The Filibuster: a parliamentary tactic through which a minority prevents the majority from passing legislation. Wait, what? Essentially, a filibuster stops congress from passing a bill. The minority party, or even a single Senator, can block legislation. The Senate allows for unlimited debate on a bill unless a cloture vote, literally a vote to end debate, is called for. If a senator so chooses he can force 3/5^ths of the Senate to vote for cloture, 3/5^ths currently equals 60 Senators.

Two types of filibusters are recognized. These are often referred to as the painless filibuster, and the painful filibuster. The painful filibuster is the stuff of Hollywood legend: a single admirable Senator fighting for what he knows to be right. This tactic is rarely seen, and aptly named. A Senator must talk – endlessly. The Senator cannot sit down, eat, drink, go to the bathroom, lean on anything, or really do anything other than talk. So, why do this at all? Because in the circumstance where a single Senator feels obligated to block legislation, he can do so until he can no longer talk.

The sheer endurance necessary for the painful filibuster has relegated it mainly to the history books. It has been replaced by the “invisible” filibuster. Essentially the invisible, painless, filibuster allows for 41 Senators, the number necessary to block cloture, to declare their intention to filibuster. This means that the filibuster can be used extensively and without much struggle. Recently the “invisible” filibuster, introduced as a rule by Robert Byrd in the 1970s has been used to block financial regulation, federal judge nominations, and healthcare reform.

The filibuster has been used to block major portions of the Obama administration’s agenda. In 2009, the minority Republicans forced a record 139 votes for cloture; and as of the end of February 2010, the Republicans had forced 40 votes for cloture. The filibuster has become a tool for minority obstruction, and a successful one at that.

Many people consider these techniques employed by Mr. Bush’s administration to be torture, and almost all of them were banned in 2005 and 2006 when this story was the most prominent in the media and around the world. But the debate over what classifies as torture is not the only controversy of the issue. There has also been intense discussion over whether it was appropriate for the Obama administration to release the memos in the first place, perhaps causing national security risks by doing so.

Really, I do not believe there is any debate to be had over this issue. The methods that were revealed to not only have been used, but abused severely in some cases, definitely constitute torture. Besides for other international standards, the United States is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, which explicitly outlaw water boarding and other methods used by the Bush administration. Torture not work, it does not protect us, it destroys our moral standing in the world, and it is a gross violation of the human rights of the victim, even if that victim is a terrorist or criminal.

Some may argue that during a time of war torture is necessary to save the lives of innocent people. I have yet to have seen or heard of a scenario outside of fictional TV shows like 24 where a situation like this one has actually occurred. In real life, our ethics as a nation should never be set aside out of fear. There are many other effective ways of protecting our country that do not compromise our value system, as has been evidenced by the capture of the recent underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who is currently in the United States’ government’s custody. We gained far more valuable information from treating him ethically, than from torturing many prisoners in the past.

Finally, some might be asking, why does this debate matter now? President Obama staunchly supports the decision to outlaw the torture methods of the Bush administration, so maybe his decision to release this material is superfluous, or at worst a political ploy to focus public attention on the unpopular decisions of the past. I do not agree with this position because transparency in regards to an issue this important is paramount. If the legal basis by which these methods are outlawed is not airtight, it risks being altered in the future during other times of conflict. So in order to determine that basis, exactly what happened needs to be made public, and the Obama administration has performed admirably in it’s decision to release the memos.

]]> http://libertas.rudemocrats.com/2010/04/10/the-ethics-of-torture/feed/ 3 http://libertas.rudemocrats.com/2010/04/08/the-west-wing-and-the-death-penalty/ http://libertas.rudemocrats.com/2010/04/08/the-west-wing-and-the-death-penalty/#comments Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:59:02 +0000 Naomi Michaelis http://libertas.rudemocrats.com/?p=440 In one episode of the popular political drama “The West Wing”, fictional President Josiah Bartlet managed to address one of the most difficult issues that this country faces on a regular basis- the separation between Church and State.  The episode, Take This Sabbath Day, addresses the morality of the death penalty.  President Bartlet needed to make one of the most difficult decisions, to spare the life of a man who committed murder, or to execute him.  The question that members of the executive branch face is whether to execute someone, which is legal, or to put their own morals and religious beliefs ahead of a court ruling.

President Bartlet had been looking for a reason to commute the sentence that people would accept that was not related to religion.  He spoke to a Quaker, a Jew (who had spoken with his Rabbi), and the Pope, but understood that he must respect the decision of the courts unless there is reasonable doubt. He also understood that people would not accept a Catholic president commuting a sentence because of his personal religion.  The rules of Catholicism, Judaism, and Quakerism gave President Bartlet reasons to want to commute the sentence. However, when it came down to it, the ruling by the judges ruled over the moral and religious conscience of President Bartlet.

With a country full of diversity, it is important for the courts to be able to fulfill their roles rather than a president take his religion and apply it to a situation.  If presidents use their religion to support their political beliefs they would be allowing religion to take over the country and would ultimately lead to the creation of a national religion, which would go against the First Amendment.  Simon Cruz, the character in question, was found guilty of murder, and the president chose to stand firm on his belief on separation of powers. In the end, he recognized the importance of keeping his own personal religion out of politics, an important precedent for future presidents

A few of the biggest criticisms of the bill puzzle me. First, it’s too long and too complicated. I’m at a loss to find any piece of congressional legislation that isn’t extremely long or complicated, let alone the most sweeping bill passed in half a century. So if you’ve only read the summary of the 1018-page bill, that doesn’t make you uneducated, nor does it mean Congress made it too wordy.

Second, it’s too expensive. Naturally the fact that the bill costs nearly $1 trillion over the next decade is somewhat concerning, but comprehensive healthcare is expensive by its very nature. We have similar health statistics to other industrialized nations with universal healthcare systems, yet we pay twice as much on average. Cost should not be neglected as a factor, but with all the billions of dollars Congress spends on an extremely colorful budget, the health and well being of the nation should not be relegated to a financial backseat.

Read the bill. Like me, you may not be a health insurance expert fluent in legal terms, and you may find some of the language less than succinct, but the single biggest difference I can cite between the future and the status quo is that we know what the status quo looks like. It’s a painful reality for most Americans, as nearly one-sixth of the nation isn’t even covered to wait in a doctor’s office. It’s a system so expensive, even for those who have coverage, that most conservatives I’ve spoken to are willing to admit that some kind of reform is needed.

So now we have something. Our generation, finding it increasingly difficult to find jobs, can remain on our parents’ healthcare until we’re 26. Insurance companies now must report their budgets to the government, and can no longer drop policy-holders who get sick – something I thought was the very point of having insurance in the first place. Consumer Insurance Information is now required to be online should we choose to look at it. Restaurant chains must display caloric information on their menus. Oh yeah, and you’ll be fined if you don’t have healthcare (unless for religious or financial reasons) by 2014. If you’re having financial difficulty affording it, the federal government will assist you (the main provision of the bill, and the general gist of a bunch of other points within it). Although I admit I’m a Democrat, I’d like to believe I’d be in favor of most of these points regardless.

Had President Obama’s predecessor received half as much vehement protest on any such issue (foreign or domestic), he would have accused his opponents of providing comfort and aid to our enemies. I believe it speaks to President Obama’s character that he has displayed almost no public animosity to those who compare him to every despicable leader who has ever existed, and instead try to work with them despite his larger congressional majority and electoral mandate.

In nearly every mid-term Congressional election, the President’s party is set to lose seats, sometimes even their majority. Since January 20, 2009, tax cuts have been granted to the less wealthy 95% of Americans, the stock market has rallied, and economic growth is up; still, Republican leaders whine and holler enough that they may well spark an electoral reversal for the Administration come November. However, while majorities are temporary and fleeting, major legislation stands. For better or for worse, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is the most important legislation passed in nearly fifty years. All patriotic Americans, no matter what their affiliation, should hope that at least some good will come of it rather than plotting its demise for their petty partisan purposes. All Americans should recognize that however they feel regarding the legislation, history has been made. Perhaps it’s time to take a while to reflect on that.

The much-worshipped cornerstone of Republican economic policy is the ‘trickledown theory’, religiously followed ever since the advent of Ronald Reagan. Put simply, the idea is that if the rich and the corporations are given tax cuts and various benefits they will stimulate the economy by investing their money, and hiring people so their wealth will trickle down to everyone else and ultimately increase employment and income.

Anyone who’s taken Econ 101 can debunk this so-called ‘theory’. The rich don’t actually behave this way; they have a very low Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC) and much higher Marginal Propensity to Save (MPS). What that means is, when the rich get their tax cuts they put the money in the bank and never look at it again. That is because they have so much money that a tax cut does not really make much difference to them or their spending habits. They’re already spending on what they want. The same goes for corporations. This flawed theory drove Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts with disastrous results.

The GOP claimed that the tax cuts would boost economic growth. Simple facts prove otherwise. The average annual GDP growth was 2.5% under the Bush administration, significantly lower than the 4.0% it was under the Clinton administration. Unemployment worsened from 4.2% to 6.3% between 2001 and 2003. The poverty rate increased from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004. All of this happened following the tax cuts. In the longer term during 2001-2007 the job market had its weakest growth since 1945, household income growth was negative for the first time since 1967, African-Americans faced increased poverty levels, and women lost ground in the job market. We feel these consequences today.

Upward economic mobility in the US is the lowest of all the developed nations in the world, while income inequality is the highest. This also includes the dreaded “socialist” states of France, Sweden, Germany, Canada, Norway, with Denmark having the greatest upward economic mobility and lowest income inequality. Yes, the same Denmark that is a welfare state with socialized medicine. The same Denmark that has the highest income tax in the world with a minimum at 42% and a max of over 62% a 25% VAT and the highest minimum worldwide. Denmark incidentally also has one of the freest markets making it more capitalist than the US. “People like to think of America as the land of opportunities,” says Dr. Kathryn Wilson, associate professor of economics at Kent State University. “The irony is that our country actually has less social mobility and more inequality than most developed countries.”

Now the real question is why the Republican Party has stuck by such a flawed economic theory for so long and why have so many Americans have continually been taken in by it? Well on one hand, the corpse of zombie Reagan is trotted out every time this theory is mentioned so I’m sure that contributes to the cult that’s been built around it. However, the real factor is The American Dream©. The ubiquitous nice suburban house with two kids and a car in the driveway is quite an appealing image to many Americans. Everyone likes to believe that at some point in their lives they will be wealthy, that with some hard work and elbow grease anyone can rise to the top. In reality, they will never even reach upper middle class. Children from low-income families only have a 1% chance of reaching the top 5%. It turns out that the majority of the people who are born poor end up staying poor, living poor and dying poor. Shocking isn’t it?

It’s about time the ‘trickledown theory’ was killed and buried. It’s about time America as a whole took a good, long, hard look at our country and what’s happening to it. It’s about time we stopped ignoring the fact that we are increasingly falling behind in every standard of living indicator compared to the rest of the developed world from healthcare to education and even economic competitiveness. It’s about time that we take action; health reform; educational reform, economic reform, and political reform aren’t just nice buzzwords but absolute necessities for the survival of America and the American Dream. President Obama’s healthcare plan is just one small step in a long road to revive the American Dream. If he succeeds then perhaps the American Dream can be resuscitated and live on even greater than ever before. If he fails….well, I hear Denmark is nice this time of year.

“I do.”

With those simple pithy little words, a lifetime commitment begins. Once married, couples also stand to gain an array of legal benefits. These range from hospital visitation rights to certain tax benefits. In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to recognize that every loving couple, straight and gay, deserves the opportunity to have their union recognized and certified in the eyes of the law.

As of this writing, four states have legalized marriage equality. The other three are Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. When will New Jersey join their ranks? For how much longer will our ostensibly liberal and true-blue state be “out-progressed” by a bunch of corn-huskers in Iowa, of all places? The Garden State is smack-dab in the middle of NYC and Philadelphia, for goodness’ sake. We’re supposed to be cosmopolitan! Iowa, on the other hand, is the midpoint between nowhere and a flock of sheep, if that.

In all seriousness, it is maddening that New Jersey has yet to extend the rights of marriage to all its residents. Instead, we have something called “civil unions”. Garden State same-sex couples have been allowed to join in civil unions before the law. This classification was to guarantee gays and lesbians all the same legal rights and benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy, without the supposedly insurmountable hurdle of using the word “marriage”. Presently, this has resulted in equal rights on paper, but varying results in practice. As any student of American history could have guessed, a “separate but equal” policy has turned out to be inherently unequal.

Recently, our fair state established the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission to evaluate the program’s success. Their report, however, concluded civil unions to be “a failed experiment”.

Governor Corzine, as reported in The Star-Ledger, has “pledged to sign a gay marriage bill if it reaches his desk”. Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Princeton) introduced just such a bill, but it has yet to pass. The state senate, meanwhile, seems to be really dragging its heels. Both Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D-Camden) and Senate President Richard Codey (D-Essex) have expressed their support in the past for legalizing same-sex marriage. Now they must double their efforts to round up the necessary votes and send a bill to the governor.

Senator Loretta Weinberg, a Bergen county Democrat, explains the stakes:

“As public opinion continues to evolve from the dark days when homosexuals were forced to hide their sexual orientation from a fearful and intolerant public, we stand on the precipice of a rebirth of true civil rights for all people. As more and more states take a stand in defense of marriage – and I truly believe that expanding the definition strengthens the institution of marriage, as opposed to weakening it – we’re gaining momentum to true, nationwide marriage equality that does not judge the value of love between two people, be they heterosexual or homosexual.”

We need to throw away our two-tiered “separate but equal” system and stop assigning second-class status to gay and lesbian relationships in the eyes of the law.

You can help bring about this change in New Jersey. Just take a minute to call one or more of the following leaders in Trenton and ask them to legalize marriage equality.

The Obama Administration: a time of change, a new era of bi-partisanship, getting together and feeling all right…

Not quite.

We have a new president who campaigned on changing the way Washington works. He follows a president who never once considered the opinion of the opposition and yet, almost three months into his presidency, what has happened? Bitter political fights over the stimulus deal, budget, and CEO bonuses. Then there have been people like Michelle Bachmann— who only a few months ago called for an investigation of Congress to see who loves America and who hates it—calling herself a “foreign correspondent, reporting from enemy lines,” talking about Obama’s intent to start “re-education camps for young people,” and calling for an “orderly revolution” against the “tyranny” Obama is inflicting upon the American people.

Granted, Bachmann is considered pretty far out there, even by Republicans. Yet we still hear arguments like these coming from other right-wing ideologues like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck. They call Obama a Communist or a Socialist (Beck recently realized he was wrong about calling Obama a Socialist—he’s actually a Fascist). Limbaugh wants Obama to fail, while Hannity warns listeners about the daily danger we all face if universal health care and taxes on the wealthiest of the wealthy are raised…Oy.

Now here I am, a liberal, ranting against conservatives—what’s new? I get pretty riled up just thinking about what these people say, and I think, who in God’s name watches this stuff without their minds turning to mush? Then I remember: there are plenty of people on the left who are just as ignorant as Beck and Hannity. Left or right, anybody is capable of holding far-fetched ideas. That is how our country works: we may swing from one side to the other, but moving too far in either direction can have bad consequences. The middle is where America is healthiest.

Why? Because no matter how much we try, there has been, is, and forever will be, disagreement between people. The only way we advance as human beings is by having others point out the error of our ways. Are we completely incapable, though, of sitting down with people whose views we can’t understand and having a substantive discussion without hurling insults?

I honestly don’t think we are. I’m as guilty as anyone else of jumping to conclusions and yelling at the TV or radio whenever there is a conservative on. But as long as we stay in our little bubbles, only listening to people with whom we agree, we can never learn the opinions of those on the other side of the political spectrum. There needs to be more personal, face-to-face interaction between people who have strong disagreements, because when we see that our “enemies” are just as human as we are, we may understand their viewpoints better rather than vilifying them.

Conservatives have O’Reilly, Hannity, and Kristol; Liberals have Olbermann, Maddow, and Krugman. Of course, these are people in the media, and they need to inject more drama than may be necessary into our public debates. As college students, we should go beyond our comfort zones and interact more with those with whom we may disagree strongly. It may be more fun to get riled up and insult them, but it would be more productive to sit down, talk, and see what we can agree on. Let’s all enjoy our primetime talking heads, just don’t let them talk for you.

You have been elected with 51.7% of the vote in your district, what do you do now?

Congressman John Adler

Since arriving in Washington, DC, freshman Congressman John Adler (NJ-3) has been assigned to the House Committee on Financial Services and Veterans’ Affairs and the Committee’s subcommittees for Capital Markets, Domestic Monetary Policy, and Oversight and Investigations as well as the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, and will serve on the subcommittees for Economic Opportunity and Oversight and Investigations. In the three short months since being sworn in, Congressman Adler has sponsored H.R. 746 that would help veterans and seniors. It would provide $500 tax rebate to retired or unemployed veteran and seniors who are not covered under the tax rebate provided by the stimulus package. The bill has been referred to the Veterans Affair Committee, subcommittee on Health, and the House Ways and Means committee where it waits for a hearing to be held.

In addition to H.R. 746, Congressman Adler has introduced with Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr., (NJ-6) The Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2009. This bill addresses some of the concerns created under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which was originally passed in 1976 and was amended in 1996 and reauthorized in 2006. This bill would create flexibility in the timeline created by the Magnuson-Stevens Act for the ending of overfishing in areas labeled as overfished to allow for the rebuilding of the fishery. Therefore, areas that are showing improvement will be given an opportunity to adjust the timeline to minimize economic harm on fishing communities such as those that exists along the Jersey Shore.

Congressman Adler has also shown that he understands the importance of listening to his constituents. He has obtained more than $6 million from the economic recovery package for Burlington and ocean counties to be used for energy efficiency and conservation projects, which will also help with job creation. Finally, he wants to meet with constituents directly at times and locations that are more convenient for them through his Congress at Your Corner program. He has made numerous visits back to his district to meet with constituents to discuss what is on their minds.

For those of you not up-to-date on the recent controversies, President Barack Obama decided to have Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church do his invocation during the January 20th inauguration. Sadly, this decision has been relentlessly criticized by many Democrats without cause, and such criticisms have been reduced primarily to ad hominem attacks on Warren himself.

The first question you must ask is whether Obama’s decision was “wrong”. I would argue it was not. Rick Warren is not a fundamentalist. In fact, he remains one of the most moderate and open-minded individuals within popular Christianity; even hosting a fair forum with both 2008 general election candidates without ever taking sides. Any remark of extremism and/or comparisons to the likes of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson reveals simple ignorance. This takes us to some of Warren’s infamous quotes: Did you hear that Warren called homosexuality equal to incest and pedophilia? In fact, Warren only argues that sodomy is equivalent to homosexuality in the context of them both changing the 5,000-year-old definition of marriage.

Although Warren is by-no-means the most politically correct or salient speaker, his comment remains factually correct. Warren also comments later, via an off-the-cuff youtubescue video, saying that he by no means believes incest and homosexuality equal. Thus, to argue his prejudice against gays using one comment out of context, while simultaneously disregarding his clarification of that comment later, seems illogical. I can understand why homosexuals may disagree with Obama’s choice; obviously they would much prefer a pastor who believes the Bible doesn’t forbid homosexuality, but the outrage shown by so many people remains unwarranted. Warren has also been charged with the crime of comparing abortion to the holocaust. Although taken out of context as well, the main problem with this argument is that it forgoes the main premises of pro-life advocacy.

“Don’t tell me it should be rare. That’s like saying on the Holocaust, ‘Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that,’” Warren said. “I’m not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended.” The context shows that the holocaust was used only as a popularly understood event of mass murder; such an analogy could easily be interchanged with many others. In addition, most pro-lifers believe that abortion IS murder. Although one may disagree with such an assertion, the analogy above simply defines a holocaust as mass murders, and thus abortion is like a holocaust and ought to be stopped. Once again, you may disagree with him, but there is nothing extreme or logically fallacious with his comment. Once again, although politically incorrect, the remark remains factually correct if taken from a pro-life viewpoint.

Accepting all the points made above, one may still disagree with Obama’s choice of Warren, but to argue that it was “wrong” or to be particularly outraged would be too strong of a response. The question then remains whether this was politically wise. I would personally say it was. Although I can see why many would disagree, Warren is probably the most popular moderate evangelical leader in the country.

If Obama needs a pastor (Wright won’t do), and wanted to reach across the aisle, Warren undoubtedly is the best choice. As seen over his presidential campaign, Obama is clearly shrewd. But how shrewd? Shrewd enough to lean away from his party to make himself more favorable to evangelicals particularly? I think so. In the end, you must admit that this issue, once Obama takes office, will be completely forgotten by liberals. They will go back to worshiping the ground he walks on once he shows he can at least properly invade countries without warrant (a remark on President Bush’s incompetence). Evangelicals, on the other hand, are still wary of Obama and feel lost in today’s Republican Party. I would argue that the Democratic outrage regarding this “issue” only better serves Obama’s strategy, since Obama now looks like he is a moderate, cares about evangelicals, and will even stand up to the “far left”. Since evangelicals are the only ones who may remember this event, why not concoct such a strategy? Regardless of whether it was planned or not, this could turn out well for the President.

In the end, “Warren-Gate” is not newsworthy. In the absence of any real news, the media enjoys creating drama in their own image. Homosexuals and Democrats can disagree with the decision, but don’t act like this is a big deal when people around the world are dying from crimes against humanity (I haven’t heard this much outrage about Darfur)! This petty bickering and inability to form priorities remains one of the foremost problems facing our political system. We just elected an African American Democrat as President during a financial crisis and we’re really spending time on this? Despite being a big supporter of Obama’s, I’m all for keeping our politicians accountable. However, this borders on the absurd, and remains quasi-hypocritical. We can’t ask that our politicians work with opposing parties while excluding those who have different opinions! It’s ironic how intolerant we viewed conservative Christians when they ridiculed Warren for inviting Obama to his Church, and yet we see no hypocrisy in this situation? As Obama has already pointed out in his talking points, Warren has done much for social justice issues as well as AIDS/HIV.

Rick Warren is not an extremist, nor is he intolerant. He simply disagrees with most Democrats on some social issues. I seriously question who is being more intolerant in this situation. Conservative Christian moderates like Rick Warren ought to be encouraged. Obama is acting in a bipartisan manner, like he said he would, while still legislatively pursuing the Democratic issues he promised. And we wonder why politicians lie to us?

The crowd was large enough that, for the first time ever, the entire two-mile expanse of the Mall was open to the public. The ceremonies began at ten o’clock in the morning with musical selections from The United States Marine Band, as well as a stirring performance of “Let Freedom Ring” by Aretha Franklin.

The ceremony did not go on without a hitch, however. Obama stood before Chief Justice John Roberts with his left hand on the bible used by Abraham Lincoln, and Chief Justice Roberts, who was reciting the oath to Obama from memory, incorrectly stated, “I will execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully,” rather than “that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States.” While Roberts restated the line correctly, President Obama decided to repeat the line how Roberts first delivered it. The rest of the oath was taken without incident, but President Obama still retook the oath the following day.

White House Counsel Greg Craig stated that this was simply due to an “abundance of caution,” assuring that Obama had been the President since he was first sworn in. In the inaugural address that followed, President Obama spoke extensively on the troubles faced by the country. “The challenges we face are real,” he said. “They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America – they will be met.” Recognizing how the faults of the previous administration have affected world opinion of the U.S., Obama stated that “America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child… [and] we are ready to lead once more.”

President Obama now faces not only questions over how to handle the military occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan, but an economy in a downturn reminiscent of what was faced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. Already in his first few days in office, Obama has begun reversing key Bush policies in the ‘War on Terror,’ signing executive orders to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay within a year and forcing all interrogations to follow non-coercive methods. These actions can be seen as a strong beginning to the first one hundred days where the tone of the Obama Presidency will be revealed.