Below is a statement from Obama Transition Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer
"At the direction of the President-elect, a review of Transition staff contacts with Governor Blagojevich and his office has been conducted and completed and is ready for release. That review affirmed the public statements of the President-elect that he had no contact with the governor or his staff, and that the President-elect's staff was not involved in inappropriate discussions with the governor or his staff over the selection of his successor as US Senator.
"Also at the President-elect's direction, Gregory Craig, counsel to the Transition, has kept the US Attorney's office informed of this fact-gathering process in order to ensure our full cooperation with the investigation."In the course of those discussions, the US Attorney's office requested the public release of the Transition review be deferred until the week of December 22, in order not to impede their investigation of the governor. The Transition has agreed to this revised timetable for release," said Obama Transition Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer.
Editor's note: Fareed Zakaria is a foreign affairs analyst who hosts "Fareed Zakaria: GPS" on CNN at 1 p.m. ET Sundays.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The future of the U.S. auto industry was in doubt Friday after a proposal for $14 billion in federal loans died in a late-night Senate vote.
The Senate voted 52-35 to bring the measure up for a vote -- short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation. The failure followed the collapse of negotiations between Senate Democrats and Republicans seeking a compromise that all parties, including the auto companies and the United Auto Workers union, could accept.
The dramatic late-night developments could doom General Motors to bankruptcy and closure in the coming weeks, with Chrysler LLC potentially following close behind.
While Ford Motor has more cash on hand to avoid an immediate crisis, its production could be disrupted by problems in the supplier base, as could the production of overseas automakers with U.S. plants, such as Toyota Motor and Honda Motor.
CNN spoke to world affairs expert and author Fareed Zakaria about a potential bailout.
CNN: Is a bailout of the U.S. automotive industry necessary?
Zakaria: There are really two different U.S. auto industries. And only one part of it would have qualified for the bailout that was just rejected by the U.S. Senate -- the inefficient part that is headquartered in Detroit. There is another auto industry in the United States and it is healthy. While it is obviously going through tough times because of the economic crisis, it has not gone begging to Washington for taxpayer help.
CNN: But aren't the Big Three the drivers of the American auto industry? (No pun intended.)
Zakaria: Actually there are 12 international car companies that have manufacturing operations in the United States. Collectively, they employ 113,000 Americans directly -- even though that is less than the 239,000 at Ford, GM and Chrysler. However, those international car companies sell more cars than the Big Three and their customers love their products. They have millions of American shareholders. They do sophisticated work like research, design and marketing in the United States. All in all, they add jobs and high value to the United States.
CNN: So what are they doing better than the U.S. car companies?
Zakaria: It is simple -- better management. Yes, Detroit has problems because of its legacy costs, the cost of paying health care and pensions to its retirees. But many other Americans firms in other industries have had to change their benefit systems or die. Detroit always managed to avoid making the change in part because of government assistance.
But companies like Toyota, Honda, and BMW are not just skilled at cutting costs -- they make better cars. They have more flexible factories and production systems, and understand what American consumers want.
For example, Toyota and Honda are years ahead of American carmakers in designing and producing hybrid cars, and as consumer demand moves in that direction, they will reap the rewards.
Al Gore remarked on the problem on our show a few weeks back. "It's really tragic that General Motors, for example, allowed Toyota to get a seven-year head start on the hybrid drive train in the Prius that is now positioned to really be a dominant feature of the industry in this century."
CNN: But aren't the Big Three saying they will restructure to compete with their foreign competitors?
Zakaria: Yes, as in the past, now that the heat is on, Detroit has been promising to change its ways -- as long as it gets cash. But many people are skeptical and think of it as just a jobs program.
CNN: So you are against the bailout?
No. But the reasons the CEOs of Ford, GM and Chrysler present -- that they will restructure, they are still competitive, they will change -- are bogus; they won't. The best argument for the bailout is that it is the most cost-effective jobs program that the government can run in the short term.
Spending on infrastructure to create jobs will take months, maybe years. However, keeping the Big Three afloat will keep hundreds of thousands of jobs in place quickly and easily. It's true the companies will eventually go bankrupt but by then hopefully the economy can withstand it.
By Ian Rowley and Moon Ihlwan
Considering the home states of some of the Republican Senators opposed to a $25 billion bailout of Detroit, a cynic might concede that they are doing Asian automakers' work for them. After all, Republicans who have criticized the planned aid package for (GM), Ford (F) and Chrysler include those from states where Japanese and Korean automakers have factories. For instance, Republican Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions represent Alabama, home to Honda (HMC), Toyota (TM), and Hyundai plants. John Cornyn represents Texas, which has a 200,000-capacity Toyota Tundra plant in San Antonio. And Bob Corker, who is "very skeptical" of the package, is a GOP Senator from Tennessee, which has two Nissan (NSANY) plants—in Smyrna and Dechard—and the company's U.S. headquarters in Nashville.
Yet the senators opposing a bailout bill also may be in disagreement with those same Japanese and Korean automakers. For Asia's leading automakers, the prospect of one or all of the Big Three failing is arguably of greater concern than rivals receiving government aid. Indeed, since executives worry the collapse of GM, Ford, or Chrysler would have a negative impact on car sales, hurt the financial health of suppliers, and trigger a possible backlash against import brands, the problems of Detroit are problems for foreign rivals, too.
While a bankruptcy filing would likely boost Asian sales and shares eventually, in the short term it could make matters worse for Toyota, Hyundai, and the others. One problem, notes Andrew Phillips, an analyst at KBC Securities in Tokyo, is that one or more U.S. carmakers entering into Chapter 11 would do little to cut excess capacity and probably worsen consumer confidence. "It's in the Japanese and Korean carmakers' interest for the U.S. economy to stabilize and, if bailing out the Big Three means that, they are not going to be opposed to it," he says.
With no bailout plan yet agreed upon, Japanese and Korean automakers are mostly avoiding commenting on what the U.S. authorities should be doing. For one thing, it might look as if they're crowing when rivals are in need of emergency surgery. Those who have spoken have offered qualified support for U.S. government aid for their struggling rivals. Among them, Nissan Chief Executive Officer Carlos Ghosn and Honda CEO Takeo Fukui have indicated that they back bailouts in principle. Fukui, for instance, said on Nov. 6 that he isn't opposed to the U.S. government helping automakers as long as fair competition is maintained. The Honda boss, who would also like to see the Japanese government intervene to weaken the soaring yen, added that it's only natural for a government to support one of its country's key industries.
In Korea, a bailout is also garnering support. President Lee Myung Bak told reporters in Washington on Nov. 16 that a bailout was vital because of links between the U.S. auto industry and the Korean economy. "I'm in favor of the efforts to rescue the U.S. auto industry," Korean newspapers reported Lee as saying. Hyundai, Korea's biggest carmaker, also wishes Detroit well. "We recognize there may be extraordinary situations [which] may require unprecedented actions to assure [the auto industry's] long-term viability and a healthy American economy," says Hyundai spokesman Oles Gadacz.
Of course, self-interest is the motivating factor. Despite market share in the U.S. of a combined 44% in October, Japanese and Korean automakers are hurting. Toyota, for instance, projects it will only make around $200 million during the second half of its financial year which ends in March and has formed an Emergency Profit Improvement Committee, led by President Katsuaki Watanabe, to search for new ways to trim costs (BusinessWeek.com, 11/6/08) and reevaluate the size and timing of new projects.
A Detroit bankruptcy might only make matters worse, if consumers perceive Asians' success as having unfairly contributed to the Big Three's decline. "A bankruptcy would have a tremendous impact on the U.S. economy and on demand for new cars," says Yasuhiro Matsumoto, an analyst at Shinsei Securities in Tokyo. "In no way should Japanese automakers let their U.S. counterparts fail."
A U.S. car market without one or all of the Big Three might not be as attractive as it first appears. In Japan, Japanese automakers account for well over 90% of sales, but that means they have to compete almost completely with some of the toughest rivals in the industry—each other. Profits are low, but competing with less efficient Big Three rivals may make it easier to eke out bigger earnings. "Japanese carmakers would be wise to help ensure the U.S. market doesn't become like the Japanese market," Matsumoto adds.
Just as important are the close ties between Japanese and Korean automakers and their U.S. rivals. On Nov. 18, Ford sold 20% (BusinessWeek.com, 11/18/08) of Mazda (7261.T), reducing its stake to 13%, but the fortunes of the two automakers remain closely aligned. For example, Mazda and Ford share production at several plants and work closely together on new vehicle development. In particular, Mazda plays a large role in the development of Ford's passenger cars.
Similarly, Korea's Daewoo is responsible for GM's small-car output and would have plenty to lose if GM were to go under. South Korea is the home to GM's small-car design and production and GM Daewoo Auto and Technology made about a quarter of the 4 million cars built in Korea in 2007. "GM's collapse would not only be a disaster for the U.S. economy, but also a major blow to the Korean auto industry," says Kim Jun Kyu, research manager at Korea Automobile Manufacturers Assn. And hundreds of Korean parts makers depend on GM for their sales. "I have invested $16 million to make parts for GM Daewoo's new Gen3 engine, but now nobody knows when GM can introduce new vehicles in the face of the global economic meltdown," says Choi Bum Young, who also heads the association of 228 primary part suppliers of GM Daewoo.
While the linkup is less vital to their financial health, Toyota and GM share production at the New United Motor Manufacturing plant in Fremont, Calif. Meanwhile, Nissan and Chrysler have inked production agreements that will see Nissan make small cars for Chrysler. In return, Chrysler will supply pickups and vehicles to Nissan in North America.
Even Asian carmakers that don't have alliances, particularly Japanese players such as Honda, still share U.S. suppliers with the Detroit Three. Indeed, analysts say that the biggest short-term worry if GM fails is it will also damage suppliers. That would then have an impact on all their customers, says KBC Securities' Phillips. The ideal situation for Japanese automakers is to continue to take market share gradually from Detroit in a way that allows suppliers time to adjust and avoids a consumer backlash against import brands. From a Japanese carmaker's point of view, "It is better that the Big Three slowly wither away, but that scenario is looking increasingly difficult," says Phillips.
WASHINGTON — The first sign of cracks in President-elect Barack Obama's foreign policy team of rivals emerged on Monday as his choices for secretary of state and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations visited the State Department.
As Secretary of State-pick Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.N. envoy-choice Susan Rice separately visited the diplomatic agency's headquarters in Washington's Foggy Bottom neighborhood, persons familiar with the transition said that Rice wants to install her own transition team inside the department.
Such a move by an incoming U.N. ambassador is rare, if not unprecedented, because the job is based at the United Nations in New York, where Rice already has a small transition staff, the sources familiar with the incoming administration.
The push by Rice, an early Obama supporter whose position the President-elect wants to elevate to a cabinet post, is also a signal that she intends to use her influence with the new president to play a more significant role than previous U.N. envoys, they said. The transition sources spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Officials with Clinton's transition team declined to comment on the matter, and aides to Rice could not immediately be reached. State Department officials declined to comment on issues related to the transition.
It was not clear if Clinton and Rice _ who had strained relations during the Democratic primaries because of Rice's steadfast backing of Obama _ saw each other at the State Department as Clinton left the building shortly after Rice arrived.
During the presidential campaign, some Clinton aides saw Rice's early decision to back Obama as a betrayal because of her previous role as a high State Department official during President Bill Clinton's administration. Rice's desire to place her own team in Washington could fuel speculation that those tensions will carry into the new administration.
The officials could not say if Clinton's team had formally objected to Rice's plan, or even if Rice would be able to install a separate transition team inside the State Department. But they noted that dueling transition teams could complicate the handover by blurring lines of authority.
Technically, the job of U.N. envoy falls under the authority of the secretary of state, although some previous U.N. ambassadors have held cabinet rank. The last U.N. ambassador to be part of the president's cabinet was Richard Holbrooke, who had a famously icy relationship with then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright during the Clinton administration.
Albright, who was President Clinton's first ambassador to the United Nations, was a mentor to Rice. But the two had a falling out when Albright, America's first female secretary of state, lined up behind Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination and Rice backed Obama.
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, was to dine Monday evening with the nation's current and second female secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, at Rice's apartment in the exclusive Watergate complex. The two Rices are not related and Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday that she thought Clinton would do a great job.
Also Monday, Clinton was to meet privately with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. and the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, according to a Democratic official. Kerry, once a contender for the secretary of state job, will oversee Clinton's confirmation. Kerry has pledged to hold "swift and fair" confirmation hearings.
___
Associated Press writer Andrew Miga contributed to this report.
When Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) requested a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) listing questions his fellow senators might ask President-elect Barack Obama's political nominees at their upcoming confirmation hearings, he probably didn't expect a 150-page list of Bush administration screwups. But that's what he got.
The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress that frequently exposes waste, incompetence, and corruption in the federal government, supplemented its proposed questions with summaries of problems in the executive branch. The result is a catalogue of hundreds of unresolved issues that the Bush administration is leaving behind for Obama and his administration.
The report, which is divided by department, is strictly limited to what the GAO calls "basic management capabilities," which means it raises questions about personnel, resource distribution, IT, and "results-oriented decision making." Problems like the politicization of the Justice Department are not mentioned. But this report serves as a peephole into the myriad internal problems of the executive branch, depicting a federal bureaucracy that is rife with mismanagement, inefficiency, and faulty communication practices—all of this combining to jeopardize both the nation's health and security.
Department of Homeland SecurityThe section on DHS begins with the big picture: "The department lacks not only a comprehensive strategy with overall goals and a timeline, but also a dedicated management integration team to support its management integration efforts." In other words, the agency that's supposed to protect American citizens is really screwed up—spinning wheels and wasting money.
But problems exist at the granular level, too. The department has largely failed to define the Transportation Security Agency's role in securing such vital (and vulnerable) infrastructure as rail systems, highways, and pipelines. DHS and FEMA have not clarified "how prepared they expect first responders to be." Immigration paperwork is ending up in "long-standing backlogs." A program costing hundreds of millions of dollars that aims to collect and share information on selected foreign nationals who enter and exit the United States "still does not have an operational exit tracking capability." The Coast Guard suffers from a shortage of personnel and other resources, and the GAO reports that it is concerned it is "just reducing operations arbitrarily to meet budget constraints."
Department of Defense The Pentagon is singled out for fierce criticism in the GAO study. It is cited for a lack of strategic thinking in its "investment decision making" and for using "overly optimistic planning assumptions" that regularly leaves the agency lacking funds for its projects. It has done little to address long-standing weaknesses in its billion-dollar business operations that result in "substantial" waste and inefficiency.
The GAO is dubious that the DOD can rebuild its operational readiness, which has been badly hampered by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and simultaneously pursue initiatives to modernize and reshape the armed forces. The department's weapons systems acquisition program is in such disarray that the GAO has put it on its high-risk list.
Department of AgricultureGAO investigators found that information technology security is so poor at the Department of Agriculture that its operations are "seriously" jeopardized. They also found that the federal farm programs the agency administers are handing out money to people who are not actively engaged in farming. Perhaps most distressing, the agency is not doing enough to secure "high-consequence biological pathogens" at laboratories carrying out agency-funded work. That means labs studying potential biological weapons agents are not handling these materials adequately and pose their own security risk.
Department of Veterans AffairsThe VA is portrayed in the report as mismanaged and out of date. Criticizing both the VA and the DOD for their inability to meet the health care needs of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, the GAO says the VA has huge inventories of pending disability claims and takes far too long to process them. It knocks the department's eligibility criteria for receiving benefits, and notes that its system for assessing the severity of disabilities is outmoded.
Environmental Protection AgencyThe EPA lacks the air and water quality data needed "to evaluate the success of its policies and programs," according to the GAO. The EPA's chemical-risk-assessment process should be a scientific one, but instead, the report says, it's influenced by industry groups, the Department of Defense, and others. The report notes that the EPA's attempts to keep Americans safe from toxic chemicals are so subpar that a number of states have introduced their own legislation to fill the regulatory void. One particular problem is that the EPA rarely forces chemical manufacturers to provide data on the safety of their products, instead allowing companies to voluntarily supply information.
Department of CommerceOne division of Commerce is blasted in the report: the Census Bureau. In March 2008, the GAO placed the 2010 census project on its high-risk list, citing "long-standing weaknesses" in the Census Bureau's IT department, problems with the handheld computers used to log census information, uncertainties over cost, and other potential problems. "There have been performance deficiencies and uncertain, escalating costs," writes the GAO.
Department of EnergyThe department is planning an $80 billion modernization of the nation's nuclear weapons complex. But the modernization, including the construction of major new facilities, is being planned without "clear requirements from the Department of Defense about its weapons and stockpiling needs," says the GAO. Consequently, the department may be building nuclear complexes that are potentially not needed or properly designed. The department's nonproliferation efforts "need to be reviewed for relevance and effectiveness" and its contract management has been on the high-risk list since 1990 for "fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement." Fixing all of these problems may be tough. According to the GAO, the department lacks staff with project management experience.
Department of Health and Human ServicesIncoming HHS chief Tom Daschle has his work cut out for him: The department appears to have problems executing its core functions. According to the report, HHS efforts to boost preparedness for a public health emergency have been stymied by "shortages in the public health workforce" and "difficulties in intergovernmental coordination." Due to "weaknesses in agency capacity and data," the FDA has difficulty overseeing the safety and efficacy of medical products and it cannot effectively ensure food safety because of a lack of "strategic planning."
Department of Transportation The GAO offers an observation that to most Americans is a no-brainer: "Despite large increases in expenditures in real terms for transportation, the investment has not commensurately improved the performance of the nation's surface transportation system as congestion continues to grow." Translation? We've been spending tons of money and traffic is just as bad.
General Services AdministrationThe GSA, which provides support services for federal agencies, has a multibillion-dollar repair backlog and owns property that is not needed. The GAO notes that it has been harping since the late 1980s about the GSA's leasing practices, which the GAO says has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates may have policy differences, but Gates said Tuesday he was "impressed" by statements Obama has already made on issues such as the Iraq War.
A day after reluctantly agreeing to remain as secretary of defense in the incoming administration, Gates, 65, said he looked forward to taking an active stance on several key issues.
"I spent a long time hoping the question would never be popped ... and then yesterday, it became a reality," Gates told reporters. "It should go without saying that I have no intention of being a caretaker secretary."
He listed challenges -- including budget, acquisition and procurement reform, war strategy, care of the wounded and modernization and capitalization projects -- that he vowed to give his "personal attention."
Obama has called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq within 16 months, and Gates said he does not necessarily oppose the president-elect's views. Watch Gates discuss his views on Iraq »
"He also said he wanted to have a responsible drawdown, and he also said that he was prepared to listen to his commanders," Gates said. "That's exactly the position a president-elect should be in."
Gates said Obama impressed him last month when the two men met in the fire station at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. On the same day, Obama met with Bush and shortly before he met with Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"I was impressed by his reaching out to Admiral Mullen, to come sit down and talk with him, and he has made clear that he wants to have a regular dialogue with the chairman and the chiefs and the commanders," he said.
Gates also said he was impressed by Michelle Obama's desire to work on behalf of military families.
"I think all of these send very positive signals to our men and women in uniform about the way the new commander-in-chief looks upon his responsibilities as commander-in-chief, but also as the person for whom all of these men and women in uniform work."
Gates confirmed that Mullen was en route to India after last week's series of terrorist attack in Mumbai, India.
Gates said he has not registered with a political party, but considers himself a Republican, and noting that, until Monday, all of his senior appointments had been under Republican presidents.
He said that in the 60 years that the job of secretary of defense has existed, he is the first to be asked by an incoming president of either party to keep the job, and thanked President-elect Barack Obama "for his confidence in me."
Gates worked for more than two decades at the CIA and the National Security Council.
He turned down a request from President George W. Bush to serve as the first secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, which was created in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. But in December 2006, he agreed to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense.
Regarding the threat of terrorism in South Asia, Gates called on the United States to strengthen its partnership with Pakistan and help the nation assess involvement in last week's terror attacks in Mumbai.
"It clearly was the act of an extremist group that apparently was targeting Americans and Britons, but the truth is most of the people who were killed were Indian," he said. "So, it's important that we find out who did it and try and prevent it from ever happening again."
Gates said Afghanistan will be a priority for the Obama administration, but said the major responsibility must be borne by Afghans.
"It's very important for us to do everything we can to make sure the Afghans understand this is their fight, and they have to be out front in their fight," he said.
Gates deflected a question about increasing troop strength in Afghanistan, but talked at length about plans to ease the burden on the American military, which has been stretched thin trying to fight two wars.
He said he "will probably increase" the time at home between 12-month deployments from 12 months to 15 or 18 months.
"I think that process could begin perhaps as early as spring," he said.
He said he hopes that, "fairly soon, and especially with the drawdowns in Iraq, that we will begin to see a further decrease in stop-loss."
Stop-loss refers to the involuntary extension of a service member's active duty hitch beyond what was to be the end of their term of service.
I'm as struck as Mark McKinnon by the sudden, if tempered, swooning of the center-right for Obama. even Fred Barnes has had an epiphany of sorts. They are responding to his obviously sensible and accomplished picks for the economy and foreign affairs as if they have realized for the first time who "that one" actually is. He is not now and never has been a leftist ideologue. That was a paranoid fantasy that helped kill the GOP this year. He is a pragmatic, sane, reasoned centrist liberal. He doesn't want to surrender to terror or abolish capitalism - he wants to hone our fight against the Islamists to better effect and to save capitalism from itself. And the core meaning of his candidacy - an end to the polarizing culture war battles of the post-Vietnam era - is not just hype. It's real:
It appears the political classes have briefly sobered up and decided to act responsibly, selflessly and -- dare we say it -- in the best interest of the country. The times are simply so serious, so dangerous, so calamitous that we can’t afford politics as usual. And for once, politicians seem to get it. We all wish President-elect Obama success. Because there’s a good chance that if he fails, we all go down together. Way down.And let's give credit where it's due. The spirit of good will is being significantly leveraged by Obama, who has had made a series of very smart, practical, pragmatic and non-ideological picks for his cabinet.Eight years ago, George W. Bush said he wanted to change the tone in Washington. Well, a recount crippled that idea before it got out of the crib. It simply wasn't the right time for the message or the messenger.
It appears the political classes have briefly sobered up and decided to act responsibly, selflessly and -- dare we say it -- in the best interest of the country. The times are simply so serious, so dangerous, so calamitous that we can’t afford politics as usual. And for once, politicians seem to get it. We all wish President-elect Obama success. Because there’s a good chance that if he fails, we all go down together. Way down.
And let's give credit where it's due. The spirit of good will is being significantly leveraged by Obama, who has had made a series of very smart, practical, pragmatic and non-ideological picks for his cabinet.
Eight years ago, George W. Bush said he wanted to change the tone in Washington. Well, a recount crippled that idea before it got out of the crib. It simply wasn't the right time for the message or the messenger.
And Bush was never that serious about it. Obama is.
In London, Mr. Gohel said the Mumbai assaults seemed to blend the tactics of the attack on parliament and an event two years earlier -- the 1999 hijacking of an Air India flight to Afghanistan that affected foreigners and involved hostage-taking.
Big, bright pictures, including a two-page poster, show the president-elect in poses ranging from warm and fuzzy to downright heroic. Headlines blare “Top Dog,” “One Cool Dude” and “Brink of History.”
All this from a charter member of what conservatives deride as the biased liberal media, right? Not quite. This take on Barack Obama comes from The New York Post, the feisty, generally conservative tabloid that is, like the Fox News Channel, part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, the News Corporation.
So has Mr. Murdoch gone soft on liberals — or perhaps just reacted pragmatically to Mr. Obama’s sizable victory? The answer, according to people who have watched him operate at close range, is that Mr. Murdoch is a less predictable, less doctrinaire character than his critics imagine.
Editors and reporters who have worked at The Post tell innumerable stories of Mr. Murdoch calling to order up specific articles, often with a specific slant. And only one topic interests him as much as newspapers, his underlings say, and that is politics.
“He influences the political coverage, as directly as you can possibly get at The Post, but also with other newspapers,” said Michael Wolff, a writer who was given access to Mr. Murdoch, for a book to be published on Dec. 1. “He’s on the phone with them all the time, telling them what they should do. It is the job of those newspapers to imagine or divine or intuit what he wants.”
Gary Ginsberg, an executive vice president of the News Corporation, said that overstated the boss’s relationship with The Post and its editor, Col Allan, who declined to comment.
“Rupert’s too busy to direct coverage,” he said. “He puts someone like Col Allan in charge and trusts that Col Allan’s views will be largely in sync with his own.”
The Post’s editorials and columnists continued to lean to the right this year — it endorsed Senator John McCain for president — but its everyday coverage of the general election campaign was more evenhanded. The Post mentioned Mr. Obama’s damaging associations with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright and William Ayers less often than several other large American newspapers, including its archrival tabloid, The Daily News.
Starting the day before the voting, the paper’s coverage of Mr. Obama turned positive, even admiring, sprinkled with gauzy bits about his family life, even urging him at one point to adopt a particular puppy for his daughters. A few days after the election, The Post published a 12-page special section about Mr. Obama, wrapped in that two-page photo of him.
The Post and Mr. Murdoch have run overtly hot and cold on politicians, notably on Hillary Rodham Clinton — ridicule in the ’90s, rapprochement in this decade, and then cooling again. In this country, the view of him has been dominated by the conservative stance of Fox News, but Mr. Murdoch’s own record is more mixed — he supported Tony Blair in Britain, and even held a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton in 2006.
Over the years, some of his aides and a number of politicians, usually speaking anonymously to avoid risking his wrath, have said that such flexibility is nothing more than convenient alliance with the winning side. But Mr. Wolff sees a different kind of expedience.
“It’s more a case of, ‘This is what you should do to be most attuned to what the readers want and to the zeitgeist,’ ” he said. Mr. Wolff said that when he asked Mr. Murdoch whether he should vote for Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton in the Democratic primary, “he said Obama, because he’ll sell more papers.”
Mr. Ginsberg insists such talk is too cynical. “He has core beliefs in free markets, individual freedom and education reform,” he said of Mr. Murdoch, “but he also has a very curious, agile mind that allows for many different points of view.”
As for Mr. Obama, he said, “Rupert met him, spent a good deal of time with him, and I think he’s been very taken by his intellect, by his ability to inspire and by the opportunity that he has to truly take America in a positive direction on education issues, social issues and others,” he said.
A number of the people closest to Mr. Murdoch, in his company and his family, support Democrats. His daughter, Elisabeth, held an Obama fund-raiser — leading to some speculation that they have influenced his private views.
Mr. Murdoch arranged a meeting early this year with Mr. Obama and Roger Ailes, president of the Fox News Channel, in what Mr. Wolff and News executives say was a bid to moderate Fox’s coverage of Mr. Obama. Fox remained notably tougher on the candidate than competing networks during the campaign.
But people who have worked for Mr. Murdoch or, like Mr. Wolff, have closely followed his career, say he treats each property differently. Mr. Murdoch gave Fox News a general direction and sometimes makes suggestions, they say, giving Mr. Ailes a free hand in running the channel.
Mr. Murdoch and his team, for example, have put more politics into the news pages of The Wall Street Journal, which he took over last December, but not a notable political point of view.
“But The Post is different,” Mr. Wolff said. “That’s his.”
By Ken Silverstein
It looks like Barack Obama has offered Hillary Clinton the post of Secretary of State and she’s mulling over whether to take the job or not. Obama’s apparent offer makes him look magnanimous and delights Hillary Clinton’s former backers, so maybe it’s smart politics. But there are a number of good reasons why Clinton should not be secretary of state. Here are five:
Hillary Clinton will have her own agenda (as will her husband). She’s not a team player and will bring in a crew of cronies whose chief aim will be to promote the boss, not the administration. Obama may wake up one day and discover that Hillary has decreed a new “Clinton Doctrine” of foreign policy.
It would be impossible, politically, to fire Hillary. No matter what she says or does, or how insubordinate, Obama will be stuck with her as long as she wants to stay.
Her husband is a walking conflict of interest. Bill helps a Canadian businessman land a uranium contract in Kazakhstan, and soon afterwards the businessman contributes to the Clinton Foundation. Bill’s personal and business dealings are embarrassing enough without Hillary heading the State Department.
The Clinton style of management–for example, pitting one faction of staff against another–would be a disaster at the State Department. Just look at how well it worked on the campaign trail.
And the strongest strike of all against Hillary as secretary of state… look at who endorses her.
GQ has named Barack Obama one if its "Men of the Year" with a cover and article — penned by Senator Ted Kennedy — that went to press before Election Day.
Obama is joined by Michael Phelps, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Jon Hamm, each of whom grace one of GQ's four "Men of the Year" covers.
GQ named Obama "Game Changer of the Year," and an excerpt of Kennedy's piece appears below:
As I write this, Barack Obama and John McCain have just completed their final debate, and the country is a few short days away from a historic election. Of course, I'm doing all that I can for my candidate. But whether he wins or loses, Barack Obama has ushered in a new era of American politics with a limitless vision of a better future that will endure for many years to come. Through his candidacy, Obama has provided a glimpse of a stronger, better, fairer America, where change comes from the bottom up, where we all come together to meet the great challenges of our time. He has inspired millions of new voters of all ages, races, and incomes to lend their voices for real change. For in this man, Americans can see not just the audacity but the possibility of hope for the country that is yet to be.... That is what I saw when I enlisted in his campaign. I saw new hope for a way out of the economic wilderness and for a just and fair prosperity that rewards the many and not the few. New hope that this nation will at last lead the world to turn the tide of global warming and turn aside from an energy future that threatens the future itself. New hope that we will teach all our children well. New hope--and this is the cause of my life--that we will guarantee for every American quality affordable health care as a fundamental right and not as a privilege. New hope--and this is the great cause of America itself--that we shall overcome once and for all the setting of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay.Win or lose, with the Obama candidacy the torch has been passed, and I hope I made a difference.
That is what I saw when I enlisted in his campaign. I saw new hope for a way out of the economic wilderness and for a just and fair prosperity that rewards the many and not the few. New hope that this nation will at last lead the world to turn the tide of global warming and turn aside from an energy future that threatens the future itself. New hope that we will teach all our children well. New hope--and this is the cause of my life--that we will guarantee for every American quality affordable health care as a fundamental right and not as a privilege. New hope--and this is the great cause of America itself--that we shall overcome once and for all the setting of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay.
Win or lose, with the Obama candidacy the torch has been passed, and I hope I made a difference.
