Eurozone PMIs for private business hit 10-month high

BRUSSELS: Private business activity across the eurozone hit a 10-month high level in January, according to a leading growth indicator released on Thursday.

The Purchasing Managers' Index published by London-based Markit researchers, a survey of thousands of eurozone companies, logged 48.2 points in compared to 47.2 points the previous month.

January marked a third rise running for the index, even though it remains below the boom-and-bust 50-point line indicating economic growth or contraction -- the 16th shrinkage in 17 months.

Manufacturing production fell for the 11th month in a row, with both the manufacturing and services sectors each registering their smallest retreat in 10 months.

The key eurozone economy of Germany powered back to growth, but No. 2 economy France is still in contraction.

"While the surveys add to the mounting evidence that eurozone economic activity turned the corner in late-2012, they indicate that it is not out of the woods yet," said London-based IHS Global Insight analyst Howard Archer, who highlighted worries about France.

- AFP/xq

Read More..

Gergen: Speech deepens divisions

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• David Gergen says historians will look on Obama's speech as an important source


• Obama seemed liberated to express his philosophy of government, he says


• Gergen says the president stressed equality in the tradition of Lincoln, King


• He says GOP is bristling at the speech, and it will likely deepen divisions in Washington

Editor's note: David Gergen is a senior political analyst for CNN and has been an adviser to four presidents. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he is a professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Follow him on Twitter.

(CNN) -- Years from now, historians are likely to look back upon Barack Obama's second inaugural address as a rich treasure trove for understanding his presidency and possibly the course of American politics.

It wasn't as important for his rise to power as his 2004 address to the Democratic National Convention. That one propelled him onto the national stage. It wasn't as elegant as his Philadelphia speech on race relations in the 2008 campaign. That one was his rhetorical masterpiece. But the second inaugural was far more important than either in defining his political philosophy as president.

Politics: After inauguration, political reality returns to Washington

Here's a first rough draft of what historians may find significant:

David Gergen

Obama revealed: The Obama who took the oath of office this week seemed not only more confident but also liberated. A central point of his address was that he inherited an economic crisis and two wars but now the nation is emerging into a clearing. This, he believes, is a golden opportunity for fresh action -- a moment to be seized.

Left unspoken were two other reasons why he feels liberated: He clearly thinks he has shown the country that Republicans aren't willing to compromise, so that he has no choice but to try to muscle them.

The GOP has now blinked twice on the fiscal cliff and the new debt ceiling; he plans to make them keep blinking. Then, too, Obama is also freed up because he is no longer working under the shadow of the 2010 midterm elections when he was snookered. After his convincing win in 2012, he is back on top politically.

Opinion: Obama's ringing defense of liberalism

All of this has inspired the president to reveal to the world his true political philosophy: In one speech, he gave the strongest embrace of 20th-century liberalism since Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society. Yes, he gave a couple of bows to the importance of individual initiative and private enterprise, but the heart and soul of the address was a call to collective action on a wide array of fronts.

Gone were the third way of Bill Clinton and the centrism of Jimmy Carter. He emerged as an unapologetic, unabashed liberal -- just what the left has long wanted him to be and exactly what the right has feared.

Heir to Lincoln and King: A little more than three decades ago, Ronald Reagan moved the inaugural ceremony from the east side of the Capitol to the west. For Reagan, the symbolism was that of a Californian who wanted to give his inaugural address gazing out across the National Mall, the monuments and Arlington Cemetery toward the Pacific. But for Obama, the symbolism was very different: He was the president who looked west toward the monuments of Abraham Lincoln and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and his address artfully tied him to their legacy.

The historian Garry Wills won a Pulitzer Prize some years ago with his book on Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in 1863. Wills argued that for most of America's early history, people thought that the republic was born with the Constitution of 1787 and the Declaration of Independence was a secondary document.

Opinion: Anti-government era is over

Along came Lincoln at Gettysburg saying that the country was born "four score and seven years ago" -- in 1776 with the declaration. In Wills' view, now widely accepted, Lincoln at Gettysburg turned the declaration's second paragraph into the founding creed of the country. What we must aspire to, Lincoln was saying, was to ensure that all are created equal.

King came to the Lincoln Memorial 100 years later -- in 1963 -- to go back to Lincoln at Gettysburg and through him to the declaration. The nation, King said, must live up to the promise of equal opportunity -- and indeed, that was the dream he so eloquently expressed in the finest American speech since Gettysburg.

Enter Obama at his second inaugural, not only on King's official holiday but 50 years after "I Have a Dream" and 150 years after Gettysburg. The president's address begins with a recitation of the declaration, calls it our "founding creed" and makes the aspiration of equal opportunity the central goal of his presidency.

In the past, presidents at inaugurations have found the nation's heroes among those who have died in battle. Obama chose a different path: He found the nation's heroes at Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall. His philosophy, as we learned, is not just about government programs but about embracing inclusion and diversity. It was, I believe, his firmest attempt to build upon Lincoln and King -- and in effect, his address made him their modern heir.

Opinion: GOP, play offense in Obama's second term

Setting a new course: A president's inaugural address often sets the tone and direction of his next four years in office and nowhere may that be more true than with Obama's second. His assertive address has heartened his supporters so that they seem ready to march into battle with him. They not only want him to succeed, but they now have an ambitious agenda to embrace as well.

Smartly, the president's team began putting together a new citizens group, Organizing for Action, just before the inauguration, and his speech was in effect a call to arms. Whether "OFA", as Democrats in Washington already call it, will work well with the Democratic Party is open to question, but it is clear that Obama & Co. intend to use it as an important way to rally public pressure on Congress for his agenda.

Gone were the third way of Bill Clinton and the centrism of Jimmy Carter. He emerged as an unapologetic, unabashed liberal. ...
David Gergen

On the other side of the aisle, many Republicans such as Eric Cantor were respectful of the president after his address but underneath most of them were bristling. They had expected the president to issue a ritualistic plea for bipartisanship and then to begin negotiating with them over federal deficits.

Instead, he made it clear that he will work with them as long as they agree with him and try to run over them if they resist. From the GOP perspective, Obama was virtually dismissive of the nation's fiscal threats and wasn't interested in true negotiations. In a tweet after the speech, scholar Ian Bremmer captured their view of Obama's message to the GOP: "Together, we shall pursue my objectives."

Opinion: World to Obama -- You can't ignore us

In short, the divisions in Washington may grow even deeper in the near term, if that is possible, and no one knows what will actually be accomplished. Among partisans on both sides, there is still a sense that a piece of gun control can be passed (starting with background checks) and perhaps a larger piece of immigration (starting with H-1B visas and legal status for the undocumented). But serious action on climate change seems distant.

More centrally, the parties seem even further apart on a budget agreement. The GOP is in no mood to revisit higher taxes and the president's address gave a ringing endorsement to the basic structure of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. In short, the road ahead looks even rockier than it seemed after the elections.

On the day before the inaugural, a New York Times article by Jodi Kantor reported that after the first term, Obama has warned possible candidates for his job that it is very difficult to get things done in Washington and that the president has a "contracted sense of possibility." He and his team are also aware that power seeps away quickly in a second term.

How, one wondered, is it possible to reconcile those views with Obama's decision to go big at the inaugural, pushing an extraordinarily ambitious agenda.

That question still lingers after the inauguration. It is just possible that what he was ultimately doing in his address was to present the country with a liberal vision of the future and a legislative agenda to go with it -- something akin to what Franklin Roosevelt did in 1944. FDR left behind a Democratic Party with a majority coalition and an agenda that drove American politics for more than 20 years.

Is that the legacy that Obama really wants to leave? Lincoln, King, FDR -- all rolled into one? Only historians will know the answer for sure.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Gergen.

Read More..

Romney to be honored Friday at D.C. luncheon

Mitt Romney will make it to Washington, D.C. for inauguration week after all.

The 2012 GOP presidential nominee and his wife Ann are scheduled to attend a luncheon in their honor Friday at Washington's J.W. Marriott hotel, National Journal reported this afternoon. The reception will be hosted by two of Romney's biggest campaign fundraisers: Virginia philanthropist Catherine Reynolds and hotel tycoon Bill Marriott, Jr.

Romney, a longtime friend to the Marriott family, serves on Marriott International's board of directors. While on the trail, he and his traveling staff stayed almost exclusively at Marriott hotels.

Having opted to spend Inauguration Day at his home in La Jolla, Calif., on Monday, Romney became the first presidential nominee since Michael Dukakis in 1989 to not attend the ceremonial event. But he's made at least one appearance in the nation's capital since the election: Several weeks following his loss, he enjoyed a lunch of white turkey chili with President Obama at the White House.

Read More..

Pentagon to Allow Women in Combat

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will lift a longstanding ban on women serving in combat, according to senior defense officials.

The services have until this May to come up with a plan to implement the change, according to a Defense Department official.

That means the changes could come into effect as early as May, though the services will have until January 2016 to complete the implementation of the changes.

"We certainly want to see this executed responsibly but in a reasonable time frame, so I would hope that this doesn't get dragged out," said former Marine Capt. Zoe Bedell, who joined a recent lawsuit aimed at getting women on the battlefield.

The military services also will have until January 2016 to seek waivers for certain jobs -- but those waivers will require a personal approval from the secretary of defense and will have to be based on rationales other than the direct combat exclusion rule.

The move to allow women in combat, first reported by the Associated Press, was not expected this week, although there has been a concerted effort by the Obama administration to further open up the armed forces to women.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously recommended in January to Secretary Panetta that the direct combat exclusion rule should be lifted.

"I can confirm media reports that the secretary and the chairman are expected to announce the lifting of the direct combat exclusion rule for women in the military," said a senior Defense Department official. "This policy change will initiate a process whereby the services will develop plans to implement this decision, which was made by the secretary of defense upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey sent Panetta a memo earlier this month entitled, "Women in Service Implementation Plan."

Adek Berry/AFP/Getty Images

Soaring With the First Woman Fighter Jet Commander Watch Video

Instant Index: Divers Save Dolphin; Orangutans Play With iPads Watch Video

Extreme Cold Takes Its Toll on Freezing Nation Watch Video

"The time has come to rescind the direct combat exclusion rule for women and to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service," the memo read.

"To implement these initiatives successfully and without sacrificing our warfighting capability or the trust of the American people, we will need time to get it right," he said in the memo, referring to the 2016 horizon.

Women have been officially prohibited from serving in combat since a 1994 rule that barred them from serving in ground combat units. That does not mean they have been immune from danger or from combat.

As Martha Raddatz reported in 2009, women have served in support positions on and off the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan, where war is waged on street corners and in markets, putting them at equal risk. Hundreds of thousands of women deployed with the military to those two war zones over the past decade. Hundreds have died.

READ MORE: Female Warriors Engage in Combat in Iraq, Afghanistan

"The reality of the battlefield has changed really since the Vietnam era to where it is today," said Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., a former military helicopter pilot who lost both her legs in combat. "Those distinctions on what is combat and what is not really are falling aside. So I think that after having seen women, men, folks who -- cooks, clerks, truck drivers -- serve in combat conditions, the reality is women are already in combat."

Woman have been able to fly combat sorties since 1993. In 2010, the Navy allowed them on submarines. But lifting restrictions on service in frontline ground combat units will break a key barrier in the military.

READ MORE: Smooth Sailing for First Women to Serve on Navy Submarines

READ MORE: Female Fighter Pilot Breaks Gender Barriers

Panetta's decision will set a January 2016 deadline for the military service branches to argue that there are military roles that should remain closed to women.

In February 2012 the Defense Department opened up 14,500 positions to women that had previously been limited to men and lifted a rule that prohibited women from living with combat units.

Panetta also directed the services to examine ways to open more combat roles to women.

However, the ban on direct combat positions has remained in place.

Read More..

2013 could be 'climate game-changer'

An ice sculpture entitled 'Minimum Monument' by Brazilian artist Nele Azevedo outside Berlin's Concert Hall, September 2, 2009.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• The "neglected" risk of climate change seems to be rising to the top of leaders' agendas


• Extreme weather events are costing the global economy billions of dollars each year


• Gas can be an important bridge to a lower carbon future but it's not the answer


• More investment in renewable energy is needed, with fewer risks

Editor's note: Andrew Steer is President and CEO of the World Resources Institute, a think tank that works with governments, businesses and civil society to find sustainable solutions to environmental and development challenges.

(CNN) -- As leaders gather for the World Economic Forum in Davos, signs of economic hope are upon us. The global economy is on the mend. Worldwide, the middle class is expanding by an estimated 100 million per year. And the quality of life for millions in Asia and Africa is growing at an unprecedented pace.

Threats abound, of course. One neglected risk -- climate change -- appears to at last be rising to the top of agendas in business and political circles. When the World Economic Forum recently asked 1,000 leaders from industry, government, academia, and civil society to rank risks over the coming decade for the Global Risks 2013 report, climate change was in the top three. And in his second inaugural address, President Obama identified climate change as a major priority for his Administration.

Andrew Steer

For good reason: last year was the hottest year on record for the continental United States, and records for extreme weather events were broken around the world. We are seeing more droughts, wildfires, and rising seas. The current U.S. drought will wipe out approximately 1% of the U.S. GDP and is on course to be the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history. Damage from Hurricane Sandy will cost another 0.5% of GDP. And a recent study found that the cost of climate change is about $1.2 trillion per year globally, or 1.6% of global GDP.

Shifting to low-carbon energy sources is critical to mitigating climate change's impacts. Today's global energy mix is changing rapidly, but is it heading in the right direction?

Coal is the greatest driver of carbon dioxide emissions from energy, accounting for more than 40% of the total worldwide. Although coal demand is falling in the United States -- with 55 coal-powered plants closed in the past year -- it's growing globally. The World Resources Institute (WRI) recently identified 1,200 proposed new coal plants around the world. And last year, the United States hit a record-high level of coal exports—arguably transferring U.S. emissions abroad.

Meanwhile, shale gas is booming. Production in the United States has increased nearly tenfold since 2005, and China, India, Argentina, and many others have huge potential reserves. This development can be an economic blessing in many regions, and, because carbon emissions of shale gas are roughly half those of coal, it can help us get onto a lower carbon growth path.

However, while gas is an important bridge to a low carbon future—and can be a component of such a future—it can't get us fully to where we need to be. Greenhouse gas emissions in industrial countries need to fall by 80-90% by 2050 to prevent climate change's most disastrous impacts. And there is evidence that gas is crowding out renewables.

Renewable energy -- especially solar and wind power -- are clear winners when it comes to reducing emissions. Unfortunately, despite falling prices, the financial markets remain largely risk-averse. Many investors are less willing to finance renewable power. As a result of this mindset, along with policy uncertainty and the proliferation of low-cost gas, renewable energy investment dropped 11%, to $268 billion, last year.

What do we need to get on track?

Incentivizing renewable energy investment

Currently, more than 100 countries have renewable energy targets, more than 40 developing nations have introduced feed-in tariffs, and countries from Saudi Arabia to South Africa are making big bets on renewables as a growth market. Many countries are also exploring carbon-trading markets, including the EU, South Korea, and Australia. This year, China launched pilot trading projects in five cities and two provinces, with a goal of a national program by 2015.

Removing market barriers

Despite growing demand for renewable energy from many companies, this demand often remains unmet due to numerous regulatory, financial, and psychological barriers in the marketplace.

In an effort to address these, WRI just launched the Green Power Market Development Group in India, bringing together industry, government, and NGOs to build critical support for renewable energy markets. A dozen major companies from a variety of sectors—like Infosys, ACC, Cognizant, IBM, WIPRO, and others— have joined the initiative. This type of government-industry-utility partnership, built upon highly successful models elsewhere, can spur expanded clean energy development. It will be highlighted in Davos this week at meetings of the Green Growth Action Alliance (G2A2).

De-risking investments

For technical, policy, and financial reasons, risks are often higher for renewables than fossil-based energy. Addressing these risks is the big remaining task to bring about the needed energy transformation. Some new funding mechanisms are emerging that can help reduce risk and thus leverage large sums of financing. For example, the Green Climate Fund could, if well-designed, be an important venue to raise funds and drive additional investments from capital markets. Likewise, multi-lateral development banks' recent $175 billion commitment to sustainable transport could help leverage more funds from the private and public sectors.

Some forward-looking companies are seeking to create internal incentives for green investments. For example, companies like Unilever, Johnson & Johnson, and UPS have been taking actions to reduce internal hurdle rates and shift strategic thinking to the longer-term horizons that many green strategies need.

Davos is exactly the type of venue for finding solutions to such issues, which requires leadership and coalition-building from the private and public sectors. For example, the the G2A2, an alliance of CEOs committed to addressing climate and environmental risks, will launch the Green Investment Report with precisely the goal of "unlocking finance for green growth".

Depending on what happens at Davos—and other forums and meetings like it throughout the year—2013 could just be a game-changer.

Follow us on Twitter@CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Andrew Steer.

Read More..

Gillian Chung 'cohabits' with Korean beau

HONG KONG: Hong Kong singer-actress Gillian Chung's relationship with her Korean boyfriend is heating up.

Chung told reporters during a recent awards ceremony after-party that she had been 'cohabiting' with her boyfriend, reported Hong Kong media.

She coyly revealed that her boyfriend had specially flown in from Korea to celebrate her birthday, and had been staying at her home for the duration of his trip "because he has no place to stay in Hong Kong".

The star, who turned 32 on Monday, added that he had given her a limited edition handbag, of which only five pieces exist in the world, for her birthday.

However, Chung insists there won't be any romantic "surprises" during his stay as some tabloids have claimed.

"Perhaps everyone has been watching too much Korean dramas and think all Korean men are romantic," said Chung.

Although things appear to be going well between her and her beau, Chung said marriage is not on the cards.

"I don't want to get married, I am a little afraid, and I'm not emotionally prepared yet," explained Chung.

-CNA/ha

Read More..

Tapper talks Benghazi and his book

on your computer or on the CNN Apps for iPhone® and iPad®.

iPhone, iPad and Mac are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. App Store is a service mark of Apple Inc.

If you get CNN and HLN at home, you can watch them online and on the go for no additional chargeStart watching

Read More..

Netanyahu likely clings to job in Israel election

JERUSALEM Israel's parliamentary election ended Wednesday in a stunning deadlock between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hard-line bloc and center-left rivals, forcing the badly weakened Israeli leader to scramble to cobble together a coalition of parties from both camps, despite dramatically different views on Mideast peacemaking and other polarizing issues.

Israeli media said that with 99.8 percent of votes counted on Wednesday morning, each bloc had 60 of parliament's 120 seats. Commentators said Netanyahu, who called early elections expecting easy victory, would be tapped to form the next government because the rival camp drew 12 of its 60 seats from Arab parties who've never joined a coalition.

A startlingly strong showing by a political newcomer, the centrist Yesh Atid party, turned pre-election forecasts on their heads and dealt Netanyahu his surprise setback.

Yesh Atid, or There is a Future, a party headed by political newcomer Yair Lapid, is now Netanyahu's most likely partner. Lapid has said he would only join a government committed to sweeping economic changes and a resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians.

Addressing his supporters early Wednesday, Netanyahu vowed to form as broad a coalition as possible. He said the next government would be built on principles that include reforming the contentious system of granting draft exemptions to ultra-Orthodox Jewish men and the pursuit of a "genuine peace" with the Palestinians. He did not elaborate, but the message seemed aimed at Lapid.

Shortly after the results were announced, Netanyahu called Lapid and offered to work together. "We have the opportunity to do great things together," Netanyahu was quoted as saying by Likud officials.

Netanyahu's Likud-Yisrael Beitenu alliance was set to capture about 31 of the 120 seats, significantly fewer than the 42 it held in the outgoing parliament and below the forecasts of recent polls.

With his traditional allies of nationalist and religious parties, Netanyahu could put together a shaky majority of 61 seats, results showed. But it would be virtually impossible to keep such a narrow coalition intact, though it was possible he could take an additional seat or two as numbers trickled in throughout the night.

The results capped a lackluster campaign in which peacemaking with the Palestinians, traditionally the dominant issue in Israeli politics, was pushed aside. Netanyahu portrayed himself as the only candidate capable of leading Israel at a turbulent time, while the fragmented opposition targeted him on domestic economic issues.

Israeli actor, journalist and author Yair Lapid, leader of the Yesh Atid party, speaks to supporters, Jan. 23, 2013 at his party headquarters in Tel Aviv.

/

Getty

Netanyahu's goal of a broader coalition will force him to make some difficult decisions. Concessions to Lapid, for instance, will alienate his religious allies. In an interview last week with The Associated Press, Lapid said he would not be a "fig leaf" for a hard-line, extremist agenda.

Lapid's performance was the biggest surprise of the election. The one-time TV talk show host and son of a former Cabinet minister was poised to win 19 seats, giving him the second-largest faction in parliament.

Presenting himself as the defender of the middle class, Lapid vowed to take on Israel's high cost of living and to end the contentious system of subsidies and draft exemptions granted to ultra-Orthodox Jews while they pursue religious studies. The expensive system has bred widespread resentment among the Israeli mainstream.

Thanks to his strong performance, Lapid is now in a position to serve as the kingmaker of the next government. He will likely seek a senior Cabinet post and other concessions.

Yaakov Peri, a member of Lapid's party, said it would not join unless the government pledges to begin drafting the ultra-Orthodox into the military, lowers the country's high cost of living and returns to peace talks. "We have red lines. We won't cross those red lines, even if it will cost us sitting in the opposition," Peri told Channel 2 TV.

Addressing his supporters, a beaming Lapid was noncommittal, calling only for a broad government with moderates from left and right. "Israelis said no to the politics of fear and hatred," he said. "And they said no to extremism and anti-democracy."

There was even a distant possibility of Lapid and more dovish parties teaming up to block Netanyahu from forming a majority.

"It could be that this evening is the beginning for a big chance to create an alternative government to the Netanyahu government," said Shelly Yachimovich, leader of the Labor Party, which won 15 seats on a platform pledging to narrow the gaps between rich and poor.

Although that seemed unlikely, Netanyahu clearly emerged from the election in a weakened state.

1/2

Read More..

Al Qaeda Commander Killed for the 3rd Time

The second in command of al Qaeda's Yemen affiliate was reportedly killed in an airstrike in Yemen in December, according to a news report by Arabic television network Al Arabiya, the third time the former Guantanamo detainee has been reported dead since 2010.

According to the report, Said al-Shihri died last month after sustaining severe injuries from a joint U.S.-Yemeni airstrike that targeted a convoy in which he was riding. The al Arabiya account, based on information from "family sources," said that the airstrike left al-Shihri in a coma. He allegedly died soon after and was buried in Yemen.

On Tuesday afternoon, hours after the initial report, a Yemeni government official denied having any information regarding the death of al-Shihri, according to Arabic news site al-Bawaba.

No photos of a body have yet surfaced and no mention of his death has appeared on jihadi forums.
This is the third time al-Shihri, the second in command of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), has been reported killed since 2009. In 2010, the Yemeni government claimed it had captured him. In September 2012, Yemeni news sites reported he was killed in an American drone strike.

PHOTOS: Terrorists Who Came Back from the Grave

READ: Gitmo Detainee turned terror commander killed: Reports

Al-Shihri, a "veteran jihadist," traveled to Afghanistan shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks to fight coalition troops, only to be captured weeks later, according to West Point's Combating Terrorism Center. He was sent to the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he stayed for six years before being released to Saudi Arabia. There, he entered a so-called "jihadi rehab" program that attempted to turn terrorists into art students by getting them to get "negative energy out on paper," as the program's director told ABC News in 2009.

READ: Trading Bombs for Crayons: Terrorists Get 'Art Therapy'

But just months after he supposedly entered the fingerpainting camp, al-Shihri reappeared in Yemen where he was suspected to have been behind a deadly bombing at the U.S. embassy there.

At the time, critics of the "jihadi rehab" program used al-Shihri as evidence that extremists would just go through the motions in order to be freed.

Click Here for the Blotter Homepage.

Read More..

Obama's ringing defense of liberalism

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Photos: Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

Best of 2013 inauguration

<<

<

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

>

>>

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Contributors offer impressions of Barack Obama's second inaugural address


• Julian Zelizer says speech a ringing defense of liberalism, obligations of citizens


• Donna Brazile says speech spells out "American faith; Tim Stanley says it shows division


• Bob Greene: He spoke of "never-ending journey" for U.S.; more remarkable journey is his

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama was sworn in Monday for a second term. CNN contributors and analysts offered these assessments of the 44th's president's inauguration:

Julian Zelizer: A call to the obligations of citizenship

The speech connected the greatest generation with our generation. In a ringing defense of liberalism and the obligations of citizenship, Obama called on the nation to complete the unfinished struggles of the 1950s and 1960s -- making rights real, giving more Americans the tools they need to work their way into the middle class and caring for those who can't care for themselves.

Julian Zelizer

He didn't present this as an argument from a Democratic president, but rather as a leader who believes the nation is exceptional. He continued to express his desire to search for the middle way, but based on a strong defense of the political tradition that shapes him. It was powerful oration for a contentious moment in national politics.

Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter" and of "Governing America."

Obama's address: Full text

Donna Brazile: Speech defined 'American faith'

Obama's second inaugural address was a deeply moving and patriotic speech.

It was one of the most effective usages of the founding documents' principles as a supporting narrative -- drawing us from the past to the present to the future. It combined two of Obama's greatest strengths: his reason (constitutional analysis, desire to teach) with his poetic skills as a writer and a leader.

Donna Brazile

He touched on some of the practical challenges facing America. And in addressing these, he reaffirmed the approach he outlined during the election.

But the speech itself was about a different kind of affirmation. It echoed sentiments and subjects that have been a motif of his presidency, indeed his career. Obama defined what may be called an American faith.

In referring to the Declaration of Independence's guiding principle, he said, "For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by his people here on Earth."

Each balanced phrase and each oscillation between where we have been and where we must go elaborated this theme: The American faith is the faith in America. "We are true to our creed," he said, when even a little girl born in poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own."

I will long ponder this, that "preserving our planet, commanded to our care by God ... will lend meaning to the creed our fathers."

This may not be remembered as the most stirring or oratorical inaugural speech. But it was a president sharing with the nation his values most personal and vision most spiritual.

Donna Brazile, a CNN contributor and a Democratic strategist, is vice chairwoman for voter registration and participation at the Democratic National Committee. She is a nationally syndicated columnist, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and author of "Cooking With Grease." She was manager for the Gore-Lieberman presidential campaign in 2000.

Obama embraces key social justice movements

Alan Brinkley: Richard Blanco a new Walt Whitman?

Inaugurations are usually pretty dull, and second-term inaugurations are usually even worse. Obama's speech was much better than I thought it would be -- not one for the ages, but good for our time. The crowds, perhaps surprisingly, were enormous -- almost as large as 2008.

Alan Brinkley

Obama spoke clearly about his own views without openly criticizing his opponents. As he did in 2008, he continued to call for compromise, although he must have known that little compromise in Congress is waiting. And so he continued with his list of his hopes -- few of which will likely succeed.

No one has reached the level of Lincoln's second inauguration speech. Obama's speech is not likely to be remembered in the way Lincoln's was. But it was better than most inaugural speeches, and better than his 2008 speech. To me, though, the best part of the inauguration was the little known poet Richard Blanco, who sounded like a new Walt Whitman.

Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history at Columbia University.

Inaugural poet: My story is America's

John Avlon: Reclaiming 'American exceptionalism' from conservatives

Obama used his second inaugural address to recast contemporary political debates in the larger sweep of American history, implicitly making the case that the current Democratic Party's agenda is in the mainstream of American history, part of a constant process of forming a more perfect union -- with individual freedom heightened best when balanced with community security.

John Avlon

It was an audacious speech to the extent that Obama sought to reclaim politicized concepts like American exceptionalism from their conservative contexts, making the case that the combination of diversity and opportunity makes the American Dream possible for each new generation.

The president did not shy away from commenting on contemporary policy debates, saying that "the commitments we make to each other -- through Medicare and Medicaid, and Social Security -- these things do not sap of initiative, they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great." Somewhere in La Jolla, California, Mitt Romney's ears were burning.

Although the ambitions of the speech were audacious, the scope of the speech was sprawling and dotted with policy references more suited to a State of the Union address. It was not tightly framed or focused on a single concept, nor was there a single clear phrase that summed up the speech, at least at first listen.

The closing refrain -- a reminder that the presidential oath of office is an extension of the oath of citizenship taken by new immigrants or the oath taken by soldiers -- also offered a reach across the aisle: "It was an oath to God and country, not party or faction." Balanced with the pointed presidential reality check that "We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling for reasoned debate," it summed up the hopes of this inaugural moment and the import of his decisive re-election amid such a divided political landscape.

Here's hoping for all of us that those patriotic emotions -- those actual imperatives of self-government -- are carried forward into the next Congress.

John Avlon is a CNN contributor and senior political columnist for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He is co-editor of the book "Deadline Artists: America's Greatest Newspaper Columns." He is a regular contributor to "Erin Burnett OutFront" and is a member of the OutFront Political Strike Team. For more political analysis, tune in to "Erin Burnett OutFront" at 7 ET weeknights.

Sworn in again, Obama lingers for last look

Anne-Marie Slaughter: A welcome focus on climate change

This was the rainbow inauguration. It was dedicated above all to showcasing the diversity of the American people and calling on us once again to fulfill the promise of e pluribus unum -- out of many, one. Foreign policy got a scant few paragraphs.

Anne-Marie Slaughter

But the single most important moment was Obama's decision to list our commitment "to respond to the threat of climate change" as the first mention of a foreign policy issue. He spoke of leading a transition to sustainable energy resources, a national grand strategy that has recently been proposed by Patrick Doherty of the New America Foundation, building on the proposal of a new strategic narrative by two military men working for Adm. Michael Mullen when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Climate change is in fact the most important existential and security issue of our time. Equally important, it is both a foreign policy and a domestic policy issue. Obama believes that how we respond to our domestic challenges will determine our power and influence in the world, so he will bring troops home, engage the world through partnerships, support democracy through the power of our example, and, as he said so often on the campaign trail, engage in nation-building here at home.

Anne-Marie Slaughter is a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University. She curates foreign policy on Twitter at @slaughteram.

The best Inauguration Day tweets

LZ Granderson: Cheers for one Supreme Court rock star

The crowd cheered when President Obama was introduced. It cheered loudly for the first lady and her bangs. The people politely applauded Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other leaders of the Democratic Party.

When Beyonce and Jay-Z were shown on the big screen, there were screams and when the Clintons emerged, shouts. None of this was unexpected.

LZ Granderson

What did surprise me was the enthusiastic reaction to Sonia Sotomayor. Maybe it was because she was selected to swear in Vice President Biden, though John Roberts was barely recognized when he was on the screen and he saved Obamacare.

You would think for a crowd as partisan as this one -- Paul Ryan was booed loudly -- that Roberts would get some love. But nope. On this day there was room for only one Supreme Court rock star and it was the wise Latina from the Bronx who, despite all of her success, still admits to suffering a tad from imposter syndrome.

Perhaps hearing hundreds of thousands of people cheer at the sight of her face will help her get over it.

LZ Granderson, who writes a weekly column for CNN.com, was named journalist of the year by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and is a senior writer and columnist for ESPN the Magazine and ESPN.com. Follow him on Twitter: @locs_n_laughs.

Ana Navarro: Today, revel in the strength of democracy

I love the pomp and circumstance of inaugurals. I love the significance of the traditions. I was born in Nicaragua into a dictatorship that had already lasted more than two decades. I lived through a civil war and communist revolution before I was 10.

Ana Navarro

Today, I am fortunate to live in a country where for 224 years we have had peaceful transitions of government. Sadly, it is something of a rare occurrence in our hemisphere and our world. In these difficult times when political divisions and ideological differences dominate our political discourse, we must not take for granted the strength of our democracy. We cannot forget, that in other countries, political disagreements can land you in exile, jail or a grave.

Inaugurations are a day for unity and vision, a day for lofty rhetoric and inspiration. It's not a day when we wave a magical wand to erase divisions. Instead, it is a day when in spite of those divisions, we recognize that our Constitution and democracy prevail.

I'm not going to dissect Obama's speech. Former Jimmy President Carter called it a "very progressive" speech. I agree. There were many lines in that speech that the coalition that voted for Obama will find encouraging, and those who didn't vote for him, will not. We have plenty of time to focus on those differences. Today, let's focus on what brings us together, not drives us apart

Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist and commentator, was national Hispanic campaign chairwoman for John McCain in 2008 and national Hispanic co-chair for Jon Huntsman's 2012 campaign. Follow her on Twitter @ananavarro.

Obama's second-term priorities

Timothy Stanley: President's speech laid out America's divide

Obama obviously intends to govern as he campaigned -- as a committed, uncompromising liberal. We were promised one of those "bring us together"-type speeches that typified the heady days of 2009; instead we got a more policy specific speech that reflected the difficult, partisan reality of 2013. Obama has an agenda, and he's willing to fight for it.

Timothy Stanley

The philosophical ground work was laid out. Freedoms, we learned, "are self-evident but not self-executing." It requires "collective action" to realize basic liberties. And we cannot truly be free if dominated by a "privileged few." So we were promised economic justice, renewable energy and a moral commitment to gay rights -- "for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." For that line alone the speech proved controversial but admirably courageous. All of this is germane to European politics, but it feels radical coming from a U.S. president. It wouldn't have been out of place if he had joined James Taylor in a rendition of "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing."

Obama's presidency was supposed to heal the nation, but it's notable just how divided it feels today. Aside from the polls that show significant numbers of Americans are worried about the future (and worrying numbers of Republicans hoping that the president's policies will fail), the biggest marker of this is the growing philosophical difference between the parties. If Romney had won, his speech would no doubt be equally as partisan but very different in tone and content. And the enormous gulf between Obama's collectivist reading of the Constitution and Romney's individualist one reflects the fracturing of the country into camps that understand their country's history and values very differently.

Of course, if Romney had won, the speech probably also wouldn't have been so good. On style alone, Obama has earned his place in history. What he makes of his second term, however, will be determined by forces beyond his control.

Timothy Stanley is a historian at Oxford University and blogs for Britain's The Daily Telegraph. He is the author of "The Crusader: The Life and Times of Pat Buchanan."

'Mr. President, please fix America'

Maria Cardona: Hope and change undimmed

Maria Cardona

It was more sober in this inaugural address, but Obama's message is still one of hope and change. On a cold, windy morning, before a smaller throng than last time around, the president laid out his vision with a keen focus on what got him: his championing of the middle class, a recognition and celebration of the growing and powerful demographics in this country -- Latinos, women, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, and young people -- and a reaffirmation that we "are all in this together."

The historic participation of four Latinos front and center and his mention of immigration reform- by description if not by name, underscored the importance of the Latino electorate. You saw co- chair of the Inaugural Eva Longoria, Justice Sonia Sotomayor who swore in Vice President Biden, openly gay Latino poet Laureate Richard Blanco reciting a riveting poem that reflected the diversity of the country, and the Rev. Luis Leon, who gave part of the benediction in Spanish. This, along with the president's acknowledgment in his speech that we cannot be a country that is unwelcoming of immigrants or one that does not embrace young immigrants who have studied hard and want to succeed, was a clear indication that the president understands that the 71% of Latinos who helped get him elected will be looking for him to have their back. It seems he will.

He was also defiant in his defense of the middle class and put his opponents on notice that he will not back down in the fights ahead to ensure that Medicare and Social Security remain strong and that our economy is rebuilt for everyone, not just the privileged few. He gave his supporters hope he will continue to fight for them. He gave all Americans the assurance the country will continue to change for the better. Still: hope and change.

Maria Cardona is a Democratic strategist, a principal at the Dewey Square Group, a former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton and former communications director for the Democratic National Committee.

A tale of two terms: Obama's unfinished business and battles ahead

Bob Greene: Obama's remarkable journey

"A never-ending journey."

Bob Greene

Obama used those words to describe America's path. But, long after most of the specific words of his second inaugural address fade into memory, it is another journey -- his -- that will be endlessly instructive, both for his admirers and his detractors.

The ambition, the lightning speed with which, in 10 brief years, he changed the trajectory of his life, seem only more remarkable on a day like Monday, when, at the U.S. Capitol, the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir sang "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" as he waited to again take the oath of office.

Among the faces at the Capitol as Obama arrived was that of a congressman from Illinois named Bobby Rush. Ten Januarys ago Obama was a member of the state Legislature in Illinois, having returned to those chambers after, in 2000, suffering a humiliating defeat. He had hoped to go on to national politics, to the U.S. Congress, but Rush had crushed him 2-to-1 in the primary. Obama's career, at least beyond the confines of Springfield, Illinois, seemed stalled.

In January of 2003, could even Obama, with all his self-confidence, have imagined that in January of 2013 he would be taking the oath of presidential office for the second time?

He will only be 55 when he finishes his second term. Perhaps, when all the politics are done, he will feel at ease to explain, in human terms, just how he convinced himself that all of this was even remotely possible.

"We cannot afford delay," he said to the nation Monday.

He was referring to all of us, to the country. But you could look at him and consider what must go through a person's mind when he seems stuck in a place he doesn't want to be, and decides that urgency may be the only answer.

"We are made for this moment," he said Monday, the words traveling around the world.

CNN contributor Bob Greene is a best-selling author whose 25 books include "Late Edition: A Love Story," "Chevrolet Summers, Dairy Queen Nights" and "When We Get to Surf City: A Journey Through America in Pursuit of Rock and Roll, Friendship, and Dreams."

Photos: Obama's face all over the place

Brian Balogh: Obama reminds us why he's a progressive

Inaugural addresses, especially the second time around, are not supposed to matter.

Brian Balogh

This one did. That's because future historians will mark it as the moment that Obama explained why he is a progressive.

The programs that Obama called for were characteristically liberal: reaffirming the social safety net, equal pay for women, etc. Nothing new here -- just the Obama classic.

What differed this time, and what this moment was made for (to twist the president's own words) was articulating the progressive rationale for these programmatic ends. "Preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action," Obama proudly told the nation.

Compare this with the rationale that Obama offered to the American people at his State of the Union less than a year ago. Saving the heroic mission to capture Osama bin Laden for the grand finale, the president insisted that the "mission only succeeded because" each brave warrior knew that "there's somebody behind you, watching your back." The pre-election Obama, still seeking the middle ideologically, deployed the lowest common denominator of Cold War liberalism -- collective security -- as the rationale for a far more ambitious social program.

His second election behind him, Obama linked his fate and the nation's to a rationale that propelled tens of millions of Americans into the middle class. By making collective action explicit, Obama yoked a century-old progressive agenda to the nation's founding documents and its past history. "Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people." To achieve America's lofty goals of "life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" will require back watching, backslapping and no shortage of back-scratching as well.

But today, Obama left that for back benchers. He stated the "c" word -- collective -- loudly and proudly. And the nation will be better off for his candor.

Brian Balogh, a professor of history at the University of Virginia's Miller Center, is co-host of "Backstory With the American History Guys."

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors.

Read More..