groundwork for a productive and happy tomorrow, one where future generations don’t inherit the same worries we face today, to make sure they are able to harness the freedom that is rightfully theirs and to keep its flame lit as it passes from generation to generation.

That freedom, after so many years of apathetic government and economic powers who cheated and lied us into this situation, is at great risk. But I don’t think many doubt that with this man, and his family and the helm of the most powerful nation in the world, all will be restored, in due time.

The most historical event I have ever witnessed, possibly the most historical I will ever witness. President Obama, an inspirational figure ranking alongside the likes of Lincoln, even before he stepped into the Oval Office.

Just a day after Martin Luther King Day, he was inaugurated. I’ve seen footage of the day King gave his historical speech, and I without a doubt can say the emotion and pride within the people that were not only in Washington, but watching all around the world, matched the spirit held by those in attendance some 45 years ago.

Before President Bush went into this helicopter, he mouthed to Mrs. Obama something along these lines: you’ll have the time of your life, I promise you. We hope, for at least the next four years, we all do.

What a day.

The following is the full text of President George W. Bush’s final radio address to the nation before he leaves office next week.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. For the last eight years, I have had the honor of speaking to the American people Saturday mornings through this radio address. In hundreds of broadcasts, I have talked to you about important issues affecting our security and our prosperity. And today, in my final address, I want to send a simple and heartfelt message: Thank you.

Eight years ago, Laura and I left our home in Texas to come to Washington. Through two terms in the White House, we have been blessed by your kind words and generous prayers. We have been inspired by those of you who reach out to feed the hungry, clothe the needy, and care for the sick. We have been moved by the courage and devotion of those of you who wear the uniform. Serving as your President has been an incredible honor.

Like every individual who has held this office before me, I have experienced setbacks. There are things I would do differently if given the chance. Yet I’ve always acted with the best interests of our country in mind. I have followed my conscience and done what I thought was right. You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions.

The decades ahead will bring more hard choices for our country, and there are some guiding principles that should shape our course. While our Nation is safer than it was seven years ago, the gravest threat to our people remains another terrorist attack. Our enemies are patient, and determined to strike again. America did nothing to seek or deserve this conflict. But we have been given solemn responsibilities, and we must meet them. We must resist complacency. We must keep our resolve. And we must never let down our guard.

At the same time, we must continue to engage the world with confidence and clear purpose. In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.

As we address these challenges — and others we cannot foresee today — America must maintain our moral clarity. I’ve often spoken to you about good and evil. This has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere. Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right. This Nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth. We must always be willing to act in their defense — and to advance the cause of peace.

Eight years ago, on a cold January morning, I stood on the steps of the United States Capitol, placed my hand on the Bible, and swore a sacred oath to defend our people and our Constitution. On that day, I spoke of “our Nation’s grand story of courage and its simple dream of dignity.” Next week, my term of service will come to an end — but that story and that dream will continue.

On Tuesday, Laura and I will join all Americans in offering our best wishes to President Obama, his wife Michelle, and their two beautiful girls. And later that day, we will return to the love of family and friends in Texas. I will depart office proud of my Administration’s record. And I will spend the rest of my life grateful for the opportunity to have served as President of the greatest nation on Earth.

Thank you for listening.

Source: White House Press Office

There are still many unknowns about how Barack Obama will govern when he takes office later this month, but one thing is clear: Obama will have enormous power.

The economic crisis has literally changed the rules of government. The executive branch has overseen an injection of trillions of public funds into the private sector — and without admitting it, has essentially conceded that American-style capitalism, which has been viewed as holy writ by economists, journalists, academics and politicians for 30 years, is not sustainable.

As a result, the Obama administration’s first six months will be dominated with plans for a massive (though many say, not massive enough) $850 billion stimulus plan that, while not yet fully crafted, will involve a major public works project, large amounts of aid to state governments – most of which are running large deficits and are in or near recession — increased aid to homeowners and endless other possibilities for major reform and ambitious programs.

Obama is also taking the reigns of two wars and the largest military in the history of humanity just as the country faces complicated geopolitical conflicts in India, Pakistan, Palestine, Israel, Africa, Lebanon and elsewhere.

While few presidents aspire to take office while the country is in war, the economy is sputtering and the quality of life for Americans is expected to decrease dramatically, it does give the president enormous power.‚  “You never want serious crisis to go to waste,’” said Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

But what Obama makes of the opportunity remains to be seen. Obama has continued to trump the idea that his recovery package will serve the interests of “Main Street” as well as Wall Street; however, like all U.S presidents, Obama was put into office with the help of elite, moneyed interest – he received more money from the finance sector than any other candidate in presidential history.‚ ‚  And despite his rhetoric of helping out the regular guy, Obama, while in the stretch run of the 2008 campaign, elected to support a $700 billion bailout to the financial sector which was opposed by virtually the entire population and, unlike packages implemented by other developed nations struggling with recession, was practically toothless in regulating these businesses and in limiting executive pay.

On the other hand, Obama could implement something akin to a new “New Deal” which could shape American governance for decades.‚  He has amassed a mountain of good will from his supporters, as well as the media; and a weakened Republican party will be unable to kill most of his proposals, as the electorate is yearning for wide scale changes.

So many are left to wonder what Obama’s first six months in president will look like. Here, we seek to assess the possibilities. But before we do so, it is important to understand the ebb and flow of the power structure of the federal government. For it is not only the economic crisis that has afforded Obama such immense power, but also and eight-year campaign to expand the power of the executive branch by the office of his predecessor.

The precedent of power

During the last few years of George W. Bush’s presidency many speculated power the executive branch would be diminished when a transfer of power took over.‚  Bush went as far as any president in recent history – maybe ever – in expanding the power of the executive branch.

His unrivaled use of signing statements, which undermined legislation behind the scenes in lieu of making a far more visible veto, were condemned by legal groups and politicians alike. In his first six years a Republican-controlled Congress, gave him a blank check on foreign policy issues: torture, wiretapping, rendition, troop escalations and unconditional funding for two brutal military campaigns. When the Democrats took over in 2006, things did not change much; Democrats continued to fund the war in Iraq and refused to prosecute executive branch officials for their clear abuse of powers.

Dear EarthTalk: I’m thinking about starting an environmental club in my middle school.‚  Can you give me some ideas about how to start?‚  Can you connect me with other school clubs? – Rosemary, Andover Township, NJ

Starting an environmental club at school is a great way to get students energized about taking care of the Earth and helping their community while learning about some of the most important issues facing the world in the 21st century.

EarthTeam, a non-profit environmental network for teens, teachers and youth leaders, offers many tips on how to start an environmental club. First and foremost is to make sure there are at least a half dozen or so other students interested in forming such a club to begin with, and then also finding a teacher, community leader or parent who is willing to serve as an adult sponsor. The sponsor’s role is to provide advice along the way and to help ensure the stability of the group from year-to-year given that all of the students, even the founders of the club, will eventually graduate, or move on to other interests or endeavors.

Once the core membership and adult sponsor have been established, EarthTeam suggests all sitting down together to decide on the club’s vision (“Why are we here?”) and to brainstorm about possible activities or projects to undertake (“What do we want to accomplish?”). Once these questions have been answered, it’s time to hold the club’s first official meeting, which should be advertised as widely as possible to other students who may be interested in finding out what the group is about and how they can get involved, too.

The next step, according to EarthTeam, is to forge an action plan that focuses on one group-oriented, year-long project that has measurable benefits to the school or community and that can keep the interest of the student members-who will no doubt be spending long hours volunteering. Whatever project(s) the group decides on, members should develop a timeline that clearly lists goals, dates and responsibilities.

In addition to undertaking the one major project, clubs can also host or sponsor special events for extra visibility. EarthTeam suggests getting students outside for a river or beach clean-up, a tree planting day, or a field trip to a local wetland, zoo or nature reserve. Another popular idea is to hold an Environmental Awareness Day to educate the entire student body about relevant green issues.

EarthTeam is also a networking platform so clubs can work together and share experiences with each other to help get a sense of the bigger picture beyond one individual school’s locale, given the global nature of most environmental issues. Another great networking resource is the Greenspan website, which lists clubs in 21 different U.S. states as well as in Australia, Canada, Japan, Ghana and Malaysia.

Another great resource for those starting up new or managing existing school environmental clubs is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Student Center website, which offers dozens of ideas for projects that both stimulate and enlighten participants while helping the local community. The website also provides links to several partner non-profit groups with club-worthy activities.

CONTACTS: EarthTeam, www.earthteam.net; Greenspan Environmental Club Network, www.greenspanworld.org/environmental_club_network.htm; U.S. EPA Student Center, www.epa.gov/students.

Realized.

As much of a critic as he is of the Bush presidency, Oliver Stone’s biopic of our current president didn’t make you hate Bush – it made you feel bad for him.

Telling the story of George W. Bush’s presidency, the rightly titled “W.” (pronounced “Dubya”) is ironic and critical, but makes President Bush look like the victim rather than the enforcer of the manipulation and deceit that has brought his popularity rating to a historic low.

Playing Bush is Josh Brolin, who is proving to be the next great actor of our generation. Following his critically acclaimed role in the Cohen brothers’ Oscar-winning “No Country for Old Men,” Brolin gives a near perfect interpretation of good ol’ Dubya.

The only issue with Brolin’s portrayal of Bush was that he was cast to play Bush in his college days. While Brolin was able to pull of the character of Bush, his wrinkled veneer gave away the 20 year age difference between how old he is and how old the character he was supposed to have been playing was.

The all-star player was Thandie Newton’s Condoleezza Rice, whose awkward facial expressions and nasal vocal-interpretation of the Secretary of State added new levels of humor to some of the more straight-forward character caricatures.

Rounding out the bunch was Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney, Scott Glenn as Donald Rumsfeld, Toby Jones as Karl Rove, Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell, Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush and James Cromwell as George Herbert Walker Bush.

“W.” chronicled the story of George Bush Jr.’s life through his interactions with his father. Stone portrayed Bush’s actions as only wanting to live up to his father’s expectations and earn Bush Sr.’s approval. The jealous of his elder brother Jed was undercurrent throughout the entirety of the film.

The story was told out of chronological order, which was confusing because it was hard to judge when it was supposed to have taken place. Eventually the contexts became clear, but, especially with the age issues with Brolin, the idea was there for telling Bush’s story thematically though un-chronologically, but it was not delivered as effectively as it could have been.

The themes were very strong throughout the story and the film was well-created. Introverted shots like Bush trying to catch a baseball in the outfield of his empty stadium and lines like Bush Sr.’s “Who do you think you are, a Kennedy?” really give interesting dynamic to what has become known as one of the worst presidencies of all time.

Stone ended the film just as Bush was going into his second term as presidency (around 2004) which I didn’t quite understand. The film ended on a bizarre note, with Dick Cheney coaxing Bush to enter into war with Iraq and eventually Iran, saying, “There is no exit strategy.” It didn’t really make sense for Stone to end the film where he did when so many more important and critical events happened after the invasion of Iraq. By leaving the second term of Bush’s presidency out of the film, he did not create an apt representation of the president that so many have come to despise – unless Stone has secret plans for a sequel.

“W.” was an incredibly well created piece of film, both visually appealing and character driven. It gave new insight into a public figure in ways that have not been shown before. Thought it had a few minor flaws, “W.” is worth your money.

News editors/bloggers: Contact us if you wish to use any of the photos in this story.

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. — A large crowd formed at 8 a.m. Friday outside of the Pan Am Hanger here in Portsmouth, where Barack Obama was scheduled to appear.

Obama read through his speech to the unstoppable cheers of the crowds in front of him. “The American people began down the road to change,” he said. Entrance polls in Iowa showed that 51 percent of voters seeking “change” caucused for Obama Thursday.

People were there to show support, yes, but also to meet the man.

There were also others that were less certain still wanting to learn what he stood for and if they should back him on his run for the White House.

“I got here at 8:30 … I’m still trying to decide who to vote for,” said “Angelynne,” who was standing on line to greet the senator. She said that she was enjoying the attention the candidates were giving New Hampshire voters. “People in other states have to pay money to see these people, we get begged!”

With a debate scheduled for Saturday, many of the candidates are showing up in New Hampshire to prepare and use the opportunity to get voter support. Even the cold did not deter people from filling the Hanger. The temperature hung in there at four degrees.

Obama started out talking about where he came from and how that influenced who he is. He said that he didn’t always live in Chicago, but he wanted to work at the grass roots level.

“There were a group of churches who had come together to try deal with the devastation of steel plants being closed, and for three and a half years I worked as an organizer, with them to bring job training to the unemployed, economic development to communities that had been torn apart,” he said. “It was the best education I ever had … One of the things that I learned was ordinary people can do extraordinary things when given a chance.”

He said many times throughout the speech how he was trying to bring all of America together. “We are one nation; we are one people; the time for change has come.”

He talked about the different people that came to the caucus where he stood shaking hands — the high school seniors, unsure of how a caucus works; the Democrats; the Independents that believe in him; and even the Republicans, who broke party lines to caucus for the Democrat. He said that he was trying to make “a new working majority, go out and remake America, and then change the World.”

He believes in “Hope over Fear,” “Unity over division,” — that he will be the president that “Will be willing to disagree with you, without being disagreeable.”

“I won’t tell you what you want to hear, I will tell you what you need to hear.” He said he will be the president that doesn’t owe his election to big businesses and special interests.

Hope was an ever-present theme. He acknowledged that the other politicians are criticizing his experience, calling him a “Hope Monger.” They want him to be “Seasoned and Stewed.” They want to "boil all the hope out of me," he said. “Hopes that I saw in the eyes of the people walking into the caucus.”

What does Obama believe hope is? “Hope is that belief that we can work for and fight for that which was denied to us.”

He ended his speech talking about old fashion politics and shook hands with everyone in the crowd that he could.

WASHINGTON — In recent conversations, many of my Democratic friends have begun camping out for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Now, I must say, being in Washington for the past year and half has somewhat, how do you put it, numbed me to politics. Presidential campaigns began rallying their troops nearly two years before the 2008 Election Day with a few candidates throwing their hats in the ring before the end of November 2006.

But among Democrats, I’m finding conversations about the candidates to be the same. People are voting for their candidates for hopeful reasons. Hillary supporters by and large are looking to her to lead us forward based on her experience. Or maybe there’s a hint of nostalgia, having gone astray the past eight years from the good old years with Bill. Hopeful Hillary supporters are hoping that she can bring us back to the good times but forward from the havoc that the “evil Republicans hath wrought on America” over the past couple of years.

People who oppose Senator Clinton cite her lack of passion — her voice, which is often seen as being harsh and cold. Senator Clinton has been criticized vastly for coming off as too harsh however, if she were to show a softer feminine side, would this change the views of people who may have held critiques of her since 1992?

While Obama may not have the advantage of being in the West Wing previously, he does have one thing to give his supporters — hope. For many people, Democrats and Republicans alike, he creates an excitement when he brings a Kennedy-esque youthfulness to the stage, much like he did after his victory in Iowa on Thursday night.

However, even those he manages to rouse excitement in are skeptical about his lack of experience on the Federal level which is something he will have to overcome when being compared to Hillary Clinton.

What is really going to differentiate the winner from the loser in this race to the top of the Democratic ticket is really going to be how the voters value experience over passion. Voters this year seem to agree that we need a candidate who will take us forward but it’s going to be a fight to determine who will be the better candidate to take us there.

So far, the media presentation of the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton candidacies has been one of opposites—the fresh newcomer versus the Washington elite; progressivism versus Democratic Leadership Council centrism; grassroots campaigning versus the biggest war chest in the game. But looking at the two Democratic frontrunners now shows how money, power and political clout have the ability to erase all such distinctions, making both candidates more similar and less interesting.

The opposites myth would have been much more valid long before the campaign, before Obama was a member of the U.S. Senate, a place where principled people and fearless progressives are not easy to come by. The Senator’s October 2002 speech at an anti-war rally in Chicago, having showcased a passionate condemnation of the march to war in Iraq, shows an Obama willing to take a politically unpopular position, confronting not only power but the consensus.

In the speech, neoconservative war architects Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz are "armchair, weekend warriors" and Karl Rove is a "political hack." Saudi Arabia and Egypt are our "so-called allies" who commit human rights violations. These are strong words, and one can’t help but be disappointed when remembering that this is the same guy who weaseled uncomfortably out of a simple question that arose after controversial comments by Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace: is homosexuality immoral? We had to hear it later through Obama’s spokesperson that he disagreed with Pace’s remark that it was. It appeared that the climate of Washington had claimed yet another progressive victim.

Eight days after Barack Obama delivered his anti-war speech in Chicago, Senator Hillary Clinton gave a speech of her own—on the floor of the U.S. Senate, explaining her vote in favor of the war authorization. In the speech, she says, "I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."

Just as Obama’s speech is a reminder in our vapid and endless election season of how he once acted on principle, Clinton’s speech is a reminder that it was not only the Bush administration that evoked September 11th in their support of a wholly unrelated war in Iraq that acted on instinct—as Obama says, a war of "passion"—rather than facts.

The distrust– and indeed loathing–by the left of Hillary Clinton goes beyond her war vote and subsequent refusal to apologize for it. She also voted twice to authorize the Patriot Act and co-sponsored legislation that would make flag-burning a crime, an unconstitutional law according to Justice Scalia.

Given just the above, it’s quite clear as to who is the better pick for president in 2008. But a lot has changed since 2002.

Now, the former antiwar community organizer and Illinois State Senator is a presidential candidate who supports a slow withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, but not the cutting of funding for the war, which is the only way to really end it.

Hillary Clinton is a former unabashed hawk who has since grown critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the conflict, and supports a troop withdrawal but not fund slashing—the same stance as Barack.

On other issues, neither candidate is willing to say what both most likely believe—that to deny gay Americans the right to marry is discriminatory religious pandering. Both Senators support "universal and affordable health insurance," but neither supports the means to get us there: a single-payer system. Both think that we must deal with Iran diplomatically, but neither are leaving out any options.

Both of their websites are written in the language of campaign management: that banal, humorless, and odd code that sees "strengthening families" and "supporting parents" as key "issues." It’s the language that says a lot but means nothing, and in a political campaign you can always identify the candidates with the littlest chance of winning by how little they take refuge in its blandly safe vernacular.

So this, then, is what voters are left with: two mainstream Democrats bent on talking points but short on specifics, in favor of reform but not revolution, critical of the establishment only to a point.

The last scene of George Orwell’s Animal Farm famously described pigs dining with men and the rest of the animals unable anymore to tell the difference between the two. Looking at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton now is a little like being outside that window, trying to remember which one is the establishment candidate and which is the outsider.