The things a gal has to do to save America.

RELATED: Scissor Sheldon

RELATED: A decade ago gambling magnate and leading Republican donor Sheldon Adelson looked at a desolate spit of land in Macau and imagined a glittering strip of casinos, hotels and malls. Where competitors saw obstacles, including Macau’s hostility to outsiders and historic links to Chinese organized crime, Adelson envisaged a chance to make billions. Adelson pushed his chips to the center of the table, keeping his nerve even as his company teetered on the brink of bankruptcy in late 2008. The Macau bet paid off, propelling Adelson into the ranks of the mega-rich and underwriting his role as the largest Republican donor in the 2012 campaign, providing tens of millions of dollars to Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and other GOP causes. Now, some of the methods Adelson used in Macau to save his company and help build a personal fortune estimated at $25 billion have come under expanding scrutiny by federal and Nevada investigators, according to people familiar with both inquiries. Internal email and company documents, disclosed here for the first time, show that Adelson instructed a top executive to pay about $700,000 in legal fees to Leonel Alves, a Macau legislator whose firm was serving as an outside counsel to Las Vegas Sands. The company’s general counsel and an outside law firm warned that the arrangement could violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It is unknown whether Adelson was aware of these warnings. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act bars American companies from paying foreign officials to “affect or influence any act or decision” for business gain. Federal investigators are looking at whether the payments violate the statute because of Alves’ government and political roles in Macau, people familiar with the inquiry said. MORE

PHAWKER: Dude is worth $25 billion and this is the best dye-job he can get?

[Artwork by MEATHEAD]

ASSOCIATED PRESS: Mayor Cory Booker to the long list of political stand-ins for both President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney who’ve veered wildly off message in a presidential contest notable for its attention-grabbing gaffes. An Obama backer, Booker forced the president’s campaign into damage-control mode over the weekend when he called its attack on Romney’s tenure at a private equity firm “nauseating.” It didn’t take long for Republicans to highlight the comment and for the Democratic mayor to try to clean up the mess he caused by releasing a YouTube video in which he said it was fair for Obama to make Romney’s business record a campaign issue. MORE

RELATED: The GOP’s I Stand With Cory web site/petition

THINK PROGRESS: A ThinkProgress examination of New Jersey campaign finance records for Booker’s first run for Mayor — back in 2002 — suggests a possible reason for his unease with attacks on Bain Capital and venture capital. They were among his earliest and most generous backers. Contributions to his 2002 campaign from venture capitalists, investors, and big Wall Street bankers brought him more than $115,000 for his 2002 campaign. Among those contributing to his campaign were John Connaughton ($2,000), Steve Pagliuca ($2,200), Jonathan Lavine ($1,000) — all of Bain Capital. While the forms are not totally clear, it appears the campaign raised less than $800,000 total, making this a significant percentage. He and his slate also jointly raised funds for the “Booker Team for Newark” joint committee. They received more than $450,000 for the 2002 campaign from the sector — including a pair of $15,400 contributions from Bain Capital Managing Directors Joshua Bekenstein and Mark Nunnelly. It appears that for the initial campaign and runoff, the slate raised less than $4 million — again making this a sizable chunk. In all — just in his first Mayoral run — Booker’s committees received more than $565,000 from the people he was defending. At least $36,000 of that came from folks at Romney’s old firm. MORE

JEFF DEENEY: He’s always been a neolib technocrat (like Obama, ironically), and ultimately at the end of the day he’s a proud Stanford Man, which means Wall Street is comprised of his former classmates and they see the world through the same lens, applied to different sectors.  He was always this way, that’s why he was such a hard sell for Newark and was beaten in his first election by a machine politician of Marion Barry-esque epic corruption; he wasn’t passing the smell test with the neighborhood oldheads.  He always figured he would bring them around when the saw what elite education and connections can do for a poor city. Results are mixed, but at this point, having paid dues, he’s thinking senate, eventually President, which is more in line with his own estimation of himself, anyway. Nutter isn’t very different; a Wharton guy at the end of the day. Better than Street, perhaps, but would Street have plugged a bomb in the school system and handed the fragments over to corporate privatizers?  Would love to hear what Nutter thinks about private equity; I suspect the same as Booker. Despite the fact that Wall Street nearly willfully annihilated itself, creating even more massive inequality in doing so, and this should defacto discredit the entire neoliberal experiment, most persistent in the assumption that marker forces applied in every sector is the way to a better world.

PAUL KRUGMAN: In fact, Republicans will surely be emboldened by the way Mr. Obama keeps folding in the face of their threats. He surrendered last December, extending all the Bush tax cuts; he surrendered in the spring when they threatened to shut down the government; and he has now surrendered on a grand scale to raw extortion over the debt ceiling. Maybe it’s just me, but I see a pattern here. Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes. First of all, he could and should have demanded an increase in the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn’t, he replied that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call. And even now, the Obama administration could have resorted to legal maneuvering to sidestep the debt ceiling, using any of several options. In ordinary circumstances, this might have been an extreme step. But faced with the reality of what is happening, namely raw extortion on the part of a party that, after all, only controls one house of Congress, it would have been totally justifiable. At the very least, Mr. Obama could have used the possibility of a legal end run to strengthen his bargaining position. Instead, however, he ruled all such options out from the beginning. But wouldn’t taking a tough stance have worried markets? Probably not. In fact, if I were an investor I would be reassured, not dismayed, by a demonstration that the president is willing and able to stand up to blackmail on the part of right-wing extremists. Instead, he has chosen to demonstrate the opposite. Make no mistake about it, what we’re witnessing here is a catastrophe on multiple levels.  MORE

NEW YORK TIMES: A fair share of the $2.4 trillion in cuts is unpopular with his core followers. But the fine print of the agreement makes clear that Republicans received more of what they demanded than did Mr. Obama, who acquiesced in his initial call for a balanced mix of spending cuts and new revenues, despite repeatedly trying to seize the bully pulpit to build support for his argument. For many liberals, this concession — and the president’s unwillingness to make a more full-throated case for greater action to address joblessness and protect other Democratic priorities — could undermine legislative support for the deal and increase the challenge of motivating voters in 2012. MORE

NEW YORKER: Of course, invoking the Fourteenth Amendment has always been a long shot, a last refuge. But Obama’s seeming refusal to hold it in reserve (“like the fire axe on the wall,” in Garrett Epps’s words) is emblematic of his all too civilized, all too accommodating negotiating strategy—indeed, of his whole approach to the nation’s larger economic dilemma, the most disappointing aspect of his Presidency. His stimulus package asked for too little and got less. He has allowed deficits and debt to supersede mass unemployment as the emergency of the moment. He has too readily accepted Republican terms of debate, such as likening the country to a household that must “live within its means.” (For even the most prudent householders, living within one’s means can include going into debt, as in taking out a car loan so that one can get to one’s job.) He has done too little to educate the public to the wisdom of post-Herbert Hoover economics: fiscal balance is achieved over time, not in a single year; in flush times a government should run a surplus, but when the economy falters deficits are part of the remedy; when the immediate problem is what it is now—a lack of demand, not a shortage of capital—higher spending is generally more efficacious than lower taxes, especially lower taxes on the rich. So it’s less surprising than it should be that in the debt-limit negotiations he has met Republican intransigence with an apparent willingness to accede to one Republican demand after another: no tax rises for the comfortable (the only kind that Democrats have dared to suggest); no new revenues at all, even from closing the most egregious loopholes; cuts in spending only, including spending on “entitlements,” the modest (by international standards) programs of social insurance for the old, the poor, and the sick that, through the decades, somehow managed to struggle into existence over the hurdles of America’s structurally divided and, of late, alarmingly dysfunctional political system. With compromises like these, who needs surrender. MORE

NEW YORK TIMES: “[Richard Holbrooke] thought that this could become Obama’s Vietnam,” Marton recalled. “Some of the conversations in the Situation Room reminded him of conversations in the Johnson White House. When he raised that, Obama didn’t want to hear it.” Because he was fiercely loyal to his friend Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, Holbrooke bit his lip and kept quiet in public. But he died in December, and Marton and some of his friends (me included) believe it’s time to lift the cone of silence and share his private views. […] Holbrooke opposed the military “surge” in Afghanistan and would see the demise of Bin Laden as an opportunity to go into diplomatic overdrive. He believed strongly that the only way out of the mess in Afghanistan was a peace deal with the Taliban, and his team was secretly engaged in outreach to figures linked to the Taliban, Marton says

Holbrooke’s aim for Afghanistan was “not cut-and-run, but a viable, lasting solution” to end the civil war there. If Holbrooke were still alive, Nasr says, he would be shuttling frantically between Islamabad and Kabul, trying to take advantage of Bin Laden’s killing to lay the groundwork for a peace process. To do that, though, we have to put diplomacy and development — and not 100,000 troops, costing $10 billion a month — at the heart of our Afghan policy. Holbrooke was bemused that he would arrive at a meeting in a taxi, while Gen. David Petraeus would arrive escorted by what seemed a battalion of aides. And Holbrooke would flinch when Petraeus would warmly refer to him as his “wingman” — meaning it as a huge compliment — rather than seeing military force as the adjunct to diplomacy. As for Pakistan, Holbrooke told me and others that because of its size and nuclear weaponry, it was center stage; Afghanistan was a sideshow. “A stable Afghanistan is not essential; a stable Pakistan is essential,” he noted, in the musings he left behind. MORE

RELATED: Before his death, Richard Holbrooke admitted that Afghanistan is a war that cannot be won, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough revealed Monday. “Afghanistan is so depressing to me because I’ve yet to talk to a foreign policy expert, including Richard Holbrooke — off the record — that didn’t know this was a losing proposition,” said Scarborough. “And it seems like the president is just buying time because he doesn’t want the Republicans to call him weak on defense.” MORE

TIME: As expected, Defense Secretary Robert Gates suspended the two-year ban on new action in military commissions for detainees at Guantanamo Bay today, resuming a practice Obama did away with as one of his first acts in office. For background on the tortured arc of Obama’s rightward move on this issue, see the piece I did with Weisskopf here. More recently, Pro-Publica’s Dafna Linzer looked at last year’s deliberations at the White House here. New charges under the commissions are expected in days or weeks, but are not expected to include big name 9/11 detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. MORE

WASHINGTON POST: Activists on either end of the debate over closing the prison cast the announcement as a reversal. “It is virtually impossible to imagine how one closes Guantanamo in light of this executive order,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “In a little over two years, the Obama administration has done a complete about-face.” Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the order vindicated Obama’s predecessor. “I commend the Obama Administration for issuing this Executive Order,” he said in a statement. “The bottom line is that it affirms the Bush Administration policy that our government has the right to detain dangerous terrorists until the cessation of hostilities.” The executive order applies to at least 48 of the 172 detainees who remain at Guantanamo Bay. An inter-agency panel led by Justice Department lawyers determined that this group could not be prosecuted in military commissions or in federal court because evidentiary problems would hamper a trial. But intelligence assessments also concluded that these detainees remain a serious threat and could not be safely repatriated or resettled in a third country. The administration said it will hold reviews for detainees it plans to prosecute but has not charged. MORE

[illustration by KERRY WAGHORN]

Myth: Kagan banned military recruiters from Harvard

Myth: Kagan is “anti-military”

Myth: Kagan is “radical”

Myth: Kagan’s praise for an Israeli Supreme Court justice shows she’s a radical (NEW)

Myth: Kagan’s thesis shows she’s a socialist

Myth: Conservatives can credibly argue that Kagan’s personal and political views are relevant to confirmation process

Myth: “Kagan Standard” means Kagan must answer questions about issues that will come before the Supreme Court

Myth: Kagan’s Goldman Sachs role taints her nomination

Myth: Conservative opposition is based on the substance of Kagan’s nomination

Myth: Obama used “empathy” standard rather than fealty to law in choosing Kagan

Myth: Kagan is unqualified because she hasn’t been a judge (UPDATED)

Myth: Kagan has said judicial experience is an “apparent necessity”

Myth: Republicans would be justified in opposing Kagan because she lacks a judicial paper trail

Myth: Kagan is “Obama’s Harriet Miers”

Myth: Kagan’s record shows that she will rubber-stamp war-on-terror policies

Myth: Kagan’s 23-year-old statements about the Establishment Clause suggest she’s hostile to religion

Myth: Kagan’s recusal obligations would be “extraordinary”

Myth: Kagan “can become” too “emotionally involved on issues she deeply cares about”

Myth: Kagan not “fair-minded, impartial” and doesn’t have “proper temperament to be a judge”

Myth: Kagan is anti-free speech

Myth: Kagan supports banning books…MORE

[courtesy of MEDIA MATTERS]

NEW YORK TIMES: President Obama will nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the nation’s 112th justice, choosing his own chief advocate before the Supreme Court to join it in ruling on cases critical to his view of the country’s future, Democrats close to the White House said Sunday. After a monthlong search, Mr. Obama informed Ms. Kagan and his advisers on Sunday of his choice to succeed the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. He plans to announce the nomination at 10 a.m. Monday in the East Room of the White House with Ms. Kagan by his side, said the Democrats, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the decision before it was formally made public. In settling on Ms. Kagan, the president chose a well-regarded 50-year-old lawyer who served as a staff member in all three branches of government and was the first woman to be dean of Harvard Law School. If confirmed, she would be the youngest member and the third woman on the current court, but the first justice in nearly four decades without any prior judicial experience. MORE

WALL STREET JOURNAL: When Elena Kagan was nominated to be President Obama’s solicitor general in January 2009, she filled out a 51-page questionnaire for the Senate Judiciary Committee that’s similar to the one she will complete as a nominee for the Supreme Court. It includes questions about her net worth, employment history, published writing and work as a lawyer. The questionnaire is reproduced below, or you can download a PDF version. Questions are represented in italics. MORE

MAIN JUSTICE: You can learn a lot about a person from what they hang on their walls — which is why we’ve been asking Justice Department officials for a glimpse of their offices. See, department tradition dictates that the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, the Solicitor General and assistant attorneys general bedeck their offices with portraits of AGs past. Typically, the department’s top three or four officials horde the most popular portraits, as is their prerogative, leaving lesser-known likenesses for their subordinates to pick through. (Call it portrait politics.) We’re honoring this tradition with a series of posts, and our first spotlight falls on Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who took us for spin around her office on Friday. Kagan, the Justice Department’s No. 4 official, broke with tradition. (We honor that, too.) By the time she received the list of portraits, Attorney General Eric Holder, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli had cut a considerable swath. (Holder, alone, has five portraits adorning his conference room and office.) “Slim pickings,” Kagan joked.  So she framed the official photo of one of her mentors, the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom Kagan clerked, and hung it high on the wall adjacent to her desk. Beyond the obvious historic dimension — the first woman SG  paying homage to the first African-American SG — Kagan spoke of Marshall’s passion for the office. Though he came to the job reluctantly, leaving the bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Marshall described it as the best he ever had. It’s fitting, Kagan said, that his photo hangs in the office he most enjoyed. “I chose TM because he was the best lawyer of the 20th century — an absolutely sterling advocate who did more to advance justice in our country (prior to becoming a Justice!) than anyone else I can think of,” Kagan said in an e-mail, when we first inquired about her office art. “On top of all that, I worked for him, and he was a great boss and mentor.  It will be wonderful to have him looking down at me as I try to do this job.” MORE

GLENN GREENWALD:  I’ve laid out my case against Elena Kagan as thoroughly as I could, but with several anonymous (i.e., unreliable) reports percolating that she’s the likely choice and could be announced as early as Monday, it’s worthwhile to note several recent items from others pertaining to her selection…MORE

NEW YORK TIMES: While any plausible Democratic nominee would probably rule the same way Justice Stevens would have in many areas of law, including abortion rights and the new health care law, executive power may be an exception. Justice Stevens was a critical vote in a five-justice faction that rejected expansive assertions of executive authority by former President George W. Bush. If his successor is more sympathetic to the vantage point of the Obama White House, the balance could shift to a new bare majority that is far more willing to uphold broad presidential powers. To be sure, there is little evidence that any of those Mr. Obama is considering would favor a view of presidential authority as limitless as that claimed by some on Mr. Bush’s legal team, which sought to expand executive power systematically and sometimes argued that the president, as commander in chief, could bypass laws at his discretion. MORE

TRENTONIAN: Ed “NJ Weedman” Forchion is sparking a new kind of buzz these days, and he’s taking some heat for the way he’s used the likeness of President Obama. Forchion, who at one point or another ran for just about every elected office in New Jersey on a platform of marijuana legalization, is now running a medical marijuana dispensary in Los Angeles, and a poster for an upcoming party he’s hosting has gotten him in some hot bong water. Forchion, formerly of Willingboro, is set to host an “Obama One Year in Office Celebration” out in California, and the poster he’s using to promote the event includes a picture of Obama with a large joint hanging out of his mouth. Forchion is also pictured on the graphic, and he’s lighting the president’s joint. MORE

PREVIOUSLY: Last year, the NJ Weedman moved to Los Angeles. Last week, I reached him at the legal medical-marijuana dispensary he runs on Hollywood Boulevard. “In New Jersey, I got hassled, fired from my job, and attacked by police,” Forchion recalled by cell phone. “Out here, nobody bothers me. I’m becoming a celebrity.” Like the rest of Tinseltown, the Weedman wants to be a star. “I’m looking for great revolutionary people,” producer Bobby Razak explained in a break from filming a reality-TV pilot at Forchion’s pot shop. “Someone needs to show viewers what this guy is all about.” [via INQUIRER]

PHILADLEPHIA WEEKLY: Ed Forchion is no saint. If his arrest record were of the musical variety, it would be a double album or a boxed set. And yet in these warped through-the-looking-glass times we live in, where official truth more often than not turns out to be a lie, Ed Forchion, 38, is something of a role model. Forced by circumstance and his own lapse of judgement, this formerly apolitical Rastafarian trucker has become a radicalized constitutional warrior. He has dared to ask out loud, in a court of law no less, the question the estimated 80 million Americans who have tried marijuana have asked themselves in private: Why is it illegal?

With neither the money nor the justice it can buy, he has fought the law–in this case, the law that makes it a crime to pluck the leaves off a certain fragrant weed growing in the earth and smoke them for pleasure or medicinal use–and the law has called it a draw. Forchion did not pick this fight–he’s sort of the stoner analogue of the drunken underclassmen at a frat party who trips and spills his beer down the blouse of the homecoming queen and gets taken outside by the jocks for a good beat-down–but he did not run from it. And before it was over, he had lost pretty much everything he ever had except his phonebook-thick stack of court transcripts, which he pores over like a biblical scholar hunched over the Dead Sea Scrolls.

His name probably doesn’t ring a bell, but you may know him by his nickname: New Jersey Weedman. Or maybe by his antics: smoking a joint at the Liberty Bell, or on the floor of the New Jersey State Assembly or in the offices of Congressman Rob Andrews (D-N.J.). Or his quixotic bids for a congressional seat representing the Legalize Marijuana Party, a party of one–him. Or his well-publicized efforts to legally make his name and his web site (www.NJweedman.com) one and the same–a desperate prison-house bid to bring attention to the collateral damage of the War on Drugs. While most people probably mistook these acts of civil disobedience for giggle-worthy outtakes from a Cheech and Chong movie when they showed up on the evening news, they were in fact all part of kamikaze legal defense strategy that was, by all conventional standards of jurisprudence, crazy–but in the end proved to be crazy like a fox. MORE

RELATED: Gray is part of a growing national movement to rethink pot laws. From California, where lawmakers may outright legalize marijuana, to New Jersey, which implemented a medical use law Jan. 19, states are taking unprecedented steps to loosen marijuana restrictions. Advocates of legalizing marijuana say generational, political and cultural shifts have taken the USA to a unique moment in its history of drug prohibition that could topple 40 years of tough restrictions on both medicinal and recreational marijuana use. A Gallup Poll last October found 44% favor making marijuana legal, an eight-point jump since the question was asked in 2005. An ABC News-Washington Post poll in January found 81% favor making marijuana legal for medical use. MORE

President Barack Obama drumming up support for his health care reform legislation  at Arcadia University

WHITE HOUSE PRESS OFFICE: Leslie Banks introduced the President [at Arcadia University earlier today]. On February 11^th, Leslie wrote the President an e-mail expressing her frustration with the cost of health insurance. Leslie is a self-employed, single mother with type 2 diabetes, whose daughter is a sophomore in college at Temple University.  In January 2010, Leslie received a notice from her health insurance provider that her plan was being dropped. To keep the same benefits, the premiums for her and her daughter would more than double.  Leslie was told by the insurance company that there was an across the board premium hike and there was nothing she could do.  If she paid the same monthly premium amount as before, the deductible would increase from $500 to $5,000, and they would no longer have preventive care or prescription coverage.  Leslie is not eligible for the insurance company’s HMO due to her pre-existing condition.  Under health reform, Leslie and her daughter will have to access to affordable health insurance in the new health insurance exchange, including guaranteed benefits such as preventive care and prescription drugs as well as important consumer protections.  In addition, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and they will be held accountable to prevent insurance industry abuses.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Complete transcript of POTUS’s remarks after the jump.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                                                          March 8, 2010

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

ON HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM

Arcadia University

Glenside, Pennsylvania

11:23 A.M. EST

     THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, Pennsylvania!  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  This is a nice crowd.  (Applause.)  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  Well, what a wonderful crowd.

     AUDIENCE MEMBER:  I love you!

     THE PRESIDENT:  Love you back.  (Applause.)  I am — I’m kind of fired up.  (Applause.)  I’m kind of fired up.  (Applause.)  So, listen, we — this is just an extraordinary crowd and I —

     AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We love you!

     THE PRESIDENT:  I love you back.  (Applause.)  I want — there’s some people I want to point out who are here who’ve just been doing great work.  First of all, give Leslie a great round of applause for her wonderful introduction.  (Applause.)

Somebody who’s been working tirelessly on your behalf, doing a great job — the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius is in the house.  (Applause.)  One of the finest governors in the country, Ed Rendell is in the house.  (Applause.)  Everybody notice how good Ed is looking, by the way? He’s been on that training program, eating egg whites and keeping his cholesterol down.  (Laughter.)

Your senior senator who has just been doing outstanding work in the Senate, Arlen Specter is in the house.  (Applause.)  One of my great friends, somebody who supported me when nobody could pronounce my name, Bob Casey is in the house.  (Applause.)  Your congressman, the person who gave me confidence that I could win even though nobody could pronounce my name — Chaka Fattah is in the house.  (Applause.)  I figured if they could elect a “Chaka” — (laughter) — then they could elect a “Barack.”  (Laughter.)

A couple other outstanding members of Congress — first of all, from Pennsylvania, Allyson Schwartz is in the house.  (Applause.)  Somebody who rendered outstanding service to our nation before he was in Congress, Joe Sestak is in the house.  (Applause.)  One of the sharpest members of Congress — technically not his state but he’s just from right next door, New Jersey, so he’s practically — (applause.)  See, we’ve got some Jersey folks here.  (Applause.)  Rob Andrews is in the house.  (Applause.)  And the great mayor of Philadelphia, Mike Nutter.  (Applause.)

It’s a little hot, I think.  (Applause.)  And to Arcadia University — (applause) — thank you, thank you guys for hosting us.  (Applause.)

I was asking about that castle on the way in, by the way.  (Applause.)  That’s a — I thought the White House was pretty nice, but that castle, that’s — (laughter.)

Well, it is great to be back here in the Keystone State.  It’s even better to be out of Washington, D.C.  (Laughter.)  First of all, the people of D.C. are wonderful.  They’re nice people, they’re good people; love the city, the monuments, everything.  But when you’re in Washington, folks respond to every issue, every decision, every debate, no matter how important it is, with the same question:  What does this mean for the next election?  (Laughter.)  What does it mean for your poll numbers?  Is this good for the Democrats or good for the Republicans?  Who won the news cycle?

That’s just how Washington is.  They can’t help it.  They’re obsessed with the sport of politics.  And so that’s the environment in which elected officials are operating.  And you’ve seen all the pundits pontificating and talking over each other on the cable shows, and they’re yelling and shouting.  They can’t help themselves.  That’s what they do.

But out here, and all across America, folks are worried about bigger things.  They’re worried about how to make payroll. They’re worried about how to make ends meet.  They’re worried about what the future will hold for their families and for our country.  They’re not worrying about the next election.  We just had an election.  (Applause.)  They’re worried about the next paycheck, or the next tuition payment that’s due.  (Applause.) They’re thinking about retirement.

You want people in Washington to spend a little less time worrying about our jobs, a little more time worrying about your jobs.  (Applause.)

Despite all the challenges we face — two wars, the aftermath of a terrible recession — I want to tell everybody here today I am absolutely confident that America will prevail; that we will shape our destiny as past generations have done.  (Applause.)  That’s who we are.  We don’t give up.  We don’t quit.  Sometimes we take our lumps, but we just keep on going.  That’s who we are.  But that only happens when we’re meeting our challenges squarely and honestly.  And I have to tell you, that’s why we are fighting so hard to deal with the health care crisis in this country; health care costs that are growing every single day.

I want to spend some time talking about this.  The price of health care is one of the most punishing costs for families and for businesses and for our government.  (Applause.)  It’s forcing people to cut back or go without health insurance.  It forces small businesses to choose between hiring or health care.  It’s plunging the federal government deeper and deeper and deeper into debt.

The young people who are here, you’ve heard stories — some of you guys still have health care while you’re in school, some of you may still be on your parents’ plans, but some of the highest uninsurance rates are among young people.  And it’s getting harder and harder to find a job that’s going to provide you with health care.  And a lot of you right now feel like you’re invincible so you don’t worry about it.  (Laughter.)  But let me tell you, when you hit 48 — (laughter) — you start realizing, things start breaking down a little bit.  (Laughter.)

And the insurance companies continue to ration health care based on who’s sick and who’s healthy; on who can pay and who can’t pay.  That’s the status quo in America, and it is a status quo that is unsustainable for this country.  We can’t have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the American people.  (Applause.)  We need to give families and businesses more control over their own health insurance. And that’s why we need to pass health care reform — not next year, not five years from now, not 10 years from now, but now.  (Applause.)

     Now, since we took this issue on a year ago, there have been plenty of folks in Washington who’ve said that the politics is just too hard.  They’ve warned us we may not win.  They’ve argued now is not the time for reform.  It’s going to hurt your poll numbers.  How is it going to affect Democrats in November?  Don’t do it now.

My question to them is:  When is the right time?  (Applause.)  If not now, when?  If not us, who?

Think about it.  We’ve been talking about health care for nearly a century.  I’m reading a biography of Teddy Roosevelt right now.  He was talking about it.  Teddy Roosevelt.  We have failed to meet this challenge during periods of prosperity and also during periods of decline.  Some people say, well, don’t do it right now because the economy is weak.  When the economy was strong, we didn’t do it.  We’ve talked about it during Democratic administrations and Republican administrations.  I got all my Republican colleagues out there saying, well, no, no, no, we want to focus on things like cost.  You had 10 years.  What happened? What were you doing?  (Applause.)

Every year, the problem gets worse.  Every year, insurance companies deny more people coverage because they’ve got preexisting conditions.  Every year, they drop more people’s coverage when they get sick right when they need it most.  Every year, they raise premiums higher and higher and higher.

Just last month, Anthem Blue Cross in California tried to jack up rates by nearly 40 percent — 40 percent.  Anybody’s paycheck gone up 40 percent?

AUDIENCE:  Nooo —

THE PRESIDENT:  I mean, why is it that we think this is normal?  In my home state of Illinois, rates are going up by as much as 60 percent.  You just heard Leslie, who was hit with more than a hundred percent increase — 100 percent.  One letter from her insurance company and her premiums doubled.  Just like that. And because so many of these markets are so concentrated, it’s not like you can go shopping.  You’re stuck.  So you’ve got a choice:  Either no health insurance, in which case you’re taking a chance if somebody in your family gets sick that you will go bankrupt and lose your home and lose everything you’ve had — or you keep on ponying up money that you can’t afford.

See, these insurance companies have made a calculation.  Listen to this.  The other day, there was a conference call that was organized by Goldman Sachs.  You know Goldman Sachs.  You’ve been hearing about them, right?  (Laughter.)  So they organized a conference call in which an insurance broker was telling Wall Street investors how he expected things to be playing out over the next several years, and this broker said that insurance companies know they will lose customers if they keep on raising premiums, but because there’s so little competition in the insurance industry, they’re okay with people being priced out of the insurance market because, first of all, a lot of folks are going to be stuck, and even if some people drop out, they’ll still make more money by raising premiums on customers that they keep.

And they will keep on doing this for as long as they can get away with it.  This is no secret.  They’re telling their investors this:  We are in the money; we are going to keep on making big profits even though a lot of folks are going to be put under hardship.

So how much higher do premiums have to rise until we do something about it?  How many more Americans have to lose their health insurance?  How many more businesses have to drop coverage?  All those young people out here, after you graduate you’re going to be looking for a job.  Think about the environment that’s going to be out there when a whole bunch of potential employers just tell you, you know what, we just can’t afford it.  Or, you know what, we’re going to have to take thousands of dollars out of your paycheck because the insurance company just jacked up our rates.

How many years — how many more years can the federal budget handle the crushing costs of Medicare and Medicaid?  That’s the debt you’re going to have to pay, young people.  When is the right time for health insurance reform?

AUDIENCE:  Now!

THE PRESIDENT:  Is it a year from now or two years from now or five years from now or 10 years from now?

AUDIENCE:  No!

THE PRESIDENT:  I think it’s right now.  And that’s why you’re here today.  (Applause.)

Leslie is a single mom — just like my mom was a single mom — trying to put her daughter through college.  She knows that the time for reform is now.

Natoma Canfield — self-employed cancer survivor from Ohio  — she wrote us a letter.  Last year her insurance company charged her over $6,000 in premiums; paid about $900 worth of care.  Now they’ve decided to jack up her rates 40 percent next year.  So she’s had to drop her insurance, even though it may cost her the house that her parents built.  Natoma knows it’s time for reform.

     Laura Klitzka — this is a friend of mine, somebody I met when I was campaigning in Wisconsin — Green Bay, Wisconsin.  She’s a young mother; she’s got two kids.  She thought she had beaten her breast cancer but later discovered it had spread to her bones.  She and her husband had insurance, but their medical bills still landed them with tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt.  And now she spends her time worrying about that debt when all she wants to do is spend time with her children.  I just talked to Laura this past weekend, and let me tell you, she knows that the time for reform is right now.

So what should I tell these Americans?  That Washington is not sure how it will play in November?  That we should walk away from this fight, or do something — do something like some on the other side of the aisle have suggested, well, we’ll do it incrementally; we’ll take baby steps; we’ll do —

AUDIENCE:  No!

THE PRESIDENT:  So they want me to pretend to do something that doesn’t really help these folks.

We have debated health care in Washington for more than a year.  Every proposal has been put on the table.  Every argument has been made.  I know a lot of people view this as a partisan issue, but both parties have found areas where we agree.  What we’ve ended up with is a proposal that’s somewhere in the middle — one that incorporates the best from Democrats and Republicans, best ideas.

Think about it along the spectrum of how we could approach health care.  On one side of the spectrum there were those at the beginning of this process who wanted to scrap our system of private insurance and replace it with a government-run health care system, like they have in some other countries.  (Applause.) Look, it works in places like Canada, but I didn’t think it was going to be practical or realistic to do it here.

On the other side of the spectrum, there are those who believe that the answer is just to loosen regulations on insurance companies.  This is what we heard at the health care summit.  They said, well, you know what, if we had fewer regulations on the insurance companies —

AUDIENCE:  Boo!

THE PRESIDENT:  — whether it’s consumer protections or basic standards on what kind of insurance they sell, somehow market forces will make things better.  Well, we’ve tried that.  I’m concerned that would only give insurance companies more leeway to raise premiums and deny care.  (Applause.)

So the bottom line is I don’t believe we should give government or insurance companies more control over health care in America.  I believe it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your own health insurance.  (Applause.)

And that’s why my proposal builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer.  If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.  If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  But I can tell you, as the father of two young girls, I don’t want a plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor.  So we’re going to preserve that.

Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system.  Listen up.  First, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies.  Within the first year of signing health care reform, thousands of uninsured Americans with preexisting conditions would suddenly be able to purchase health insurance for the very first time in their lives, or the first time in a long time.  (Applause.)

This year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions.  (Applause.)  This year, they will be banned from dropping your coverage when you get sick.  (Applause.)  And they will no longer be able to arbitrarily and massively hike your premiums — just like they did to Leslie or Natoma or millions of others Americans.  Those practices will end.  (Applause.)

If this reform becomes law, all new insurance plans will be required to offer free preventive care to their customers starting this year — free check-ups so that we can catch preventable illnesses on the front end.  (Applause.)  Starting this year, there will be no more lifetime or restrictive annual limits on the amount of care that you can receive from your insurance companies.  There’s a lot of fine print in there that can end up costing people hundreds of thousands of dollars because they hit a limit.

     If you’re a young adult, which many of you are, you’ll be able to stay on your parents’ insurance policy until you’re 26 years old.  (Applause.)  And there will be a new, independent appeals process for anybody who feels they were unfairly denied a claim by their insurance company.  So you’ll have recourse if you’re being taken advantage of.  (Applause.)  So that’s the first thing that would change and it would change fast –- insurance companies would finally be held accountable to the American people.  That’s number one.

Number two, second thing that would change about the current system is this:  For the first time in their lives — or oftentimes, in a very long time — uninsured individuals and small business owners will have the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves.  (Applause.)  If it’s good enough for Congress, it should be good enough for the people paying Congress its salary  — that’s you.  (Applause.)

Now, the idea is very simple here, and it’s one — (audience interruption) — I’m sorry, go ahead.  (Applause.)  Let me explain how this would work, because it’s an idea that a lot of Republicans have embraced in the past.  What my proposal says is that if you aren’t part of a big group, if you don’t work for a big company, you can be part of a pool which gives you bargaining power over insurance companies.  It’s very straightforward.  Suddenly, just like the federal employees — there are millions of them so they can drive a harder bargain with insurance companies — you, as an individual or a small business owner, could be part of this pool, which would give you more negotiating power with the insurance companies for lower rates and a better deal.  (Applause.)  Right?

Now, if you still can’t afford the insurance that’s offered — even though it’s a better deal than you can get on your own, but you still just can’t get it, then what we’re going to do is give you a tax credit to do so.  And these tax credits add up to the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history.  (Applause.)  Because the wealthiest among us, they can already afford to buy the best insurance there is; the least well off are already covered through Medicaid.  It’s the middle class that gets squeezed.  That’s who we need to help with these tax credits.  (Applause.)  That’s what we intend to do.  (Applause.)

Now, I want to be honest.  Let’s be clear.  This will cost some money.  It’s going to cost about $100 billion per year.  Most of this comes from the nearly $2.5 trillion a year that America already spends on health care.  It’s just that right now a lot of that money is being wasted or it’s being spent badly.  So with this plan, we’re going to make sure that the dollars we spend go to making insurance more affordable and more secure.

So I’ll give you an example.  We’re going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies.  (Applause.)  They are getting billions of dollars a year from the government, from taxpayers, when they’re making a big profit.  I’d rather see that money going to people who need it.  (Applause.)

We’ll set a new fee on insurance companies that stand to gain as millions of Americans are able to buy insurance.  They’re going to have 30 million new customers; there’s nothing wrong with them paying a little bit of the freight.  And we’ll make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of Medicare, just like everybody else does.  (Applause.)

So the bottom line is this:  Our proposal is paid for.  All the new money generated in this plan goes back to small business owners and individuals in the middle class who right now are having trouble getting insurance.  It would lower prescription drug prices for seniors.  (Applause.)  It would help train new doctors and nurses to provide care for American families and physicians assistants and therapists.  I know there are — got great programs here at Arcadia.  (Applause.)  I was hearing about the terrific programs you have at Arcadia in the health care field.  Well, you know what, we’re going to need more health care professionals of the sorts that are being trained here, and we want to help you get that training.  And that’s in this bill.  (Applause.)

     So I’ve mentioned two things now:  insurance reform and making sure the people who don’t have health insurance are able to get it.

Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions -– families, businesses, and the federal government.  (Applause.)  As I said, you keep on hearing from critics and some of the Republicans on these Sunday shows say, well, we want to do more about cost.  We have now incorporated almost every single serious idea from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care –- ideas that go after waste and abuse in our system, including in programs like Medicare.  But we do this while protecting Medicare benefits, and we extend the financial stability of the program by nearly a decade.

Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people’s premiums and brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next decade because we’re spending our health care dollars more wisely.  (Applause.)  Those aren’t my numbers.  Those aren’t my numbers –they are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress for what things cost.

So that’s our proposal:  insurance reform; making sure that you can have choices in the marketplace for health insurance, and making it affordable for people; and reducing costs.  (Applause.)

Now, think about it.  I think — how many people would like a proposal that holds insurance companies more accountable?  (Applause.)  How many people would like to give Americans the same insurance choices that members of Congress get?  (Applause.) And how many would like a proposal that brings down costs for everyone?  (Applause.)  That’s our proposal.  And it is paid for, and it’s a proposal whose time has come.  (Applause.)

The United States Congress owes the American people a final, up or down vote on health care.  (Applause.)  It’s time to make a decision.  The time for talk is over.  We need to see where people stand.  And we need all of you to help us win that vote.  So I need you to knock on doors.  Talk to your neighbors.  Pick up the phone.  When you hear an argument by the water cooler and somebody is saying this or that about it, say, no, no, no, no, hold on a second.  And we need you to make your voices heard all the way in Washington, D.C.  (Applause.)

They need to hear your voices because right now the Washington echo chamber is in full throttle.  It is as deafening as it’s ever been.  And as we come to that final vote, that echo chamber is telling members of Congress, wait, think about the politics — instead of thinking about doing the right thing.

That’s what Mitch McConnell said this weekend.  His main argument was, well, this is going to be really bad for Democrats politically.  Now, first of all, I generally wouldn’t take advice about what’s good for Democrats.  (Laughter.)  But setting aside that, that’s not the issue here.  The issue here is not the politics of it.

But that’s what people — that’s what members of Congress are hearing right now on the cable shows and in the — sort of the gossip columns in Washington.  It’s telling Congress comprehensive reform has failed before — remember what happened to Clinton — it may just be too politically hard.

Yes, it’s hard.  It is hard.  That’s because health care is complicated.  Health care is a hard issue.  It’s easily misrepresented.  It’s easily misunderstood.  So it’s hard for some members of Congress to make this vote.  There’s no doubt about that.  But you know what else is hard?  What Leslie and her family are going through — that’s hard.  (Applause.)  The possibility that Natoma Canfield might lose her house because she’s about to lose her health insurance — that’s hard.  (Applause.)  Laura Klitzka in Green Bay having to worry about her cancer and her debt at the same time, trying to explain that to her kids — that’s hard.  (Applause.)  What’s hard is what millions of families and small businesses are going through because we allow the insurance industry to run wild in this country.  (Applause.)

So let me remind everybody:  Those of us in public office were not sent to Washington to do what’s easy.  We weren’t sent there because of the big fancy title.  We weren’t sent there to  — because of a big fancy office.  We weren’t sent there just so everybody can say how wonderful we are.  We were sent there to do what was hard.  (Applause.)  We were sent there to take on the tough issues.  We were sent there to solve the big challenges.  And that’s why we’re there.  (Applause.)

And at this moment — at this moment, we are being called upon to fulfill our duty to the citizens of this nation and to future generations.  (Applause.)

So I’ll be honest with you.  I don’t know how passing health care will play politically, but I do know that it’s the right thing to do.  (Applause.)  It’s right for our families.  It’s right for our businesses.  It’s right for the United States of America.  And if you share that belief, I want you to stand with me and fight with me.  (Applause.)  And I ask you to help us get us over the finish line these next few weeks.  (Applause.)  The need is great.  The opportunity is here.  Let’s seize reform.  It’s within our grasp.  (Applause.)

Thank you very much, everybody.  God bless.  (Applause.)

END                 12:00 P.M. EST

On the morning of Monday, March 8, 2010 President Obama will visit the Philadelphia area and deliver remarks on health insurance reform at Arcadia University.  This event is free and open to the public, however, tickets are required. Tickets will be distributed on a first come, first served basis on Saturday, March 6 at 3:30 PM in the Hospitality Room of the Kuch Recreation and Athletic Center at Arcadia University.

EXHUMING MCCARTHY: Lynn Cheney’s Farenheit 9/11

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

HUFFINGTON POST: Back in January 2007, Ted Olson — then a lawyer in private practice but previously a lead counsel in Bush v. Gore and solicitor general of the United States — co-authored a short article for Legal Times in which he called efforts to demonize detainee defense lawyers as antithetical to American values. “The ethos of the bar is built on the idea that lawyers will represent both the popular and the unpopular, so that everyone has access to justice. Despite the horrible Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, this is still proudly held as a basic tenet of our profession,” Olson wrote. “When government officials are called ‘war criminals’ and when public-interest lawyers are called ‘terrorist huggers,’ it not only cheapens the discourse, it scrambles the dialogue. The best solutions to these difficult problems will emerge only when the best advocates, backed by weighty resources, bring their talents to bear. And the heavy work of creating solutions for these complicated issues can only move forward when the name-calling ceases.” MORE

NEW YORK TIMES: The Obama administration on Friday said that it would make no decision on where to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four accused co-conspirators in the Sept. 11 attacks “for weeks,” following a flare-up in the debate about whether that trial should take place in civilian court or before a military commission. In a statement, the White House sought to douse speculation that a trial decision may be imminent. That speculation was fanned by a report that aides to President Obama may recommend that he pull the prosecution out of civilian court and send it back to a military commission, where the Bush administration had planned to hold it. Still, in a conference call with reporters, three retired military officers said that holding a Sept. 11 trial in a military commission would be a grave mistake. All three had supported Mr. Obama a year ago when the president signed an order calling for the Guantánamo Bay prison to be closed. “I would be deeply saddened if this thing would be reversed,” said one of them, retired Army Major General William L. Nash. “It would give aid to our enemies. It would lessen our relationship with allies who have been extremely happy with the reversal of course we have taken. This is not the time to be scared.” MORE

ALSO: I’ve dealt with sound engineering for 30 years, as a film maker, interviewer, musician, working with master reel to reel tapes/decks at EMS Music in Seattle in the 80’s as a sound duplication engineer, or setting sound levels for my and other bands in live situations at shows. I won a Hollywood award for animation in 2000. I know sound. And it’s my opinion that audio portions of Sarah Palin’s March 2nd appearance on Jay Leno’s Tonight show were added or amplified, edited before broadcast to make it appear that Sarah Palin was more welcome than she was. I know. I was there. They added laughter where there was none during uncomfortable portions. Well, there was some laughter. Mine, of derision. During those pregnant pauses in her performance I was laughing long and loud, couldn’t help myself as much of what she was saying was utterly surreal, ridiculous, hypocritical – nonsense, spewed platitudes, pushed buttons. I was seriously thinking of leaving as it was getting hysterically unfunny. After sitting through the taping of the show in the studio I can recount many portions where there was little or no laughter or response, but at the later broadcast they are smoothed over with applause and laughter that WERE NOT THERE at the taping. Groans, hoots, grumbling, or just dead silence – all missing. MORE

[Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics]

POTUS: Millions of jobs had already been lost to the recession before I was sworn into office. Another 800,000 would be lost in the month of January. We’d later learn that our economy had shrunk by an astounding 6.4 percent in the first quarter of 2009, and economists from across the political spectrum warned that if dramatic action was not taken to break the back of the recession, the United States could spiral into another depression. MORE

RELATED: Philadelphia and Camden will be sharing $23 million from a federal government to extend, connect and create bicycle and pedestrian paths in both areas. This means jobs and green mobility in Philadelphia, said Andrew Stober, director of strategic initiatives for the mayor’s office of transportation. “It will mean jobs for the city,” Stober told NBCPhiladelphia.com. “Engineering jobs, design jobs, construction jobs.” Philadelphia will be getting $17.2 million of the grant, while the remaining $5.8 million is going to the Cooper’s Ferry Development Association in Camden, Stober said. The network of paths will connect the two cities, as well as many areas in the Eastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey region. MORE

YOINK: Ted and Robert Kennedy at the zoo.

CHICAGO SUN-TIMES: There is no understating the symbolism or the substance of what happened Tuesday. Malcontent voters in this most Democratic of Democratic states plopped a Republican into the iconic Teddy Kennedy’s Senate seat. This is huge. MORE

WASHINGTON POST: Massachusetts is among the nation’s most liberal states, and the candidates made it clear that a Brown victory could kill the Democrats’ health care push in the Senate. Democrats now must ask: Did Massachusetts voters register their discontent based on a decent understanding of the complex health care legislation? Or did conservatives do a better job of framing and spinning the debate, starting with raucous public meetings in August that caught Democrats flat-footed? The latest AP-GfK poll showed an even split between Americans who support the health care package and those who oppose it. But Republican lawmakers say Brown’s victory proves that public intensity and momentum are on their side. MORE

FINANCIAL TIMES: We are about to find out what Barack Obama is really made of. In all likelihood he will wake up on the first anniversary of his young presidency with headlines howling its obituary. With the defeat of Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate anointed to succeed Edward Kennedy as senator for Massachusetts, by Republican Scott Brown looking probable last night, Mr Obama’s filibuster-proof majority in the Senate will have evaporated. With its demise the healthcare reform on which the president spent the lion’s share of his political capital during his first year will be imperilled, perhaps mortally. All the compromises he was forced to make, some involving precisely the shameless horse trading Candidate Obama swore to eschew; all the bets that his presidency would be seen as one of accomplishment not promise, now look like a busted flush. That this ignominious slap in the face should happen in a state conventionally classified as a temple of liberalism only makes the humbling more shocking. Even if Ms Coakley should squeak through to the Senate, last year’s elated swoon has been replaced by a dyspeptic snarl.

So, is all that is left of those moments a year ago on the Capitol steps – when nothing less than the rebirth of American governance seemed in the offing – just the presidential grandiloquence, to which the word “empty” is now being habitually attached? Have the Democrats displayed, yet again, their unmatched talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? You heard it here first. The correct answer, counter to the new conventional wisdom, is no. The 44th president is on the mat, but anyone counting him out has not taken his measure. It is just that he may actually need to respond to the unrelenting pressure from zombie conservatism, ravenously flesh-eating and never quite dead, not by turning on more consensual charm, but by taking the gloves off. With his bank levy – “We want our money back,” he said – Mr Obama has belatedly begun to fight. Whether he can trade enough punches with the right before the November mid-term elections remains to be seen, but my hunch is that President Composure is up for a brawl. MORE

[photo by Gerald Herbert/AP via THE BIG PICTURE]

HAITIAN PROFESSIONALS OF PHILADELPHIA: Many of us are still in a state of shock but we have hope that we can assist Haiti’s relief. As an organization that prides itself in keeping the rich culture of Haiti alive in Philadelphia, the Haitian Professionals of Philadelphia (HPP) send our deepest and most sincere condolences to our Haitian family in our area and around the world. From the generous donation of Blue Star Jets, we have secured a private jumbo jet to transport medical professionals and supplies to Haiti. We are in need of DOCTORS, NURSES and DONATIONS to go to Haiti in order to provide medical care. HPP is currently coordinating with Beyond Borders, The Red Cross, The World Food Program,  The Haitian Coalition of Philadelphia, the Haitian Clergy of Philadelphia, the Mayor’s Office, Temple Haitian Student Association, University of Pennsylvania Haitian Student Association, Philadelphia Young Democrats, political officials and other Haitian organizations in the surrounding area to accomplish the following…MORE

BBC: Survivor Jackson tells the BBC he has just found his wife under the rubble: “We just got married. I just married my wife, and now I don’t know what to do. She spent three days under the rubble of the building, and today I found her.”…Time magazine reporter Saul Schwarz says he has seen at least two downtown roadblocks made out of bodies of earthquake victims and rocks – Reuters. “It’s getting ugly out there, people are fed up with getting no help,” he tells the news agency….Yael Talleyrand in Jacmel tweets: “Just got back from downtown – shocked to the highest possible level.” A US rescue team spent five hours freeing one man from rubble in Port-au-Prince. One of the rescuers, Sam Gray said there was “an incredible amount of devastation and an incredible amount of people who will probably lose their lives” in the country. “Honestly the hardest part is knowing how many people aren’t going to be saved,” he said…Firesideint, in Port-au-Prince, tweets: “Things are usually not as bad as the news says. Sincerely, this is worse… Dead bodies everywhere. City starting to smell like rotting flesh. Men are starting to collect bodies off of the streets. Saw a truck piled high. Recovery efforts are underway but SMALL. A person here or there. No heroics. Just desperation. Many people praying as they walk.” MORE

NEW YORK TIMES: President Barack Obama and the U.S. moved to take charge in earthquake-ravaged Haiti on Thursday, dispatching thousands of troops along with tons of aid to try to keep order as well as rescue the suffering in a country dysfunctional in the best of times. Tested by the first large-scale humanitarian disaster of his presidency, Obama ordered a relief effort of historic proportions despite the strains it was sure to put on both the stretched U.S. budget and military forces fighting two wars. He pledged an initial $100 million — with the likelihood of more later. Aware of the steep political cost George W. Bush paid for an ineffective response to Hurricane Katrina, the White House has labored to show intensive engagement by Obama since immediately after the 7.0-magnitude quake late Tuesday afternoon. Details of evening Situation Room meetings, phone calls with world leaders and canceled events were being released almost hourly. MORE

LOS ANGELES TIMES: As the first wave of international aid arrived today in Haiti, MTV announced that actor George Clooney will host of a bi-coastal telethon next week to raise money and support for the relief effort. The Jan. 22 fundraiser will air on all the MTV Networks channels. MORE