Sotomayor Differs With Obama On 'Empathy' Issue

Sotomayor: Abortion Law Is "Settled"
Supreme Court Nominee Called Roe vs. Wade a Settled Precedent, But Did Not Say If She Agrees With Ruling
Update: Michelle Obama's Father NOT Buried at Scammed Cemetery
Earlier today we reported that Michelle Obama's father was buried at Burr Oak -- a cemetery where workers dug-up remains, moved them and then re-sold the plots of land for profit. However, the first lady's office has issued a revised...
Sotomayor hearing live analysis

(/Gerald Hebert)

by James Oliphant

We are here again in Hart 216 and Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy has begun his first round of questions. Each member of the panel will question Judge Sotomayor in 30-minute periods.

Stay with the Swamp today to read real-time analysis of the hearing, which is expected to run late into the day.

*****************

Leahy: Playing defense out of the box

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has begun his round of questions. Each member of the panel will have 30 minutes today, alternating by party.

Leahy initially has focused on Sotomayor's judicial record--giving the nominee plenty of opportunity to spell out her philosophy and to describe herself as impartial and deferential to precedent. "It's important to remember that as a job, I don't make law," Sotomayor said.

He's also focusing on her most famous case as a prosecutor, the "Tarzan burglar." While Sotomayor was an assistant district attorney in Manhattan in the early 1980s, she prosecuted a man, Richard Maddicks, who literally used ropes to swing into apartment windows to rob and terrorize the inhabitants.

Leahy's inquiry has allowed Sotomayor to detail a significant prosecutorial accomplishment: she strung a bevy of incidents together and convinced the trial judge to let her try Maddicks on a series of crimes in one case. Maddicks was sentenced to more than 65 years in prison.

He has also given her a chance to explain her ruling in the Ricci v. City of New Haven case, the firefighter lawsuit, and focus on the fact that Sotomayor says she followed precedent in the case, later reversed by the Supreme Court.

The court in that case "fashioned a new standard," Sotomayor said.

Leahy is, in essence, playing defense before the offense, first to be personified by ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), can take the field. By casting Sotomayor as a tough-on-crime prosecutor and impartial judge, he's hoping to take the air out of Sessions' inevitable accusations that Sotomayor is a biased, liberal judge who favors disadvantaged minority groups.

Or you might want to consider it direct examination, with Sessions taking the cross. You have to build the witness up before the attempted tearing-down.

It's expected to be a long day here in Hart 216, with senators expected to question Sotomayor late into the day.

Things got a little testy when Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican, challenged Sonia Sotomayor on her previous statements about how the "biases, sympathies and prejudices" of a judge will affect her decisions.

But first, he wanted to acknowledge her response to Patrick Leahy about the "wise Latina" comment.

"Had you been saying that with clarity over the last decade or 15 years," said Sessions, "we'd have a lot fewer problems today."

He went on: "You have suggested that a judge's background and experience will impact their decision, which goes against the American ideal that a judge will be fair to every party, and every day when they put on that robe they will put aside their personal prejudices."

Sotomayor kept her cool as Sessions pressed her on the famous statement she made to a group of students at Duke University that appellate court judges make policy.

"The job of Congress is to decide what policy should be for society," said Sotomayor. "I was focusing on what district court judges do and what circuit court judges do. District court judges find the facts and their finding doesn't bind anybody else. Appellate judges establish precedent ... that precedent has policy ramifications because it binds not just the litigants in that case, but it binds litigants in cases that may be influenced by that precedent. If my speech is heard outside the few minutes that YouTube presents ... it is very clear I was talking about the policy ramifications of precedent."

Sessions was not buying it. "Judge, I don't think it's that clear."

-- Robin Abcarian, Los Angeles Times

Sessions v. Sotomayor

Give Sonia Sotomayor credit for not backing away from the statements she has made. She has spent much of the last half hour trying to provide the context for her remarks-especially the notion that, as judge, you have to recognize biases, admit you have them, and put them aside in deciding a case.

But Sessions isn't backing down either. What he hears is that when Sotomayor says she recognizes that she may have had life experiences that perhaps create some bias in her is that she cannot be impartial.

Like the lawyers they are (Sessions is a former federal prosecutor), they are both parsing language and finding the meaning they want in it. And in many ways, they are talking past each other.

We are going to hear several versions of this exchange today and tomorrow, but it's possible this is a gulf that cannot be crossed. By admitting that she in effect could have a different point a view as a result of her heritage and background, she may have told Republicans want they want to hear, even as she denies that is what she meant.

This is why the Obama White House and Senate Democrats want these hearings to focus on Sotomayor's lengthy record on the bench, because once it begins to turn on the meaning of specific phrases, subjectivity can overwhelm the process. And what we are going to see over the next two days is a push-pull effort by both sides to steer the debate in their desired direction.

-- James Oliphant

Kohl goes fishing, gets no bites

It's hard to tell from the last exchange whether Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) pursued his own agenda in questioning Judge Sotomayor or whether he simply attempted to give her an opportunity to show she won't take the bait.

Kohl asked Sotomayor about a series of signature Supreme Court cases involving property rights, privacy and abortion, and each time asked her how she personally felt about the issue at hand. And each time Sotomayor deflected it, echoing John Roberts' performance of four years ago.

How about the Kelo case, an eminent domain decision involving the takings clause of the 5th Amendment that conservatives have decried as an overreach?

"Kelo is now a precedent of the court. I must follow it," Sotomayor said.

Kohl pressed her again to tell him her view of the holding of the case.

I don't prejudge issues," Sotomayor said. "I come to every case with an open mind."

The abortion-rights decision in Roe v. Wade, reaffirmed by Casey v. Planned Parenthood?

"That is the precedent of the court and settled," she said.

Sotomayor, in fact, would not even divulge how she personally feels about televising Supreme Court oral argument.

It doesn't make for good drama. But it does mean that Sotomayor is staying on message.

-- James Oliphant

Hatch gets fundamental on guns

Most of America may have just lost their easy access point to the Sotomayor hearings as Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and the nominee engaged in a tangled discussion of the value of precedent and standards for constitutional jurisprudence.

Hatch, in pressing Sotomayor for her rulings involving gun rights and the Second Amendment, shows that Sotomayor's Republican critics, in a sense, are trying to have it both ways. They want to condemn the judge as a judicial activist who disregards precedent when it suits her. But Hatch blasted Sotomayor for following what he deemed to be incorrect precedent in deciding whether the Second Amendment right to gun ownership is applicable to the states.

Specifically, Hatch accused Sotomayor of using an incorrect analysis (and by implication, suggesting that she willfully used a certain line of cases to achieve a desired result) under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

At one point, when Sotomayor suggested that she was bound by the precedent of her judicial circuit, Hatch interjected, "I'm talking about what should be done here."

Much of the debate concerned what can be considered a "fundamental" right under the Constitution. Once a right is deemed fundamental, in a legal sense, any government regulation that restricts that right is subject to strict scrutiny by a court. Absent that designation, government regulations typically are viewed as reasonable and survive judicial review. In Heller v. District of Columbia, decided last year, a majority of the court declared gun ownership a fundamental and "natural" right.

Hatch seemed to be arguing that Sotomayor, in the Maloney v. Cuomo case, decided after Heller, should have found that that gun ownership is a fundamental right and struck down the state regulation at issue. Sotomayor argued, however, as she has earlier, that the question of incorporation--whether that right extends to the states--is one that still must be decided by the Supreme Court, likely next term. Democrats would argue that for Sotomayor to have gone that way, she would have been the kind of activist that Republicans accuse her of being. Republicans claim her failure to do so shows her hostility to gun rights.

In any event, many Americans were likely left in the dark by much of the exchange. But view the back-and-forth as a bit of a marker. Republicans know that Sotomayor will likely be on the court when the incorporation issue is decided and they are warning her to follow what they consider to be the correct judicial path. Some gun rights groups, in fact, intend to use the final vote on Sotomayor as a symbolic test of whether senators support a broad reading of the Second Amendment.

--James Oliphant

Sotomayor: The morning wrap

The press corps was promised fireworks at Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing Tuesday. But the explosions have yet to materialize.

While Republicans, at times, have scored points, particularly on Sotomayor's rulings in the New Haven v. DeStefano firefighters case and two gun-rights cases, which perhaps suggested that the judge hasn't always been as diligent a jurist as her supporters claim, the larger GOP narrative--that Sotomayor is a freewheeling liberal activist poised to rewrite constitutional law--hasn't quite materialized.

Most of the heat came from an initial testy exchange between Sen. Jeff Sessions and Sotomayor, in which Sotomayor denied that her infamous "wise Latina" remark indicated that she would be anything less than impartial on the bench. (And Sessions simply seemed to decide to not believe her.) But the episode also gave Sotomayor the opportunity to frame herself as an even-tempered, dispassionate and knowledgable jurist. And since that point, it's that image that--so far--seems to have carried much of the day.

And Sen. Orrin Hatch, grilling Sotomayor after Sessions, engaged in a bit of a legalistic ping-pong match involving constitutional standards that, albeit important, fizzled at the end and ended up more as an advisory to Sotomayor to treat gun rights and reverse-discrimination claims with appropriate deference. Buried in the exchange was the implication that Sotomayor had been either an inattentive or result-oriented jurist, but that didn't surface with clarity.

Democrats, on the other hand, worked what could largely be called a four-corners offense, running the clock, and asking Sotomayor's views on a variety of subjects, from property rights, to privacy, to national security. The overall effect is to allow Sotomayor to speak at length in a technical, button-downed fashion that places attention squarely on her record and less on her speeches and statements.

But there is a long afternoon ahead and plenty of time for charges and counter-charges, starting with Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, who will speak after the lunch break.-- James Oliphant

Sotomayor hearings: A protest -- then a punch line

In the middle of a somewhat austere colloquy between Sen. Charles Grassley and Judge Sonia Sotomayor over property rights, yet another anti-abortion protester leaped to his feet. A stocky man in a business suit issued a warning to Republicans if they support Sotomayor: "The GOP is done!" he screamed. "Baby killers!"

Officers struggled to pull the man out of the hearing room.

"People always say I have the ability to turn people on," the low-key Grassley joked to loud laughter.

-- James Oliphant

Jab and dodge on the 'taking clause'

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, a Republican, who told Judge Sonia Sotomayor in his opening statement Monday that he had doubts about her ability to be an impartial judge, pressed her on her philosophy about individual property rights and the right of the government to take property, as provided by the Constitution.

He asked her for her "general understanding" of the "taking clause," particularly as it applied to the Kelo case, in which the Supreme Court upheld the right of a city to take private property for a shopping mall.

Sotomayor, not about to forgo the opportunity for deference to a Republican senator, began by saying, "Good afternoon, senator. It's good to see you again."

"With respect to the importance of property rights," she said, "I just point out to you that another case involving that issue that came before me. ... In a series of cases involving a village in New York, I ruled in favor of the property owner's rights to challenge the process that the state had followed in his case and to hold that the state had not given him adequate notice, an adequate opportunity to express his objection to the public taking in that case."

Grassley pressed on. "The Kelo case talked about taking private property for public purposes. Is public use and public purpose the same thing?"

Sotomayor didn't directly answer the question: "The two informed each other."

But Grassley was not satisfied. "Do you believe the Supreme Court overstepped?"

Sotomayor deflected again. " I know there are many litigants that have expressed that view, and many state legislatures....The question of whether the Supreme Court overstepped the Constitution ... I have to accept because it is precedent ... and I can't comment further than to say that I understand the questions and what state legislatures have done and would have to wait another situation to apply the holding in that case. ...

"It's the court's holding and so it's entitled to stare decisis deference." (Stare decisis is the legal term for the tradition of the court respecting legal precedents.)

-- Robin Abcarian, Los Angeles Times

Sotomayor hearings: Judge looks for a trap

Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, a Republican who voted against Sonia Sotomayor's appellate court confirmation in 1998, read back long portions of Judge Sotomayor's now-famous speech and asked her to explain exactly what she meant. First, though, he asked her whether she agreed with President Obama when he said that 95% of cases faced by a judge will be handily rendered by relying on the law, and the remaining 5% "is supplied by what's in the judge's heart."

Sotomayor flatly denied that she would rely on her emotions to decide a case. "No sir, I would not approach the issue of judgment in the way the president did.... Judges shouldn't rely on what's in their heart, they don't determine the law. Congress makes the law. The job of a judge is to apply the law. Its not the heart ... it's the law." There was a somewhat odd exchange in which Kyl asked Sotomayor if she'd ever been in a situation where a lawyer had argued a case to her by saying, "I don't have any legal argument to make here, judge, go with your gut."

Indeed, she had been in a similar situation, said Sotomayor. " I have actually had lawyers say something similar. ... I had one lawyer throw up his hands and say, 'But it's just not right!' 'But it's just not right' is not what judges consider." Sotomayor seemed to have trouble figuring out exactly what he was getting at. "This is not a trick question," said Kyl. " I would imagine the answer is yes, you have always found some legal basis for a decision."

But Sotomayor, seemingly fearful of a trap, said, "When you use the phrase 'Some legal basis,' it sounds like you are saying a judge says, 'I think the results should be here' " -- she moved her hand to the left -- "so I am gonna use something to get here' "she moved her hand to the right.

"Have you always been able to have a legal basis for decisions you have rendered and not rely on such extralegal concept such as empathy?" he asked, alluding to President Obama's now-famous statement that empathy was one of the qualities he would seek in a Supreme Court nominee.

"Exactly, sir," said Sotomayor. "We apply law to facts, we don't apply feelings to facts."

-- Robin Abcarian, Los Angeles Times

Sometimes secrecy is appropriate, judge says

Yes, Sonia Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee, there might be times when secrecy is appropriate in judicial or government proceedings.

The answer was in response to a question by Sen. Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, who brought up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Or, as Feingold referred to it, "FISA."

The act allows the government to conduct electronic surveillance if it obtains an order from a special FISA court. Feingold suggested that secrecy has shrouded the activities of the court and surveillance. And without saying so directly, he criticized surveillance activities under the Bush administration.

Sotomayor did not get into specifics but said that, in such issues, a judge would have to look at the intent of Congress in crafting such legislation.

She also added that there are times when "openness can't be had for a variety of different reasons." She cited, for example, the practice of impaneling juries anonymously for their protection. Sometimes, she said, that is necessary.

-- Steve Padilla, Los Angeles Times

Sotomayor hearings: Refusing to be pinned down

Judge Sonia Sotomayor may be indeed impartial and even-handed: She hasn't given senators from either party much to work with.

First she bobbed and weaved with Sen. Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican, over property rights and environmental cases, avoiding articulating a specific judicial standard for when a government taking is appropriate when private uses are involved.

Then she has similarly disappointed Democratic Sen. Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin by declining to offer a critique of Bush administration anti-terrorism policies that were tossed by the Supreme Court. In fact, she refused to label such policies "mistakes," even though some were ruled unconstitutional. Judges don't look at actions, that way, she counseled.

But one interesting point: Sotomayor affirmatively stated that she would sit out a Supreme Court review of Maloney vs. Cuomo, a gun rights case for which she has been criticized by Republicans, if the court takes the case. But she didn't go far as to say she would recuse herself from a similar case, such as one out of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, if that were to be taken up by the high court.

If the court does, indeed, take up Maloney, then Republicans might have less to worry about.

For a moment, that was one of the most definitive moments of the day, but it lasted only a moment. It seems clear now, as Sotomayor showed this morning with Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), that she does not intend to spell out her personal philosophy with regard to specific issues that may come before the high court (which could be just about anything, of course).

-- James Oliphant

Sotomayor takes a punch

What just transpired at Hart 216 might have been the sharpest Republican critique of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) clearly articulated the GOP's main concern about Sotomayor and gave this hearing perhaps its defining moment to date.

Kyl first asked whether Sotomayor would agree with President Obama's analogy about judging that suggested there is place in decision-making for empathy for certain disadvantaged groups. But Sotomayor rejected that approach flatly. "We apply law to facts," Sotomayor said. "We don't apply feelings," evoking a grateful response from Kyl. (For a moment, he almost made it sound like they were simpatico. For a moment.)

But then Kyl, a lawyer, got to the heart of the matter, reading aloud several passages from a speech Sotomayor delivered at Seton Hall University in 2003. "To judge is an exercise in power. There is no objective stance. No neutrality. No escape from choice," Kyl quoted Sotomayor as saying.

Kyl is in the Republican leadership in the Senate -- and was expected to question Sotomayor aggressively. He didn't disappoint, although it was clear that he was attempting to be respectful, if sometimes he sounded a bit patronizing. "Let me try to help you along here," he said at one point.

Sotomayor's response was plain.

"I have a record of 17 years, decision after decision after decision," she said. "It is very clear that I don't base my judgments on my personal experiences or my feelings or my biases. All of my decisions show my respect for the rule of law."

Although Kyl's critique was the sharpest and most aggressive of the day, Sotomayor also appeared more comfortable, even joking at times, and more secure with her answers than during a similar exchange with Jeff Sessions earlier today.

"The words I chose, the rhetorical flourish," she allowed. "A bad idea." And she again maintained her words were about the importance of diversity on the bench. "I believe every person, regardless of their background, can be good and wise judges," she concluded.

At the end of the exchange, there was a feeling that Sotomayor had been hit with perhaps the hardest punch she may take. Although more will surely come her way.

Sen. Patrick Leahy called for a break afterward. And Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate assistant majority leader, slammed the narrowness of the Republican attacks, saying it was about "one case and one speech."

-- James Oliphant

Sotomayor Differs With Obama On 'Empathy' Issue

Judge Sonia Sotomayor told senators Tuesday that she disagrees with the president's statement that "what is in the judge's heart" can be critical in some judicial decisions. "It's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it's the law," she said.

How Many Weekend Drivers are on Drugs? Maybe More Than You Think...

Sotomayor Promises "Fidelity to the Law"
Supreme Court Nominee Shares Her Personal Life Experiences but Promises Decisions Based on Impartial Justice
How Many Weekend Drivers are on Drugs? Maybe More Than You Think...
ABC's Brian Hartman reports from Washington: An unusual government survey found 16 percent of people randomly pulled over while driving on weekend nights tested positive for drugs. That included:8.6 percent / marijuana3.9 percent / cocaine -...
Sotomayor blog: Deconstructing Sonia

by James Oliphant

The opening statement prepared by Judge Sotomayor, with input, no doubt, from the White House attempted to achieve several things in a bid to solidfy support and defuse expected GOP attacks. Here's a breakdown

1) That she has a compelling life story. "The progression of my life has been uniquely American."

2) That she has a wide variety of professional experience. "I have seen our judicial system from a number of different perspectives--as a big city prosecutor, a corporate litigator, a trial judge and an appellate judge."

3) That she can be tough on crime while being empathetic. "I felt the suffering of victims' families torn apart by a loved one's needless death. And I leanred the tough job law enforcement has protecting the public safety."

4) That she was first appointed to the federal district court by a Republican--George H.W. Bush.

5) That she likes baseball (and by implication, hot dogs, apple pie) -- she helped settle the baseball strike on 1994-95.

6) That she cares about the "little guy"--again a variation on "empathy:" "I have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions..."

7) . . . but that empathy doesn't mean she puts her thumb on the scale: "Those decisions have not been made to serve the interests of any one litigant, but to serve the larger interest of impartial justice."

8) Look at her record, not her speeches: "my record in two courts refelects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution."

9) That she's even handed, even dogmatic, in the way she writes opinions and this helps her be impartial."That is how I seek to strengthen both the rule of law and faithj and the impartiality of our justice system."

10) That this is a history-making appointment. (Are you listening, Republicans?) "Since President Obama announced my nomination in May, I have received letters from people all over this country, Many tell a unique story of hope in spite of struggles."

The Judiciary Committee just recessed until tomorrow. Why not keep going? Consider it a carefully planned product roll-out. Sotomayor's remarks end the day and will lead any news story about the hearings. A tough question-and-answer sequence might have resulted in a different result.

That, of course, will all come tomorrow. The fur starts flying at 10 a.m. ET.

Ghosts Of Nominees Past Haunt Sotomayor Hearing

As senators debated Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination Monday, some of them really seemed to be fighting old political battles over former judicial nominees — including Chief Justice Roberts.

Video: Probing The Bush Administration

Video: Probing The Bush Administration
There has been a recent push towards an investigation into the Bush Administration's use of torture tactics and concealed counterterrorism program. Bob Schieffer spoke with the Washington Post's Kevin Merida and syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker for analysis.
Sonia Sotomayor: Let the hearings begin

Sonia Sotomayor, poised to become the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court, enters a round of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings starting Monday in the pursuit of confirmation of President Barack Obama's first nominee for the high court.

The ABA is happy with the judge from the Second Judicial Circuit in New York, a member of the federal judiciary since the early 990s.

The NRA is not so happy about a judge whose apparent philosophical bent troubles the gun lobby. Others have had more difficulty assessing what to make of Sotomayor.

But the issue, unlike the photo above, is not black and white.

Most of the Senate already has had a chance to get a personal impression of the judge born of Puerto Rican parents in the housing projects of New York and educated at Ivy League colleges, the judge having made the rounds of 89 Senate offices heading into this week's hearings. And today, with a telephone phone call from the Oval Office, Obama wished his nominee well in the hearings ahead.

""President Obama called Judge Sotomayor from the Oval Office this morning to wish her good luck as she completed preparations for her confirmation hearing,'' White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.

"He complimented the Judge for making courtesy calls to 89 senators in which she discussed her adherence to the rule of law throughout her 17 years on the federal bench,'' Gibbs said. "The president expressed his confidence that Judge Sotomayor would be confirmed to serve as a Justice on the Supreme Court for many years to come."

Tune in here at the Swamp for coverage of it all.

'Soulcraft' Honors An Honest Day's Work

Matthew Crawford was on what most people would think was the "right track." Then he left his job as executive director at a think tank in Washington to open a motorcycle repair shop. In his new book, Shop Class as Soulcraft, he makes the case that our society has placed too great a value on white-collar work and not enough value on the trades.

Obama: Africa Inseparable from the World

Obama: Africa Inseparable from the World
President Met with Crush of Excitement in Visit to Ghana; Praises Nation's Democratic Tradition
Clem's Chronicles: President Obama/The New GM/Grave Desecration
Happy Friday folks-here's what's going on in our world........ PRESIDENT OBAMA IN GHANA-President Obama has arrived in Accra, Ghana. He landed in Ghana soon after 9 p.m. local time (5pm ET) and met a group of dignitaries, led by President...
Obama's African journey: 'Promise'

President Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the United States, founded with the slavery of Africans and perpetuating legalized racial discrimination well into the 20th Century, addressed the parliament of Ghana today in his first journey to Africa as president.

Obama called this time "a new moment of promise.''

He told an intimately personal tale of his own family, and how the history of colonialism should not blur the aspirations of modern nations, pointing to Ghana as one that embraced democracy early.

"I say this knowing full well the tragic past that has sometimes haunted this part of the world,'' said, whose mother came from Kansas, his father from Kenya. "I have the blood of Africa within me, and my family's own story encompasses both the tragedies and triumphs of the larger African story. ''

He spoke of his grandfather, a cook for the British in Kenya called "boy'' by his employers. He spoke of his father herding goats in a tiny village, and he spoke of the problems that have persisted across the African continent.

"It is easy to point fingers, and to pin the blame for these problems on others,'' he said. "Yes, a colonial map that made little sense bred conflict, and the West has often approached Africa as a patron, rather than a partner.

"But the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants,'' he said. "Here in Ghana, you show us a face of Africa that is too often overlooked by a world that sees only tragedy or the need for charity. The people of Ghana have worked hard to put democracy on a firmer footing, with peaceful transfers of power even in the wake of closely contested elections.''

This the text of the president's address to the parliament of Ghana:

"Good morning. It is an honor for me to be in Accra, and to speak to the representatives of the people of Ghana. I am deeply grateful for the welcome that I've received, as are Michelle, Malia, and Sasha Obama. Ghana's history is rich, the ties between our two countries are strong, and I am proud that this is my first visit to sub-Saharan Africa as President of the United States.
I am speaking to you at the end of a long trip. I began in Russia, for a Summit between two great powers. I traveled to Italy, for a meeting of the world's leading economies. And I have come here, to Ghana, for a simple reason: the 21st century will be shaped by what happens not just in Rome or Moscow or Washington, but by what happens in Accra as well.
This is the simple truth of a time when the boundaries between people are overwhelmed by our connections. Your prosperity can expand America's. Your health and security can contribute to the world's. And the strength of your democracy can help advance human rights for people everywhere.
So I do not see the countries and peoples of Africa as a world apart; I see Africa as a fundamental part of our interconnected worldas partners with America on behalf of the future that we want for all our children. That partnership must be grounded in mutual responsibility, and that is what I want to speak with you about today.
We must start from the simple premise that Africa's future is up to Africans.
I say this knowing full well the tragic past that has sometimes haunted this part of the world. I have the blood of Africa within me, and my family's own story encompasses both the tragedies and triumphs of the larger African story.
My grandfather was a cook for the British in Kenya, and though he was a respected elder in his village, his employers called him "boy" for much of his life. He was on the periphery of Kenya's liberation struggles, but he was still imprisoned briefly during repressive times. In his life, colonialism wasn't simply the creation of unnatural borders or unfair terms of tradeit was something experienced personally, day after day, year after year.
My father grew up herding goats in a tiny village, an impossible distance away from the American universities where he would come to get an education. He came of age at an extraordinary moment of promise for Africa. The struggles of his own father's generation were giving birth to new nations, beginning right here in Ghana. Africans were educating and asserting themselves in new ways. History was on the move.
But despite the progress that has been madeand there has been considerable progress in parts of Africawe also know that much of that promise has yet to be fulfilled. Countries like Kenya, which had a per capita economy larger than South Korea's when I was born, have been badly outpaced. Disease and conflict have ravaged parts of the African continent. In many places, the hope of my father's generation gave way to cynicism, even despair.
It is easy to point fingers, and to pin the blame for these problems on others. Yes, a colonial map that made little sense bred conflict, and the West has often approached Africa as a patron, rather than a partner. But the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants. In my father's life, it was partly tribalism and patronage in an independent Kenya that for a long stretch derailed his career, and we know that this kind of corruption is a daily fact of life for far too many.
Of course, we also know that is not the whole story. Here in Ghana, you show us a face of Africa that is too often overlooked by a world that sees only tragedy or the need for charity. The people of Ghana have worked hard to put democracy on a firmer footing, with peaceful transfers of power even in the wake of closely contested elections. And with improved governance and an emerging civil society, Ghana's economy has shown impressive rates of growth.
This progress may lack the drama of the 20th century's liberation struggles, but make no mistake: it will ultimately be more significant. For just as it is important to emerge from the control of another nation, it is even more important to build one's own.
So I believe that this moment is just as promising for Ghanaand for Africaas the moment when my father came of age and new nations were being born. This is a new moment of promise. Only this time, we have learned that it will not be giants like Nkrumah and Kenyatta who will determine Africa's future. Instead, it will be youthe men and women in Ghana's Parliament, and the people you represent. Above all, it will be the young peoplebrimming with talent and energy and hopewho can claim the future that so many in my father's generation never found.
To realize that promise, we must first recognize a fundamental truth that you have given life to in Ghana: development depends upon good governance. That is the ingredient which has been missing in far too many places, for far too long. That is the change that can unlock Africa's potential. And that is a responsibility that can only be met by Africans.
As for America and the West, our commitment must be measured by more than just the dollars we spend. I have pledged substantial increases in our foreign assistance, which is in Africa's interest and America's. But the true sign of success is not whether we are a source of aid that helps people scrape byit is whether we are partners in building the capacity for transformational change.
This mutual responsibility must be the foundation of our partnership. And today, I will focus on four areas that are critical to the future of Africa and the entire developing world: democracy; opportunity; health; and the peaceful resolution of conflict.
First, we must support strong and sustainable democratic governments.
As I said in Cairo, each nation gives life to democracy in its own way, and in line with its own traditions. But history offers a clear verdict: governments that respect the will of their own people are more prosperous, more stable, and more successful than governments that do not.
This is about more than holding electionsit's also about what happens between them. Repression takes many forms, and too many nations are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the Port Authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end.
In the 21st century, capable, reliable and transparent institutions are the key to successstrong parliaments and honest police forces; independent judges and journalists; a vibrant private sector and civil society. Those are the things that give life to democracy, because that is what matters in peoples' lives.
Time and again, Ghanaians have chosen Constitutional rule over autocracy, and shown a democratic spirit that allows the energy of your people to break through. We see that in leaders who accept defeat graciously, and victors who resist calls to wield power against the opposition. We see that spirit in courageous journalists like Anas Aremeyaw Anas, who risked his life to report the truth. We see it in police like Patience Quaye, who helped prosecute the first human trafficker in Ghana. We see it in the young people who are speaking up against patronage, and participating in the political process.
Across Africa, we have seen countless examples of people taking control of their destiny, and making change from the bottom up. We saw it in Kenya, where civil society and business came together to help stop post-election violence. We saw it in South Africa, where over three quarters of the country voted in the recent electionthe fourth since the end of Apartheid. We saw it in Zimbabwe, where the Election Support Network braved brutal repression to stand up for the principle that a person's vote is their sacred right.
Make no mistake: history is on the side of these brave Africans, and not with those who use coups or change Constitutions to stay in power. Africa doesn't need strongmen, it needs strong institutions.
America will not seek to impose any system of government on any other nationthe essential truth of democracy is that each nation determines its own destiny. What we will do is increase assistance for responsible individuals and institutions, with a focus on supporting good governanceon parliaments, which check abuses of power and ensure that opposition voices are heard; on the rule of law, which ensures the equal administration of justice; on civic participation, so that young people get involved; and on concrete solutions to corruption like forensic accounting, automating services, strengthening hotlines, and protecting whistle-blowers to advance transparency and accountability.
As we provide this support, I have directed my Administration to give greater attention to corruption in our Human Rights report. People everywhere should have the right to start a business or get an education without paying a bribe. We have a responsibility to support those who act responsibly and to isolate those who don't, and that is exactly what America will do.
This leads directly to our second area of partnershipsupporting development that provides opportunity for more people.
With better governance, I have no doubt that Africa holds the promise of a broader base for prosperity. The continent is rich in natural resources. And from cell phone entrepreneurs to small farmers, Africans have shown the capacity and commitment to create their own opportunities. But old habits must also be broken. Dependence on commoditiesor on a single exportconcentrates wealth in the hands of the few, and leaves people too vulnerable to downturns.
In Ghana, for instance, oil brings great opportunities, and you have been responsible in preparing for new revenue. But as so many Ghanaians know, oil cannot simply become the new cocoa. From South Korea to Singapore, history shows that countries thrive when they invest in their people and infrastructure; when they promote multiple export industries, develop a skilled workforce, and create space for small and medium-sized businesses that create jobs.
As Africans reach for this promise, America will be more responsible in extending our hand. By cutting costs that go to Western consultants and administration, we will put more resources in the hands of those who need it, while training people to do more for themselves. That is why our $3.5 billion food security initiative is focused on new methods and technologies for farmersnot simply sending American producers or goods to Africa. Aid is not an end in itself. The purpose of foreign assistance must be creating the conditions where it is no longer needed.
America can also do more to promote trade and investment. Wealthy nations must open our doors to goods and services from Africa in a meaningful way. And where there is good governance, we can broaden prosperity through public-private partnerships that invest in better roads and electricity; capacity-building that trains people to grow a business; and financial services that reach poor and rural areas. This is also in our own interestfor if people are lifted out of poverty and wealth is created in Africa, new markets will open for our own goods.
One area that holds out both undeniable peril and extraordinary promise is energy. Africa gives off less greenhouse gas than any other part of the world, but it is the most threatened by climate change. A warming planet will spread disease, shrink water resources, and deplete crops, creating conditions that produce more famine and conflict. All of usparticularly the developed worldhave a responsibility to slow these trendsthrough mitigation, and by changing the way that we use energy. But we can also work with Africans to turn this crisis into opportunity.
Together, we can partner on behalf of our planet and prosperity, and help countries increase access to power while skipping the dirtier phase of development. Across Africa, there is bountiful wind and solar power; geothermal energy and bio-fuels. From the Rift Valley to the North African deserts; from the Western coast to South Africa's crops -Africa's boundless natural gifts can generate its own power, while exporting profitable, clean energy abroad.
These steps are about more than growth numbers on a balance sheet. They're about whether a young person with an education can get a job that supports a family; a farmer can transfer their goods to the market; or an entrepreneur with a good idea can start a business. It's about the dignity of work. It's about the opportunity that must exist for Africans in the 21st century.
Just as governance is vital to opportunity, it is also critical to the third area that I will talk aboutstrengthening public health.
In recent years, enormous progress has been made in parts of Africa. Far more people are living productively with HIV/AIDS, and getting the drugs they need. But too many still die from diseases that shouldn't kill them. When children are being killed because of a mosquito bite, and mothers are dying in childbirth, then we know that more progress must be made.
Yet because of incentivesoften provided by donor nationsmany African doctors and nurses understandably go overseas, or work for programs that focus on a single disease. This creates gaps in primary care and basic prevention. Meanwhile, individual Africans also have to make responsible choices that prevent the spread of disease, while promoting public health in their communities and countries.
Across Africa, we see examples of people tackling these problems. In Nigeria, an Interfaith effort of Christians and Muslims has set an example of cooperation to confront malaria. Here in Ghana and across Africa, we see innovative ideas for filling gaps in carefor instance, through E-Health initiatives that allow doctors in big cities to support those in small towns.
America will support these efforts through a comprehensive, global health strategy. Because in the 21st century, we are called to act by our conscience and our common interest. When a child dies of a preventable illness in Accra, that diminishes us everywhere. And when disease goes unchecked in any corner of the world, we know that it can spread across oceans and continents.
That is why my Administration has committed $63 billion to meet these challenges. Building on the strong efforts of President Bush, we will carry forward the fight against HIV/AIDS. We will pursue the goal of ending deaths from malaria and tuberculosis, and eradicating polio. We will fight neglected tropical disease. And we won't confront illnesses in isolationwe will invest in public health systems that promote wellness, and focus on the health of mothers and children.
As we partner on behalf of a healthier future, we must also stop the destruction that comes not from illness, but from human beingsand so the final area that I will address is conflict.
Now let me be clear: Africa is not the crude caricature of a continent at war. But for far too many Africans, conflict is a part of life, as constant as the sun. There are wars over land and wars over resources. And it is still far too easy for those without conscience to manipulate whole communities into fighting among faiths and tribes.
These conflicts are a millstone around Africa's neck. We all have many identitiesof tribe and ethnicity; of religion and nationality. But defining oneself in opposition to someone who belongs to a different tribe, or who worships a different prophet, has no place in the 21st century. Africa's diversity should be a source of strength, not a cause for division. We are all God's children. We all share common aspirationsto live in peace and security; to access education and opportunity; to love our families, our communities, and our faith. That is our common humanity.
That is why we must stand up to inhumanity in our midst. It is never justifiable to target innocents in the name of ideology. It is the death sentence of a society to force children to kill in wars. It is the ultimate mark of criminality and cowardice to condemn women to relentless and systematic rape. We must bear witness to the value of every child in Darfur and the dignity of every woman in Congo. No faith or culture should condone the outrages against them. All of us must strive for the peace and security necessary for progress.
Africans are standing up for this future. Here, too, Ghana is helping to point the way forward. Ghanaians should take pride in your contributions to peacekeeping from Congo to Liberia to Lebanon, and in your efforts to resist the scourge of the drug trade. We welcome the steps that are being taken by organizations like the African Union and ECOWAS to better resolve conflicts, keep the peace, and support those in need. And we encourage the vision of a strong, regional security architecture that can bring effective, transnational force to bear when needed.
America has a responsibility to advance this vision, not just with words, but with support that strengthens African capacity. When there is genocide in Darfur or terrorists in Somalia, these are not simply African problemsthey are global security challenges, and they demand a global response. That is why we stand ready to partner through diplomacy, technical assistance, and logistical support, and will stand behind efforts to hold war criminals accountable. And let me be clear: our Africa Command is focused not on establishing a foothold in the continent, but on confronting these common challenges to advance the security of America, Africa and the world.
In Moscow, I spoke of the need for an international system where the universal rights of human beings are respected, and violations of those rights are opposed. That must include a commitment to support those who resolve conflicts peacefully, to sanction and stop those who don't, and to help those who have suffered. But ultimately, it will be vibrant democracies like Botswana and Ghana which roll back the causes of conflict, and advance the frontiers of peace and prosperity.
As I said earlier, Africa's future is up to Africans.
The people of Africa are ready to claim that future. In my country, African-Americansincluding so many recent immigrantshave thrived in every sector of society. We have done so despite a difficult past, and we have drawn strength from our African heritage. With strong institutions and a strong will, I know that Africans can live their dreams in Nairobi and Lagos; in Kigali and Kinshasa; in Harare and right here in Accra.
Fifty-two years ago, the eyes of the world were on Ghana. And a young preacher named Martin Luther King traveled here, to Accra, to watch the Union Jack come down and the Ghanaian flag go up. This was before the march on Washington or the success of the civil rights movement in my country. Dr. King was asked how he felt while watching the birth of a nation. And he said: "It renews my conviction in the ultimate triumph of justice."
Now, that triumph must be won once more, and it must be won by you. And I am particularly speaking to the young people. In places like Ghana, you make up over half of the population. Here is what you must know: the world will be what you make of it.
You have the power to hold your leaders accountable, and to build institutions that serve the people. You can serve in your communities, and harness your energy and education to create new wealth and build new connections to the world. You can conquer disease, end conflicts, and make change from the bottom up. You can do that. Yes you can. Because in this moment, history is on the move.
But these things can only be done if you take responsibility for your future. It won't be easy. It will take time and effort. There will be suffering and setbacks. But I can promise you this: America will be with you. As a partner. As a friend. Opportunity won't come from any other place, thoughit must come from the decisions that you make, the things that you do, and the hope that you hold in your hearts.
Freedom is your inheritance. Now, it is your responsibility to build upon freedom's foundation. And if you do, we will look back years from now to places like Accra and say that this was the time when the promise was realizedthis was the moment when prosperity was forged; pain was overcome; and a new era of progress began. This can be the time when we witness the triumph of justice once more. Thank you. ''

Obama: Africa's Promise Challenged By Tyranny

President Obama was in Africa Saturday morning, where he both praised and admonished leaders in Africa. Obama, calling himself an American leader with the "blood of Africa" within him, told the Ghanaian parliament that the continent has the potential for peace and prosperity. But that potential will become reality only if tyranny and corruption come to an end.

Video: Washington Unplugged, 07-10-09

Video: Washington Unplugged, 07-10-09
President Obama meets with Pope Benedict XVI, but is the public's love affair in the U.S. waning? Bob Schieffer spoke with CBS News' Bill Plante and the Carnegie Endowment's David Rothkopf. Also, meet "young philanthropist" Zach Bonner.
Christmas Sales...in July!
ABC's Hanna Siegel reports from New York: Sears wants you to get your Christmas shopping done early and they don’t mean by Thanksgiving. They mean July. Christmas is here if you shop at Sears and online at its sister store...
Lorraine Silva, 1929-2009

by Mark Silva

For Lorraine Silva, the notion of devotion to family -- her husband Dan of 56 years, her two children, their wives, her four grandchildren, their spouses and her one greatgrandson, baby Noah, born just last year -- was as simple as the song which she led for the children of the nursery school she taught at the church where she worshipped for many years:

"It's raining on the sidewalks, it's raining on the street. I'll go out with my raincoat on, and let it rain on me."

She played the piano, too.

The world's greatest teacher passed away suddenly last night, at the age of 80, mercifully averting any pain but leaving holes in the hearts of a farflung community of family and friends greater than even she might realize. She always put everyone else first.

Born Lorraine Palmisano in Newark, N.J., she was raised in Cambridge, Mass., where she met her husband-to-be as teenagers. She attended Cambridge Latin. He was the quarterback at Rindge Tech. She went to Simmons College and was trained as a schoolteacher. He went into the Marines, and on to Boston University.

They moved to Schenectady, N.Y., in the mid-1950s for his job at General Electric, where he long worked as a manager of manufacturing. He has retired, happily and healthfully, for many more years. She taught at Trinity Methodist Church's nursery school -- she was the school, one class a year.

They raised two boys, one seven years younger than the other. The younger, Steven, was taken by an accident at work many years later. His two boys are fine and tall young men today. The older son, who writes here, has two grown "children'' as well, and the grandson.

We called it "GE in the sky," that lighted logo atop the main building of the sprawling factory downtown which for decades was the lifeblood of this community in the Mohawk Valley. Growing up in the 1950s, in a family such as this, may be one of the great privileges of modern times. No one, anywhere, had better parents. And their legacy is simple: Our daughter now is the kind of mother that our mother was.

Night came swiftly for our dear mother, and, while we are reluctant to burden others with personal news, we feel an explanation is owed for what will be a moment of silence in these pages, with this contributor, at least. We hope, also, that a moment of reflection offers a reminder to remember, always, the departed ones we love, and embrace and cherish, often, the ones still with us.

.

Sotomayor's Past, Personality To Be Scrutinized

The Senate Judiciary Committee begins confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Monday. Republicans are sure to focus on her time at a Puerto Rican legal defense fund and her style on the bench. Democrats will likely point to her remarkable life story.

Palin to Campaign for Texas Gov.

Palin to Campaign for Texas Gov.
Rick Perry Says He Welcomes the Support of the Former GOP VP Candidate
'United Breaks Guitars': Hot on YouTube
ABC’s Jared Wiener, Zach Fannin and Kristi Berner report: Canadian musician and songwriter Dave Carroll took his year-long battle with United Airlines to YouTube this week. Now his video riff ‘United Breaks Guitars’ is not only a YouTube sensation, but...
Climate change: Developing nations balk

by Christi Parsons and Jim Tankersley

L'AQUILA, Italy -- Developing nations led by China and India refused Wednesday to back lofty but long-term targets proposed by the Group of 8 industrial nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, balking at reluctance by leaders of the world's biggest economies to move more quickly on their own.

Inability to bridge the gap between rising carbon-emitting countries such as China and the longtime polluters within the G-8 underscores the steep challenges involved in attempting to strike a comprehensive bargain to contain global warming.

The impasse comes down to the politically sensitive issue of who goes first.

President Obama and his counterparts in the G-8, who are holding two days of meetings in the central Italian mountain town of L'Aquila, offered broad agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The statement pledged to slash global emissions by 50%, led by reductions of 80% by the G-8 countries.

They also prepared to offer new financial incentives for developing nations to join the effort.

But the G-8 stopped well short of pledging to take aggressive action that could curb emissions more quickly -- at the cost of higher energy prices and a feared worsening of the global economy.

And neither the broad promises of future action nor the relatively modest financial incentives were likely to break the standoff between the most advanced economies and the emerging powerhouses. Countries such as China, India and Brazil are unwilling to take the first steps to cut emissions that could choke off economic growth, instead demanding that wealthier nations take the lead.

See the full report on the climate-change impasse in Tribune newspapers and here in the Swamp:

"China's not going to do anything until the developed countries send a signal that they're going to do something," said Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist at Princeton University and a longtime participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The standoff at the summit perpetuates a divide that must be bridged this year if there is to be a global agreement on curbing emissions.

The United Nations is convening a meeting in Copenhagen in December aimed at forging a binding consensus on targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But unless China and other developing nations can be persuaded to sign on to an accord, Obama may find it difficult -- if not impossible -- to convince Congress to go along.

The stalemate on the international stage mirrors Obama's problem at home. Though the House approved a major climate bill last month, Republicans and other critics have unleashed a hailstorm of criticism. They argue that emissions limits by the United States and other advanced economies alone would have relatively little effect on global warming, while potentially harming the domestic economy.

Obama's climate bill, which narrowly passed the House, could send a strong signal if it becomes law, said Dirk Forrister, who was chairman of the White House climate change task force under President Clinton and now is managing director of the financial firm Natsource LLC.

But, he said, "the U.S. Senate will not go along with anything unless it sees some pretty serious action from developing countries." That, analysts say, sums up Obama's conundrum as he tries to push for a meaningful climate agreement during formal treaty negotiations in Denmark this winter.

"It looks like it's going to be a pretty tough fight [in Copenhagen], based on what happened in these meetings in Italy," Forrister said.

U.S. leaders hinted that a broad coalition of developing and developed nations could announce agreement today to team up on research on renewable energy and technology to scrub and store greenhouse emissions from coal.

Michael Froman, Obama's point man at the summit and lead staff negotiator, argued that the major industrial nations' joint statement favoring an 80% reduction in their emissions by 2050 represented "significant cooperation" -- even though it came up short of the draft language that the White House had supported.

The G-8 targets roughly followed those in Obama's domestic climate bill.

The G-8 countries also set a global goal of 50% emissions reductions by mid-century, and declared that they recognized "the broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above preindustrial levels ought not to exceed" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

They did not announce any specific plans to cut emissions or adopt any short- or mid-term reduction targets. The United States pushed, and failed, to get developing nations to join in the reduction pledge.

"In any negotiation, you put in a number of points," Froman said.

"Sometimes they make it in and sometimes they don't."

The statement that did not come -- the one that would have included China, Brazil and other developing countries -- is the one that matters, he acknowledged.

But both Froman and chief Obama climate negotiator Todd Stern argued that there was plenty of room to work out an agreement before the Copenhagen summit.

"It's a negotiation. Countries may make concessions further down the road," Stern said in an interview.

Obama will chair a meeting of the world's largest emitters, including both developing and developed nations, today in Italy.

Analysts said the Obama administration could strengthen its hand in future negotiations with another victory or two at home -- Senate approval of a climate bill and, even better, passage by Congress of a conference version of the bill that Obama could sign into law before the Copenhagen talks.

"His most powerful weapon is a piece of signed legislation," said Melinda L. Kimble, senior vice president of the United Nations Foundation and a former climate negotiator in the Clinton administration.

"If he has that in his pocket," she added, "everything else he has is icing on the cake."

Christi Parsons reported from L'Aquila, Italy. Jim Tankersley reported from Washington.

Obama Makes First Visit To Subsaharan Africa

Tomorrow President Obama is scheduled to arrive in Ghana for his first official visit to Sub-Saharan Africa. But can the son of Kenya bring real change to the continent, or does the visit carry merely symbolic weight? Charles Cobb, of online news portal allAfrica.com, and Emira Woods, foreign policy co-director at the Institute for Policy Studies, talk about the President's visit to Ghana.

Michelle Obama: When in Rome

Stimulus Funds Missing Poorest Areas
Many States Using Money Just to Stay Afloat, House Committee Finds
Good News for Gen X Parents
ABC's John Berman has good news for new parents. All that stressing over new fangled car seats and the like...appears to be paying off. Watch:
Michelle Obama: When in Rome

by Mark Silva

Michelle Obama may not have made much of a splash in Moscow, where any obsession with Western fashion still has one foot in the Cold War, but the Romans are watching the American first lady, on tour with her husband for the G-8 summit .

The first lady arrived at the Capitoline hill, one of Rome's seven, around noon today, catching a brief bird's eye view of the Roman Forum. The Capitoline Museums are part of the Campidoglio, the Capitol Hill of Rome. The spouses of the G-8 leaders had lunch there with their host, the mayor's wife, Isabella Rauti Alemanno.

. "It's the city, the most important in the history of the city," said Gian Paolo Pelizzaro, a spokesman for the mayor, speaking of a museum that houses a colossal sculpture of Marcus Aurelius on horseback as well as the original bronze of the she-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus, which is the symbol of Rome.

Before a tour of the museum, the first ladies had lunch on a terrace overlooking the city. The head table was covered in ivory tulle with centerpieces of red and yellow roses mixed with oranges and apples. The chef, Heinz Beck, a German-born gazillion star chef with a restaurant in Rome called La Pergola, delivered the fare: Lobster medallions, veal filet on apricot puree and, for dessert, walnut semi-freddo.

Michelle Obama wore black flats and what the print pooler described as a taxicab yellow sheath with an oversize green floral brooch on her left shoulder. "From a distance it looked to be bakelite and frankly resembled lettuce,'' the pooler noted.

With thanks for the pool reporting of Robin Givhan of the Washington Post.

lPhoto of Michelle Obama, above, with Sarah Brown, wife of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, during their visit at the Capitoline Museums in Rome, Photo by Domenico Stinellis / )

Attacks Highlight Flaws In U.S. Cyberdefenses

The coordinated attacks that swamped Web sites in the U.S. and South Korea in the past several days may be a harbinger of things to come, cybersecurity experts say. The incident highlights the ease of launching such crippling attacks — and the lack of preparedness at some U.S. agencies.