Editor's note: John M. McCardell Jr., president emeritus at Middlebury College, is founder and president of Choose Responsibility, a nonprofit organization that seeks to engage the public in debate over the effects of the 21-year-old drinking age. John McCardell says the 21-year-old drinking age isn't preventing widespread binge drinking. (CNN) -- One year ago, a group of college and university presidents and chancellors, eventually totaling 135, issued a statement that garnered national attention. The "Amethyst Initiative" put a debate proposition before the public -- "Resolved: That the 21-year-old drinking age is not working." It offered, in much the way a grand jury performs its duties, sufficient evidence for putting the proposition to the test. It invited informed and dispassionate public debate and committed the signatory institutions to encouraging that debate. And it called on elected officials not to continue assuming that, after 25 years, the status quo could not be challenged, even improved. One year later, the drinking age debate continues, and new research reinforces the presidential impulse. Just this summer a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry revealed that, among college-age males, binge drinking is unchanged from its levels of 1979; that among non-college women it has increased by 20 percent; and that among college women it has increased by 40 percent. Remarkably, the counterintuitive conclusion drawn by the investigators, and accepted uncritically by the media, including editorials in The New York Times and The Washington Post is that the study proves that raising the drinking age to 21 has been a success. More recently, a study of binge drinking published in the Journal of the American Medical Association announced that "despite efforts at prevention, the prevalence of binge drinking among college students is continuing to rise, and so are the harms associated with it." Worse still, a related study has shown that habits formed at 18 die hard: "For each year studied, a greater percentage of 21- to 24-year-olds [those who were of course once 18, 19 and 20] engaged in binge drinking and driving under the influence of alcohol." Yet, in the face of mounting evidence that those young adults age 18 to 20 toward whom the drinking age law has been directed are routinely -- indeed in life- and health-threatening ways -- violating it, there remains a belief in the land that a minimum drinking age of 21 has been a "success." And elected officials are periodically reminded of a provision in the 1984 law that continues to stifle any serious public debate in our country's state legislative chambers: Any state that sets its drinking age lower than 21 forfeits 10 percent of its annual federal highway appropriation. But it's not 1984 anymore. This statement may seem obvious, but not necessarily. In 1984 Congress passed and the president signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. The Act, which raised the drinking age to 21 under threat of highway fund withholding, sought to address the problem of drunken driving fatalities. And indeed, that problem was serious. States that lowered their ages during the 1970s and did nothing else to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol witnessed an alarming increase in alcohol-related traffic fatalities. It was as though the driving age were lowered but no drivers education were provided. The results were predictable. Now, 25 years later, we are in a much different, and better, place. Thanks to the effective public advocacy of organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, we are far more aware of the risks of drinking and driving. Automobiles are much safer. Seatbelts and airbags are mandatory. The "designated driver" is now a part of our vocabulary. And more and more states are mandating ignition interlocks for first-time DUI offenders, perhaps the most effective way to get drunken drivers off the road. And the statistics are encouraging. Alcohol-related fatalities have declined over the last 25 years. Better still, they have declined in all age groups, though the greatest number of deaths occurs at age 21,

Question:
What did 135 college officers question?
What does McCardell say about alcohol?

Answer: the 21-year-old drinking age

Answer: 21-year-old drinking age isn't preventing widespread binge drinking.

Summary:
John McCardell: 135 college officers joined in questioning 21 as drinking age .
He says binge drinking is flourishing in locked rooms and remote areas .
He says U.S. is one of very few countries with such a high drinking age .
McCardell says alcohol is a reality in lives of 18- to 20-year-olds .


Editor's note: John Rice is founder and CEO of Management Leadership for Tomorrow (MLT), a New York-based national nonprofit organization seeking to develop "the next generation of African American, Hispanic and Native American leaders in major corporations, nonprofit organizations and entrepreneurial ventures." John Rice says there's a tremendous need for new leaders in the nonprofit world. NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Obama has challenged all Americans to participate in the volunteer service movement and to support initiatives that help solve the problems that plague our communities. He recently introduced the Social Innovation Fund, intended to help increase the impact of the most effective and innovative nonprofits in our communities. This is a tremendous step in the right direction, but in order to expand these initiatives, we need a broader pool of leaders with a deep understanding of the communities they are serving and who have the skills, experience and relationships required to succeed in leadership roles. According to the Bridgespan Group, a leading nonprofit consulting firm, the number of vacant senior manager roles in the nonprofit arena is ever increasing, with 24,000 positions available in 2009 alone. Over the next 10 years, this sector will need to attract and develop more than two times the number of people currently employed in order to fill these roles. This next generation of leaders must come from within the communities that struggle most, as these leaders are the most passionate about making change and have the most to gain if successful.   Watch John Rice on preparing for leadership roles » The good news is that there is an incredible desire among young African-Americans to give back to their communities. Darren Smith is a young investment banker who grew up in one of New York's underserved neighborhoods and won a scholarship to Baruch College in New York, where he graduated with honors. If you were to ask him what he wants to accomplish in his life, he will say that he aspires to do two things: become a business leader and build a nonprofit that has a large impact in the community in which he grew up. He believes that developing strong business skills, broad relationships and a track record of success will prepare him to maximize his impact in the community. Smith is one of thousands of talented African-American students and young professionals eager to become corporate or entrepreneurial leaders in sectors such as finance, technology, consulting and entertainment, where they have a broad sphere of influence that extends into their communities. Yet minority leaders remain dramatically under-represented in leadership positions and in the pipeline to those roles. Despite representing 13.5 percent of the U.S. population, African-Americans hold less than 3 percent of senior executive positions and represent only 5 percent of MBA graduates. To address this issue, I founded Management Leadership for Tomorrow (MLT), a nonprofit that provides high-potential young people such as Smith with the "key ingredients" they need to realize their career potential -- the step by step career roadmap, coaching and mentoring, hard and soft skill development, door-opening relationships and a high-performing peer community. Every senior leader would say they would not be where they are today if they had not gotten some or all of these ingredients, but remarkably these key ingredients are not taught in even the best schools. Instead they are passed down through informal channels to which minorities still have more limited access. As a result, too many African-Americans who overcome a challenging home environment and troubled K-12 education system to attend college are not achieving their full career potential. Here at MLT, we have had exciting results to date: nearly 40 percent of the minority students at top business schools such as Harvard, Wharton and Kellogg completed MLT's MBA Prep program and 95 percent of the undergraduates who complete our Career Prep program land fast-track jobs at America's leading firms across all sectors. While participating in MLT's Career Prep program as a college student, Smith and several other MLT fellows founded a mentoring organization that prepares high school students from New York's most underserved communities for college. Like Smith, nearly 90 percent of our alumni desire to launch or

Question:
What does John Rice say?
What does Rice say is crucial?
He says there's a huge need for what?

Answer: there's a tremendous need for new leaders in the nonprofit world.

Answer: for new leaders in the nonprofit world.

Answer: new leaders in the nonprofit world.

Summary:
John Rice: President Obama is stressing need for national service .
He says there's a huge need for leaders in the nonprofit world .
Rice: It's crucial to train leaders from minority communities .
He says these leaders can help change communities in desperate need .


Editor's note: Join Roland S. Martin for his weekly sound-off segment on CNN.com Live at 10:30 a.m. ET Wednesday. If you're passionate about politics, he wants to hear from you. A nationally syndicated columnist, Martin has said he will vote for Barack Obama in November. He is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith" and "Speak, Brother! A Black Man's View of America." Visit his Web site for more information. Roland S. Martin says Lifeway Christian Stores should be given hell for its actions against GospelToday. (CNN) -- In the 19 years that Teresa Hairston has published her magazine, GospelToday, she has never faced a major situation with Christian bookstores across the country that carry the publication. She's tackled any number of issues over the years,and has featured a number of celebrities and ministers, ranging from Yolanda Adams to Bishop T.D. Jakes to Kirk Franklin. But when the Atlanta, Georgia, entrepreneur decided to feature five female pastors on her cover this month, she says, Lifeway Christian Stores treated her like she had converted her Christian publication to something akin to the tastes of porn purveyor Larry Flynt. Apparently, the owner of Lifeway, the Southern Baptist Convention, wasn't too happy with Hairston telling the story of female pastors, because the women go against their 2000 decree that only men can serve in the role of reverend or pastor. According to Hairston, the Christian company didn't even give her the courtesy of a heads-up. "We got an anonymous tip," she told me Tuesday on The Tom Joyner Morning Show, and after checking it out, she discovered that the magazine had been removed from the shelves in all of Lifeway's 100-plus stores nationwide and had been placed behind the counter. "They have never called me," Hairston said. "Never sent an e-mail. Nothing. I had to go see my distributor to verify what they had done." The actions of Lifeway didn't stun me. I had seen this movie before. A few years ago, my wife was a longtime Lifeway teacher. She had taught at the company's teaching centers for years, but then one day, she was notified that she would have to take down her Web site and comply with their rules against female pastors or be dropped as a teacher. Her crime? Calling herself the Rev. Jacquie Hood Martin. It wasn't that she did so for the heck of it. She graduated from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; was the first female staff pastor at Houston's Brookhollow Baptist Church/the Church Without Walls, a Southern Baptist Convention church; and has been leading folks to the Lord all over the country for 20 years. She was angered by Lifeway's decision but made it clear that she didn't serve the bookstore or even the Southern Baptist Convention. She made a commitment to serving Jesus Christ and was not about to back away from her call to ministry because a male-dominated organization decided that its interpretation of the Bible calls for a woman not to be in the pulpit. So she cut them off and kept on calling herself the Rev. Jacquie Hood Martin. Religious folks will quickly say that Scripture is clear that women can't be pastors and lead men, yet Hairston says that when she featured Pastor Paula White on her cover two years ago, Lifeway didn't take any action against the magazine. Anyone who has served in a church or been a member of any faith knows that there are those who have strict interpretations of their faith's writings, while others have a different interpretation. I've heard Brookhollow's pastor, the Rev. Dr. Ralph Douglas West Sr., preach several sermons stating that what Paul wrote in 2 Timothy with regards to only men preaching was specific to that church and not a blanket ban. Second, there were instances where Paul wrote that his views were his own and not mandates from God. That is a doctrinal fight that any of us can have any time (and I love it how these same Bible thumpers ignore

Question: What kind of publication was placed behind store counters?

Question: Who owns Lifeway stores?

Question: Who was featured on the magazine's cover?

Question: What did Martin say about Lifeway?

Question: What was on the cover of the magazine?

Question: Who was featured on the cover?

Question: Where did Lifeway stores put Christian magazine?

Question: What was featured on the cover of the magazine?

Question: Who put a Christian magazine behind the counter?

Answer: magazine

Answer: Southern Baptist Convention,

Answer: five

Answer: Christian Stores should be given hell for its actions against GospelToday.

Answer: five

Answer: five

Answer: placed behind the counter.

Answer: celebrities

Answer: Lifeway's 100-plus stores nationwide

Summary:
Lifeway stores put Christian magazine behind counter .
Magazine featured female pastors on its cover .
Lifeway has no respect for freedom of the press, Martin says .
Lifeway, Southern Baptist Convention should apologize, he says .


Editor's note: Join Roland S. Martin for his weekly sound-off segment on CNN.com Live at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday. If you're passionate about politics, he wants to hear from you. A supporter of Sen. Barack Obama, Martin is a nationally syndicated columnist and Chicago, Illinois-based radio host. He is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith" and "Speak, Brother! A Black Man's View of America." Please visit his Web site. Roland S. Martin urges the candidates to stop with the lofty talk and simplistic solutions and be specific. (CNN) -- If you are a member of America's middle class in this presidential year, you are sort of like a blue-chip football recruit, lavished with praise, attention and adoration from fawning coaches and alumni who would love nothing better than to land the prized player to win the national championship. For "Coach" John McCain and "Coach" Barack Obama, the title to win is president of the United States, and like the big-time football coaches, they will say and do anything to make it happen. Tax cuts? Oh, absolutely, we don't want you to feel any more pain. Let the rich -- and the poor -- deal with carrying the burden. You want more jobs? Sure, we're going  to force companies that send jobs overseas to make them stay at home because we know you need those long disappearing and high-paying manufacturing jobs that helped build this nation. Can't afford to send your kids to college? Don't sweat it. We've got tax credits, Pell grants, super-duper loans and all kinds of other options to make this a reality. Are they cutting back on health care at your job? No big deal. Coach McCain says he's got some nifty tax credits lined up to tickle your fancy and ignite your soul. Coach Obama? He's going to go for the whole enchilada by pushing for virtual universal health care. Oh, these guys are wonderful with their sales pitches. They have the ability to make every single one of you feel so special and loved; no one else is more important to them -- at that moment. I must admit, the pathetic pining and pandering for middle-class votes has turned so moronic that at times it drives me nuts. First, who in the world are we even talking about? If you listen to the candidates and their campaigns, those in the middle class could make upward of $200,000 a year, while some suggest middle class means earning as little as $20,000. I moderated a panel Tuesday for the National Black MBA Association and heard descriptions of the lower middle class, the middle class and the upper middle class. Someone even suggested that it's really about a "state of mind." That's right. It boils down to how we feel and think. If that's the case, then you can have $5 million in the bank, but if you love your family, go to church and share the same values as others around you, you're middle class. Please, can we just stop with lofty talk and plain-spoken and simplistic solutions and be as specific as possible? There are really four fundamental issues affecting middle-class voters. Jobs We've seen a loss of 600,000 jobs under President Bush, so how exactly will McCain and Obama create jobs? Is there anything in their past that shows they have the ability to do just that? I've heard "drill, drill, drill!" from McCain, and Obama says we're going to turn the old textile and steel mills into a green machine by targeting wind and other sources of energy. Housing Congress is providing a backstop for Wall Street -- making billions available if cash is needed. What will McCain and Obama actually do to keep folks from losing their homes? Oh, I know a lot of people suggest that these middle-class folks should have read the fine print and not gotten

Question: What did Martin call moronic?

Question: What did Martin say that candidates will offer?

Question: What are the bigges middle-class issues?

Question: What class are the candidates pandering to?

Question: What class does Roland S. Martin say candidates offer anything and everything to snag?

Question: What doe Martin say about "pathetic pining and pandering for middle-class votes"?

Question: Who is Roland S. Martin?

Question: What did Martin describe as moronic?

Answer: pathetic pining and pandering for middle-class votes

Answer: lofty talk and simplistic solutions

Answer: four fundamental

Answer: middle-class

Answer: middle-class

Answer: turned so moronic that at times it drives me nuts.

Answer: nationally syndicated columnist and Chicago, Illinois-based radio host.

Answer: pathetic pining and pandering for middle-class votes

Summary:
Roland S. Martin: Candidates offer anything and everything to snag middle class .
Martin: "Pathetic pining and pandering for middle-class votes ... moronic"
Martin: Jobs, housing, health care, education are the big middle-class issues .


Editor's note: Join Roland S. Martin for his weekly sound-off segment on CNN.com Live at 11:10 a.m. ET Thursday. If you're passionate about politics, he wants to hear from you. A nationally syndicated columnist and Chicago-based radio host, Martin has said he will vote for Barack Obama in November. He is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith" and "Speak, Brother! A Black Man's View of America." Visit his Web site for more information. Roland Martin says Gov. Sarah Palin talks tough but ducks a lot of difficult questions. (CNN) -- Do you know what was so great about Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan? They were three of the biggest trash talkers in the history of the NBA, but they had the game to back it up. Somebody should tell that to Gov. Sarah Palin. Sen. John McCain's vice presidential running mate has been running around the country, firing up her -- yes, her, and not necessarily McCain's -- loyal supporters by blasting Sen. Barack Obama for "palling around with terrorists" and demanding that the American people know exactly when he learned of the past of 1960s radical William Ayers. She has stoked the crowds by saying, "This is not a man who sees America the way that you and I see America." We all know what that is designed to do: Portray Obama as a foreigner who isn't as American as she. Or you. Or Joe Six-pack, the hockey mom, soccer mom, Wal-Mart mom, NASCAR dad and the other coded words she uses regularly. But what is truly pathetic is that Palin talks tough, but is really scared of facing her own issues. Since she is good at proclaiming that the American people need to know who Barack Obama is -- an attempt to paint him as a shady figure who might occupy the White House -- the American people deserve to hear Palin answer if her husband, Todd, a former member of the Alaska Independence Party, agreed with its founder, who wanted to secede from the union. Is there anything more anti-American than wanting to sever ties with the country?  Send Roland Martin your questions and listen to his program on CNNRadio and CNN.com Live, Thursday at noon ET. It's critical that Palin answer questions about whether she disagrees with John McCain's criticism of the Bush administration's decision to remove North Korea from the terrorist nation list. She spoke in favor of it. McCain didn't. Are they on the same page or not? The American people deserve to hear from Palin as to why she didn't say a word to rebuke the hateful, pathetic and degrading comments made at rallies featuring her, such as when someone in the crowd called Obama a terrorist, someone else shouted, "Off with his head" and others suggested he is a traitor. Lastly, don't you think the self-described maverick needs to own up to what really happened with the firing of the commissioner in Alaska? She was declared by a special investigator to have been within her rights in firing the commissioner, but she was blasted for abuse of power and violating the state's ethics act. So what did she say in a conference call with Alaska reporters -- who were not allowed by the McCain camp to ask follow-up questions? That she was cleared of all wrongdoing, legally and ethically. That's right. She repeated over and over and over an absolute lie, and we are supposed to say, "Hey, it's all fine. She winks at us. We love her hockey mom schtick. Don't worry about that abuse of power thing." Well, after having to deal with Vice President Dick Cheney being accused of beating the drum for war by berating and pushing our intelligence apparatus to match his political views on Iraq, don't you think we should really care about someone who has been accused in a report, authorized by Democrats and Republicans, of using their power and influence to get their way? Sure

Question:
what Palin has ducked?
what did palin do
what did martin say
what Roland Martin says?
did she lie about something

Answer: a lot of difficult questions.

Answer: talks tough but ducks a lot of difficult questions.

Answer: said he will vote for Barack Obama in November.

Answer: Gov. Sarah Palin talks tough but ducks a lot of difficult questions.

Answer: repeated over and over and over an absolute

Summary:
Roland Martin: Gov. Palin talks tough on the campaign trail .
Martin: Palin has ducked questions about many difficult issues .
Palin has given only a limited number of interviews, Martin says .
Palin hasn't been forthcoming on the Alaska ethics investigation, he says .


Editor's note: Join Roland S. Martin for his weekly sound-off segment on CNN.com Live at 11:10 a.m. ET Wednesday. If you're passionate about politics, he wants to hear from you. A nationally syndicated columnist, Martin has said he will vote for Barack Obama in November. He is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith" and "Speak, Brother! A Black Man's View of America." Visit his Web site for more information.

Roland Martin says Howard Dean bucked other leaders and insisted on a 50-state Democratic strategy.

(CNN) -- If Sen. Barack Obama is able to prevail over Sen. John McCain on Tuesday, all of those Democrats who ripped Howard Dean's 50-state strategy over the last four years should call the head of the Democratic National Committee and offer a heartfelt apology.

First in line should be New York Sen. Charles Schumer, Chicago, Illinois, Rep. Rahm Emanuel and my CNN colleague, political strategist James Carville.

When Democrats were in the final stages of winning back Congress in 2006, those three were at odds with Dean, saying he should forget about his pie-in-the-sky plan to have the Democratic Party competitive in all 50 states.

They reasoned that money spent on get-out-the vote efforts in non-congressional elections was futile, and all the effort should be on reclaiming Congress.

But Dean resisted their suggestions, weathering repeated calls for him to resign after that election.

Dean's insistence on having a Democratic Party that existed in the heartland, and not just California, New York and Massachusetts, was brilliant in that it made clear that the party recognized the rest of America. iReport.com: What would you ask Obama?

The Democratic Party earned its liberal label because it ignored the moderate and conservative voices that paved the way for the Reagan revolution to win three consecutive elections. Yet the decisive wins weren't just on the national level.

Texas is a prime example. What used to be a blue dog Democratic state now has Republicans holding every statewide office.

But things are looking up. In Dallas County, all of the county positions except for a handful were in the hands of the GOP, especially the judges. That changed four years ago, and now the party could solidify itself this time around.

The same thing in Harris County. The state's most populous county saw Republicans take everything in sight. This time around, Democrats are poised to take back Houston and surrounding cities.

Texas Democratic leaders used to cry the blues when an election was near, but after seeing the massive turnout during the primary, they have been able to build their voter database and cultivate a new generation of politicians to run for office.

Will the state go red? Sure. But with a rock solid black vote, the ability to attract more Hispanic voters and a growing appeal to whites, Democrats may soon make Texas a competitive two-party state.

If Democrats are going to achieve success on the national level, they must have significant enthusiasm on the local level. It's hard to get your supporters ginned up for a national campaign if they see no infrastructure, especially local get-out-the-vote operations.

When Obama announced that he was implementing a 50-state strategy, he was laughed at. But here we are with six days left in the campaign and the Republicans are having to spend precious dollars on ads in Montana, North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada, GOP locks in past elections.

Obama deserves a lot of the credit for this because his "change" campaign theme, along with the horrible leadership of Republicans nationwide, is helping his candidacy. But changing the attitude among the nation's Democrats was also vital, and that's where Dean played a role.

The former governor of Vermont saw firsthand the sorry shape of the party when he ran for president in 2004. Republicans, led by Karl Rove, perfected their voter registration efforts, targeting voters down to the neighborhood, block and household.

They knew that to win they

Question: Who stuck to his 50-state strategy?

Question: Dean stuck to what strategy?

Question: What party is associated with Howard Dean?

Question: What was the name of Dean's strategy?

Question: Who has a strategy?

Question: What does Martin say?

Question: What is Dean's strategy?

Answer: Howard Dean

Answer: 50-state Democratic

Answer: Democratic

Answer: 50-state

Answer: Howard Dean

Answer: Howard Dean bucked other leaders and insisted on a 50-state Democratic strategy.

Answer: Democratic Party competitive in all 50 states.

Summary:
Roland Martin: DNC chair Howard Dean stuck to his 50-state strategy .
If Obama wins, other top Dems should apologize to Dean, he says .
Martin says the party needed to rebuild its local infrastructure .
Dean's strategy is creating a year-round base for Democratic efforts, he says .


Editor's note: Jordan Lorence is senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit organization of Christian attorneys. He has litigated religious liberty and free speech cases since 1984, including the Southworth case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1999, involving mandatory student fees at public universities, and a 2004 case that resulted in a California Supreme Court ruling that marriage licenses issued by San Francisco to same-sex couples were invalid.

Jordan Lorence says Rick Warren's views on marriage shouldn't bar him from Barack Obama's inauguration.

SCOTTSDALE, Arizona (CNN) -- Proponents of redefining marriage couldn't wait for the new president to be sworn in before demanding that he erase from the inauguration ceremony a prominent American who disagrees with them.

The target of their rhetorical bombardment is Rick Warren, the popular Christian pastor from Southern California.

President-elect Barack Obama has asked Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. Not so fast, cries Kathryn Kolbert, head of People for the American Way, an organization that claims to advance equality and freedom of speech and religion (but not for Rick Warren and those who agree with his marriage views) in a piece published on CNN.com.

Warren's grave sin? Along with 52 percent of California voters, he supported California's Proposition 8, which affirmed the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. What a radical!

Though Warren will only be praying for the country's future (not giving a speech about marriage), Kolbert and others are pressuring Obama to set a precedent for his administration of publicly shunning someone who supports the traditional definition of marriage.

They want people like Warren silenced and ostracized for their "hate speech," defined today as disagreeing with their agenda to impose a redefinition of marriage on an unwilling America. Obama, to his credit, has resisted their strident demands.

The attacks on Warren are the latest in a series of coercive, intimidating attacks on supporters of traditional marriage.

Now, activists have ramped up their strong-arm tactics by pushing the president-elect to ban Warren from appearing at the inauguration.

This is amazingly audacious, in light of the fact that on marriage, the overwhelming majority of Americans and, indeed, humanity, agrees with Warren. Americans have voted to preserve marriage in all 30 states where it has been on the ballot by an average vote of more than 65 percent.

The collective experience and wisdom of every major civilization from the dawn of time agrees that societies function best and children are best protected when marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. Warren and those who agree with him want all nations to experience these benefits of marriage when it is rightly defined and consistently practiced.

Ironically, Obama has repeatedly stated that he agrees "that marriage is the union between a man and a woman." Does Kolbert question his fitness to serve as president in light of his allegedly "bigoted" views on marriage?

Kolbert brazenly denies that she and other activists desire to silence pastors like Warren because of their marriage views. She is indignant that Warren and others spread the "big lie" that redefining marriage would threaten the freedom of speech and religious liberties of those who hold the view shared by the vast majority of Americans.

Her argument is disarming in its pure duplicity. Part of Kolbert's case against Warren, who she thinks should not be speaking at such an important public ceremony, is that he believes that folks like her are working to ban people like him from speaking at public ceremonies. Thus, the "big lie" becomes an obvious truth.

This is really all about ideological purity -- and purging. Are the activists proposing that no one should be permitted to speak at the inauguration if they hold beliefs on marriage contrary to hers and her ideological bedfellows? How can publicly snubbing the influential and respected Warren advance what Kolbert calls "the values of unity and respect ... on which President-elect Obama campaigned?"

It won't. But it will surely send a message to those who believe in marriage, that they will be viciously attacked for expressing, or merely believing

Question: who is jordan lorence

Question: what is the veiw on marriage

Question: What are Warren's views on marriage?

Question: What was Rick Warren asked to give?

Question: What does Warren believe about marriage?

Question: What has Obama asked of Rick Warren?

Answer: senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund,

Answer: as between one man and one woman.

Answer: between one man and one woman.

Answer: at his inauguration.

Answer: as between one man and one woman.

Answer: to give the invocation

Summary:
Jordan Lorence: Barack Obama has asked Rick Warren to give the invocation .
He says activists are seeking to ban Warren from speaking because of his views .
Lorence says Warren's view on marriage is the majority position in the U.S.
He says Obama also believes marriage is between a man and a woman .


Editor's note: Joseph Cirincione is president of Ploughshares Fund, a nonprofit organization that makes grants to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and the author of "Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons." He formerly was a senior vice president at the Center for American Progress, a think tank that describes itself as "progressive," and was on the staff of the House Armed Services Committee. Joseph Cirincione says Clinton's trip was the culmination of diplomacy his adminstration began 15 years ago. (CNN) -- President Clinton did more than free two unjustly jailed journalists. He jump-started the successful diplomacy he had begun 15 years earlier. In October 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited Pyongyang. During Bill Clinton's presidency, the administration had locked down North Korea's plutonium production program, which had created enough deadly material for two bombs during the Reagan years. They had stopped all missile tests. They were a few details away from concluding a deal to end these programs completely. But Clinton ran out of time. Enmeshed in Middle East peace talks, Clinton could not get assurances that a presidential visit to North Korea would seal the deal. He passed off the almost completed process to the incoming George W. Bush administration. On March 6, 2001, new Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "We do plan to engage with North Korea to pick up where President Clinton and his administration left off." But Bush had different ideas. On March 7, Bush kneecapped Powell. With South Korean President Kim Dae-jung sitting next to him in embarrassed silence, Bush said, "We look forward to, at some point in the future, having a dialogue with the North Koreans, but any negotiation would require complete verification of the terms of a potential agreement." The conservative ideologues in the administration froze all discussions with North Korea for an 18-month review. Clinton's hard-earned diplomatic wins were replaced by the Bush Doctrine, summed up by Vice President Dick Cheney: "We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it." The United States would instead overthrow difficult regimes. Serious options for diplomacy with North Korea were set aside. Negotiations were appeasement, the new administration believed, not a tool to advance American security. Then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in 2002 and repeats to this day, "We're not going to reward their bad behavior." The strategy backfired. North Korea expanded plutonium production, exploded nuclear bombs, tested new missiles and traded nuclear technology to Syria and possibly Burma. North Korea's nuclear and missile programs advanced more in the George W. Bush administration then they had in the Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations combined. Whether by accident or design, the Obama administration reset the diplomatic stage. Administration officials largely ignored North Korea for their first eight months in office. Kim Jong Il responded with provocative statements and actions. It almost spiraled out of control. But the Obama administration's patience -- or just policy drift, we may never know -- paid off. Kim Jong Il's regime got weaker and more isolated. North Korea's main partners, China and Russia, turned against it, the U.N. Security Council imposed tough new sanctions, and Kim's own health deteriorated. Now in a weaker position than at any time in his regime, Kim Jong Il has been on his best behavior for the past few months. This was the time for a power play, and Obama executed perfectly. He chose as his special envoy the most prestigious political figure in America outside the administration. It is a move that was sure to please the North Koreans, showing them the respect they crave, without costing America anything. To capitalize on this breakthrough, the Obama administration must now continue to play large. It should show North Korea what good relations with the United States can lead to. Clinton's 20 hours in Pyongyang could pave the way for renewed diplomatic efforts, including direct dialogue between the United States and North Korea, the re-freezing of North Korea's nuclear program and even North Korea's return to

Question: What did the Bush administration say the U.S. does not negotiate with?

Question: What doesn't the US negotiate with?

Question: Who started outreach to north korea?

Answer: evil;

Answer: evil;

Answer: then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

Summary:
Joseph Cirincione: Clinton administration started outreach to North Korea .
He says Bush administration cut it off, saying U.S. doesn't negotiate with 'evil'
He says Clinton's successful trip shows effectiveness of diplomacy .
Cirincione: Obama administration must seize moment for further progress .


Editor's note: Joseph E. Stiglitz, professor at Columbia University, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for his work on the economics of information and was on the climate change panel that shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2008. Stiglitz, a supporter of Barack Obama, was a member and later chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration before joining the World Bank as chief economist and senior vice president. He is the co-author with Linda Bilmes of the "Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq Conflict." Economist Joseph Stiglitz says federal regulators and executives helped create the Wall Street crisis. NEW YORK (CNN) -- Many seem taken aback by the depth and severity of the current financial turmoil. I was among several economists who saw it coming and warned about the risks. There is ample blame to be shared; but the purpose of parsing out blame is to figure out how to make a recurrence less likely. President Bush famously said, a little while ago, that the problem is simple: Too many houses were built. Yes, but the answer is too simplistic: Why did that happen? One can say the Fed failed twice, both as a regulator and in the conduct of monetary policy. Its flood of liquidity (money made available to borrow at low interest rates) and lax regulations led to a housing bubble. When the bubble broke, the excessively leveraged loans made on the basis of overvalued assets went sour. For all the new-fangled financial instruments, this was just another one of those financial crises based on excess leverage, or borrowing, and a pyramid scheme. The new "innovations" simply hid the extent of systemic leverage and made the risks less transparent; it is these innovations that have made this collapse so much more dramatic than earlier financial crises. But one needs to push further: Why did the Fed fail? First, key regulators like Alan Greenspan didn't really believe in regulation; when the excesses of the financial system were noted, they called for self-regulation -- an oxymoron. Second, the macro-economy was in bad shape with the collapse of the tech bubble. The tax cut of 2001 was not designed to stimulate the economy but to give a largesse to the wealthy -- the group that had been doing so well over the last quarter-century. The coup d'grace was the Iraq War, which contributed to soaring oil prices. Money that used to be spent on American goods now got diverted abroad. The Fed took seriously its responsibility to keep the economy going. It did this by replacing the tech bubble with a new bubble, a housing bubble. Household savings plummeted to zero, to the lowest level since the Great Depression. It managed to sustain the economy, but the way it did it was shortsighted: America was living on borrowed money and borrowed time. Finally, at the center of blame must be the financial institutions themselves. They -- and even more their executives -- had incentives that were not well aligned with the needs of our economy and our society. They were amply rewarded, presumably for managing risk and allocating capital, which was supposed to improve the efficiency of the economy so much that it justified their generous compensation. But they misallocated capital; they mismanaged risk -- they created risk. They did what their incentive structures were designed to do: focusing on short-term profits and encouraging excessive risk-taking. This is not the first crisis in our financial system, not the first time that those who believe in free and unregulated markets have come running to the government for bail-outs. There is a pattern here, one that suggests deep systemic problems -- and a variety of solutions: 1. We need first to correct incentives for executives, reducing the scope for conflicts of interest and improving shareholder information about dilution in share value as a result of stock options. We should mitigate the incentives for excessive risk-taking and the short-term focus that has so long prevailed, for instance, by requiring bonuses to be paid on the basis

Question:
who is joseph stiglitz
what does he say
What did Joseph Stiglitz say?
where did the money go
What did new-fangled instruments do?
what did he do

Answer: professor at Columbia University,

Answer: federal regulators and executives helped create the Wall Street crisis.

Answer: federal regulators and executives helped create the Wall Street crisis.

Answer: diverted abroad.

Answer: hid the extent of systemic leverage and made the risks less transparent;

Answer: work on the economics of information

Summary:
Joseph Stiglitz: Fed pumped too much money, aiding housing bubble .
New-fangled instruments hid overuse of borrowing, Stiglitz says .
Executives followed short-term interests and magnified risks, he says .
Stiglitz: Widespread changes needed to prevent future crises .


Editor's note: José Miguel Vivanco is executive director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch, a nonprofit organization that seeks to protect people's rights. A lawyer from Chile, he was educated there, in Spain and at Harvard Law School.

José Miguel Vivanco says conviction of Peru's ex-president is a warning to those who deny human rights.

(CNN) -- Peruvians are celebrating an extraordinary victory this week: the conviction of their former president, Alberto Fujimori, for death squad killings carried out during his rule in the 1990s.

The Peruvian Supreme Court found him guilty of egregious human rights abuses, including the massacre of innocent civilians, and sentenced him to 25 years in prison -- a stiff message to other leaders that justice can eventually catch up to even the most powerful.

It is one of the first times a nation's own independent courts have convicted a former leader for such serious human rights crimes and it sets an important precedent for a region that suffered so much from political violence and rights violations. Equally significant, the ruling came after a lengthy televised trial, which was clearly fair to the defendant -- despite Peru's previous history of authoritarianism and weak rule of law.

Fujimori came to office in 1990 on the promise of crushing a vicious Maoist insurgency but, in the process of restoring order, he corrupted and weakened Peru's most vital government institutions -- including parliament, the courts and law enforcement. Just a few years ago, Fujimori had near-total control of Peru's judiciary.

For a decade, his government used bribery, extortion, and intimidation to concentrate power in the presidency, subverting the democratic process and eliminating normal checks by the judiciary, legislature, and media on government abuses.

He led Peru from 1990 to 2000, presiding over the war with the Shining Path guerrillas and the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement. He was convicted of authorizing killings and kidnappings by paramilitary death squads. Fujimori is to be tried separately on multiple corruption charges.

The landmark decision fits within a global trend of increasing accountability for former heads of state. Just 20 years ago, it was exceedingly rare for even the most brutal leaders to be brought to book. In the late 20th century, Mao Zedong, Idi Amin, Milton Obote, Ferdinand Marcos, Anastasio Somoza, Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier and Mobutu Sese Seko, to name just a few, were never brought to trial.

Since then, however, the tide has turned. In October 1998, London police arrested General Augusto Pinochet on a warrant from a Spanish judge for human rights crimes. The arrest and the subsequent decisions by the British House of Lords to reject Pinochet's claim of immunity were a wake-up call to tyrants everywhere, but more important, they gave hope to victims elsewhere that they too could bring their tormentors to justice.

In country after country, particularly in Latin America, victims were inspired to challenge the amnesty laws of the 1980s and 1990s that had allowed the perpetrators of atrocities to go unpunished and, often, to remain in power. Thanks to these efforts, former leaders in Argentina, and Uruguay have also faced human rights trials.

Pinochet's arrest also strengthened a nascent international movement -- spurred by the killings in Bosnia and Rwanda, and facilitated by the end of the Cold War -- to make certain the worst abuses are punished.

After the creation of UN tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the world established the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and serious war crimes when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.

The ICC is now investigating crimes in the Central African Republic, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and in March the court indicted President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan on charges of crimes against humanity in Darfur.

The Fujimori case stands out, though, because it was Peru's national court system which demonstrated the will, capacity, and independence to try its former president.

A second panel of the Supreme Court will now review an appeal by Fujimori. One can hope the second panel will be as

Question:
what did vivanco say
did vivanco say anything
what was fujimori convicted for
What was Fuijimori conviced of ?
What was Fujimori convicted of?
Who is José Miguel Vivanco?
Where was this case tried?

Answer: conviction of Peru's ex-president is a warning to those who deny human rights.

Answer: conviction of Peru's ex-president is a warning to those who deny human rights.

Answer: death squad killings

Answer: authorizing killings and kidnappings by paramilitary death squads.

Answer: for death squad killings carried out during his rule in the 1990s.

Answer: executive director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch,

Answer: The Peruvian Supreme Court

Summary:
José Miguel Vivanco: Peruvian court verdict in Fujimori case sends strong message .
Fujimori was convicted for allowing death squads to murder innocents .
Since Pinochet case, Vivanco says, courts have been holding leaders accountable .
Vivanco: Leaders who deny human rights may suffer for it years later .


Editor's note: Journalist Karl Penhaul spent several weeks tracking the gangs of the Mexican underworld, the corrupt officials who support them and the cops trying to halt the violence. This is the last of three exclusive reports. The first focused on the violent rules gangs live by and the second looked at  how gangsters are honored in death.

Forensic investigators and federal police dig bodies out of mass graves in the desert near Juarez.

JUAREZ, Mexico (CNN) -- Heat waves shimmer over the desert. A team of forensic experts clad in white overalls excavate three shallow graves.

The sand gives up nine bodies -- seven men and two women. At least one of the victims' hands were cuffed behind their back. Others had been trussed up with duct tape.

The stale stench reveals that the corpses had been dumped there several days earlier and were decomposing fast.

That grisly find in mid-March came a week after thousands more soldiers had been deployed to Juarez, across the border from El Paso, Texas. The arrival of the soldiers and more federal police agents had coincided with a short lull in the killings.

Snapping photos of the scene from behind the police line was Lucio Soria, photographer for Juarez's main newspaper, El Diario de Juarez, and its sister paper, PM.

PM is a perfect example of Mexico's so-called "red press," newspapers that specialize in covering violence. Soria seems like a perfect ambassador.

"I've gone for a week and a half without taking pictures of dead people. I was thinking 'Hell, what am I going to do?' At this rate I'll end up taking pictures for the social pages," he said.

Soria realizes snapping pictures of blood and gore may seem heartless. But he stays cheerful, cracking dark jokes with colleagues, all while listening to police communications on a radio scanner and searching for clues about where to find the next drug war victim.

"It might seem ugly, but that's our job," Soria said.

He and fellow photographers have been busy in recent months.

Last year, Juarez became the poster city for Mexico's narco-violence, with more than 1,600 gang killings.  Watch musicians play "narco-ballads" honoring hitmen »

This year, Mayor Jose Reyes is trying to turn a page on the killings and make Juarez a showcase for solutions.

Military and federal police convoys patrol the streets around the clock. Cops armed with AR-15 assault rifles, identities obscured by ski masks, hang off pickup trucks that speed around in twos and threes.  Watch cops round up gang suspects »

Soldiers strike a warlike pose behind heavy machine guns mounted on American-made Humvees.

Whether it's working depends on whom you ask and how hard you read between the lines.

"I think this is very effective because it closes transport routes for the movement of [cartel] personnel and weapons," said a state officer, assigned to guide us, at a federal police checkpoint.

The officer, known only by his call sign Trojan One, seemed confident.

The agent in command of the checkpoint was less convinced.

"Of course organized crime is trying to avoid us. I'm not sure what methods they use to operate. We don't know how they work," said the officer, identifying himself only as Aztec One.

On another day we ran into a three-truck federal police operation staking out a house in a middle-class Juarez neighborhood.  See photos of police, gang life in Mexico »

The commander said his men believed they had made what he termed a "major" cocaine bust. When I met him they had already been waiting almost 24 hours for a judge to issue a search warrant.

When they gained access they discovered some 500 half-gram bags of cocaine. In Juarez those bags sell for around $8. Now do the math, 500 half-gram bags at possibly 60 percent purity means around 150 grams of pure cocaine -- hardly a major strike in the drug war.

Question: How many gang killings happened last year in Juarez?

Question: how many gang killings occurred last year?

Answer: more than 1,600

Answer: more than 1,600

Summary:
Graveyards in Mexican town show tributes to gang leaders and hitmen .
"Lupito," who a relative said loved hitman life, was killed when he was 21 .
Cartel bosses are buried in mausoleums surrounded by bullet-proof glass .
Followers pay bands, leave tributes including cocaine at shrines to cult heroes .


Editor's note: Journalist Karl Penhaul spent several weeks tracking the gangs of the Mexican underworld, the corrupt officials who support them and the cops trying to halt the violence. This is the last of three exclusive reports. The first focused on the violent rules gangs live by and the second looked at  how gangsters are honored in death. Forensic investigators and federal police dig bodies out of mass graves in the desert near Juarez. JUAREZ, Mexico (CNN) -- Heat waves shimmer over the desert. A team of forensic experts clad in white overalls excavate three shallow graves. The sand gives up nine bodies -- seven men and two women. At least one of the victims' hands were cuffed behind their back. Others had been trussed up with duct tape. The stale stench reveals that the corpses had been dumped there several days earlier and were decomposing fast. That grisly find in mid-March came a week after thousands more soldiers had been deployed to Juarez, across the border from El Paso, Texas. The arrival of the soldiers and more federal police agents had coincided with a short lull in the killings. Snapping photos of the scene from behind the police line was Lucio Soria, photographer for Juarez's main newspaper, El Diario de Juarez, and its sister paper, PM. PM is a perfect example of Mexico's so-called "red press," newspapers that specialize in covering violence. Soria seems like a perfect ambassador. "I've gone for a week and a half without taking pictures of dead people. I was thinking 'Hell, what am I going to do?' At this rate I'll end up taking pictures for the social pages," he said. Soria realizes snapping pictures of blood and gore may seem heartless. But he stays cheerful, cracking dark jokes with colleagues, all while listening to police communications on a radio scanner and searching for clues about where to find the next drug war victim. "It might seem ugly, but that's our job," Soria said. He and fellow photographers have been busy in recent months. Last year, Juarez became the poster city for Mexico's narco-violence, with more than 1,600 gang killings.  Watch musicians play "narco-ballads" honoring hitmen » This year, Mayor Jose Reyes is trying to turn a page on the killings and make Juarez a showcase for solutions. Military and federal police convoys patrol the streets around the clock. Cops armed with AR-15 assault rifles, identities obscured by ski masks, hang off pickup trucks that speed around in twos and threes.  Watch cops round up gang suspects » Soldiers strike a warlike pose behind heavy machine guns mounted on American-made Humvees. Whether it's working depends on whom you ask and how hard you read between the lines. "I think this is very effective because it closes transport routes for the movement of [cartel] personnel and weapons," said a state officer, assigned to guide us, at a federal police checkpoint. The officer, known only by his call sign Trojan One, seemed confident. The agent in command of the checkpoint was less convinced. "Of course organized crime is trying to avoid us. I'm not sure what methods they use to operate. We don't know how they work," said the officer, identifying himself only as Aztec One. On another day we ran into a three-truck federal police operation staking out a house in a middle-class Juarez neighborhood.  See photos of police, gang life in Mexico » The commander said his men believed they had made what he termed a "major" cocaine bust. When I met him they had already been waiting almost 24 hours for a judge to issue a search warrant. When they gained access they discovered some 500 half-gram bags of cocaine. In Juarez those bags sell for around $8. Now do the math, 500 half-gram bags at possibly 60 percent purity means around 150 grams of pure cocaine -- hardly a major strike in the drug war.

Question: How many gang killings were there?

Question: To whom does the mayor turn to control violence?

Question: How many gang killings did Juarez have

Answer: more than 1,600

Answer: Military

Answer: 1,600


Editor's note: Journalist Karl Penhaul spent several weeks tracking the gangs of the Mexican underworld, the corrupt officials who support them and the cops trying to halt the violence. This is the second of three exclusive reports. Part one looked at the violent rules gangs live by.

The faithful leave this "Holy Death" statue offerings including cigarettes and cocaine, visible in the nose.

CULIACAN, Mexico (CNN) -- A baseball cap dangles from a cement cross. The slogan on the hat reads "power, money, respect." On the brim there's the logo of the classic gangster movie "Scarface."

Etched on the gravestone, the words: "Jesus Guadalupe Parra. 12 December 1986 to 25 August 2008."

"Lupito," as friends and family knew him, went down in a hail of bullets before he reached 22. Authorities said he died alongside three others in a gunfight with a rival drug gang high in the Sierra Madre mountain  range that is the backbone of Mexico's Pacific coast state of Sinaloa.

A printed banner draped over his tomb offers a deeper insight. It shows a photo of him alongside a marijuana plantation and an AK-47 assault rifle fitted with a 100-round ammunition drum.

The drab grave of this cartel triggerman, at the Jardines de Humaya cemetery in state capital Culiacan, stands in stark contrast to the mausoleums of dead capos, or drug bosses. Those are elaborate two- and three-story constructions, some perhaps 25 feet high, made of bullet-proof glass, Italian marble and spiral iron staircases.

A bricklayer at work in the cemetery told me the fanciest cost between $75,000 and $150,000. He said grateful drug barons often pay for loyal hitmen to be buried here, the city's toniest graveyard. Like so many other people we've met over the last few weeks, he declined to give his name or speak on camera.

"I can't. El patron [the boss] would kill me," he said.

Days later I track down Lupito's cousin, Giovanni Garcia, on the phone. He's an undertaker and by coincidence he took the call that Lupito had been shot.

"My cousin loved that way of life," Garcia said briefly before turning down a recorded interview. "We can't talk. You must understand how things are around here these days. It's not a good time."

That Sunday, I linger at Lupito's graveside. Three young men show up. They look about the same age as the dead gunman, the same cropped-hair, one heavily scarred around his eye.

In the breeze they struggle to light a dozen foot-high candles. I introduce myself. A few grunts later and I can see this conversation is going nowhere fast.

"We couldn't make it to the burial. This is the first time we've come to pay our respects," one of them explained. He never offered his name.

Drug rivalries have been known to spill over at funerals so many mourners opt to stay away leaving only the closest relatives to bury their dead quietly and without public complaints.

I stick around hoping to meet more talkative mourners. My wait is cut short. A fourth man appears between the tombstones some 20 yards away, apparently having seen me. As he talks into a phone I hear him say: "Hey, take your chance. Go grab f**king baldy."

I look around. No other bald men in sight -- just me. Time to leave.

At Jardines de Humaya and across town at the 21 de Marzo cemetery, rows of recently dug graves are filled with the young foot soldiers of Mexico's drug war.

A crosscheck of their names in the obituary columns of the local newspaper reveal tales of men in their late teens and early 20s, gunned down in firefights, shot in cold blood on their doorsteps or killed in prison clashes.

Jesus Gaston earns around $40 for every three graves he digs. But he can see the lure of easy money in the drug trade is little more than a

Question: What do the followers do to show tribute?

Question: What tributes are shown in the graveyard?

Question: At what age was Lupito killed?

Question: At what age was "Lupito," when he was killled?

Answer: light a dozen foot-high candles.

Answer: "Holy Death" statue offerings including cigarettes and cocaine,

Answer: before he reached 22.

Answer: 22.


Editor's note: Joy Behar's new nightly show debuts Tuesday, September 29 on HLN at 9 PM ET. Joy Behar says Ukranian officials are wrong to try to block Elton John from adopting a 14-month-old boy. NEW YORK (CNN) -- On a recent tour of a Ukrainian orphanage, Elton John and his partner met Lev, a 14-month old HIV-positive boy. They immediately fell in love with the child, but their possible bid to adopt the adorable tiny dancer was rejected by Yuriy Pavlenko, Ukraine's Family, Youth and Sports Minister. Mr. Pavlenko, here are some tips about family, youth and sports. Family doesn't mean a huddle of orphans sharing a few soiled mattresses, it's not youth if you die of AIDS before you reach kindergarten, and wrestling over dinner scraps is not a sport. But that could be Lev's fate now, because the Ukrainian government said Elton and his beau David Furnish are too old to adopt the boy. It sounds like the real reason is they're too gay. John and Furnish tied the knot in 2005, becoming one of Britain's first gay civil unions, but Ukraine doesn't recognize gay unions. Ukrainian Orthodox Church spokesman Father Georgy Gulyaev called Elton John a sinner and said, "thank God it's impossible under Ukrainian law for [him] to adopt a child." Apparently in the Ukraine, God's No. 1 priority is preventing gay couples from giving sick kids a better life. God would never want something like that to happen. Father Gulyaev said homosexuality "represents the dead end of human development." That's odd, I thought the dead end of human development was represented by 14th century thinking like his. This guy's head is stuck in the Dark Ages. He hasn't even progressed to the Middle Ages yet. Some conservative religious leaders like to harp about the "damage" to families done by gay marriage, as if traditional marriage is so perfect. Since many of them have taken vows of celibacy, they've never witnessed firsthand the damage dinner with the in-laws can cause (one of the few advantages of the celibate life, I guess). There are even a few married Bible-thumpers spending their time trying to keep sex out of our lives -- yet they talk about sex more than anyone! Sex is usually the first and only factor they consider when judging -- I mean, when "dispensing enlightenment upon" -- others.  Watch Joy Behar speak about adoption » Sure, Elton John may be gay, but he's also a renowned musician, a celebrated humanitarian, and has been knighted by the Queen of England. In fact, for some people he is the Queen of England. Plus, there's no downside to gay adoption. In the United States, organizations like the National Adoption Center, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all agree that having homosexual parents does not negatively affect children. But you know what does negatively affect children? Growing up with no parents. So now 14-month-old Lev is stuck in some depressing orphanage that makes Guantanamo Bay look like the presidential suite at the Waldorf. He'll likely end up in foster homes and -- if he lives long enough -- maybe he can turn into a bitter, vodka-swilling drunk. All because the Ukrainian government won't let him be adopted by two loving gay parents who are fabulously rich and want to give him a home with the best healthcare available, dressed in Versace jammies and cashmere Huggies. Not to mention all the play dates with Brangelina's kids. Let's hope Sir Elton finds a different, more tolerant country willing to let him be a poor child's loving father. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Joy Behar.

Question: what is elton john thinking about?

Question: who rejected the idea ofadoption?

Question: do experts say there is a downside to gay adoption?

Question: Who is Elton John's partner?

Question: Who thought about adopitng a 14-month-old boy?

Question: Who rejected the idea of adoption?

Question: What was the objection to the adoption?

Answer: adopting a 14-month-old boy.

Answer: Yuriy Pavlenko,

Answer: no

Answer: David Furnish

Answer: Elton John

Answer: Yuriy Pavlenko, Ukraine's Family, Youth and Sports Minister.

Answer: Elton and his beau David Furnish are too old

Summary:
Joy Behar: Elton John, partner mulled adopting 14-month-old boy .
She says Ukrainian officials were wrong to reject idea of adoption .
She says their real objection seemed to be to a gay couple adopting a child .
Behar: Experts say there's no downside to gay adoption .


Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is completing a book on the history of national security politics since World War II, to be published by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely on current events.

Julian Zelizer says it's not enough for Republicans to oppose Obama's plans, they must offer their own ideas.

PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- One of the best Marx Brothers movies, "Horse Feathers," played in movie theaters at the height of the Great Depression in 1932.

In the film, the comedian Groucho Marx played the new president of Huxley College, Quincy Adams Wagstaff.

During one of the most memorable scenes, Groucho introduces himself to faculty and students by singing about his philosophy of governance: "Your proposition may be good/But let's have one thing understood/ Whatever it is, I'm against it!/And even when you've changed it or condensed it, I'm against it/ I'm opposed to it/On general principle. I'm opposed to it."

If Republicans want to rebuild their party after the calamity of 2008, the party leadership needs to avoid the Quincy Adams Wagstaff approach to politics.

When Obama proposed his economic recovery bill last week, the first words to come out of House Minority Leader's John Boehner's mouth sounded a bit like Wagstaff.

With the economy imploding and the international economic crisis worsening, Boehner said: "Right now, given the concerns that we have over the size of the package and all of the spending in this package, we don't think it's going to work. And so if it's the plan that I see today, put me down in the 'no' column."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been more restrained in his response, leaving open the door to compromise.

If Boehner is simply acting as Dr. No to get a better deal, Republicans can come out of the negotiations over the economic recovery bill as partners, planting the seeds for a new Republican approach toward dealing with economic matters.

But if Boehner's plan is for his party to act as an oppositional force -- trying to block, delay and prevent legislative action -- then the GOP could find itself in big trouble.

If the Republicans don't agree with Obama's approach, given the severity of the crisis, they need to offer an alternative rather than just sitting still.

To be sure, there is the possibility that if the economy continues to deteriorate after a bill has passed and the public loses faith in Obama, the House GOP could reap the benefit from their opposition. They could say "we told you so." But even that would be a high-risk maneuver, particularly given the state of public opinion about the Republican Party.

Even if a bill passes and the economy continues to struggle, voters would be looking at a Republican Party that didn't have anything better to offer. The public likes hard-working politicians.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal ideas didn't always work -- some like the National Recovery Act were downright failures -- but voters valued a president who tried to offer arguments about how to end the crisis and who rolled up his sleeves to make the nation better.

The election of 2008 revealed that the Republican Party lacks the kind of big ideas that Ronald Reagan used in 1980 to bring the conservative movement into power. The various factions of the conservative movement came together around the themes of anti-communism, deregulation and tax cuts.

Reagan didn't just sell tax cuts for the wealthy as good in themselves, but connected them to supply-side economics, which claimed that cuts would stimulate investment, generate economic growth and ultimately bring more revenue into the coffers of Treasury.

Even after the Soviet Union collapsed, Republican leaders found ideas to sell their movement to the public. Newt Gingrich and a cohort of young Republicans focused on sharp attacks about the dangers of government intervention and corruption of government.

For a short time it seemed that under George W. Bush, the war on terrorism would

Question: what did zelizer say

Question: who is in trouble

Question: What did Zelizer say GOP should do if it opposes the stimulus plan?

Question: what happens if gop opposes

Question: who says republicans are in trouble?

Question: what are house republicans doing?

Answer: it's not enough for Republicans to oppose Obama's plans, they must offer their own ideas.

Answer: GOP

Answer: they must offer their own ideas.

Answer: could find itself in big trouble.

Answer: Julian Zelizer

Answer: want to rebuild their party

Summary:
Julian Zelizer: House Republicans are signaling they will oppose stimulus plan .
He says Republicans are in trouble if they simply act as an opposition force .
Democrats gained sway for decades by seeking to improve the economy, he says .
Zelizer: If GOP opposes stimulus plan, it should offer alternatives of its own .


Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is the co-editor of "Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s" and is completing a book on the history of national-security politics since World War II, to be published by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely on current events. Julian Zelizer says Obama and Congress must decide whether to rein in presidential power. PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- Executive power has been one of the defining characteristics of President George W. Bush's administration. President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and many members of the White House pushed to expand executive power -- as much as any specific domestic or foreign policy -- from the beginning of the administration. The Bush administration formed in a direct conversation with the presidential politics of the 1970s. Several members of the Bush administration came of professional age working in the Nixon and Ford administrations. They watched an assertive Congress respond to the Watergate scandal by revitalizing legislative power through the War Powers Act of 1973, the Budget Reform of 1974, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the Independent Counsel Act in 1978. The Bush administration thought vesting Congress with so much power was dangerous, because it saw the legislative branch as inefficient. Building on efforts  since President Ronald Reagan to reverse the congressional reforms of the 1970s, the current White House spent enormous political energy, before and after 9/11, trying to reclaim power for the executive branch. The expansion of presidential power is not unique to the Bush administration. It began early in the 20th century and, despite some exceptional periods such as the 1970s, continued steadily throughout. But in several respects, this expansion was bigger in scale and scope than under previous presidents. For example, as a way to agree to legislation without agreeing to follow the intention of Congress, Bush issued statements when he signed bills -- doing so far more frequently than preceding presidents. When Congress passed a bill banning the use of torture in December 2005, Bush added a signing statement allowing him to bypass the law in his role as Commander-in-Chief. Bush also used executive orders to achieve policy objectives without obtaining congressional consent. Most of the president's national security programs were also conducted under high levels of secrecy and sometimes ignored rules such as those spelled out by FISA. Even when Republicans controlled Congress between 2002 and 2006, the president barely consulted with the leadership. After the 2000 elections, many Republican moderates were optimistic they would have more power than ever because the White House would be forced to court their vote in the evenly divided Senate. But they were wrong. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island said he was disillusioned early in the Bush administration when Cheney met with a group of Republican moderates. Cheney simply listed the bills the administration would pursue -- such as canceling U.S. support for the International Criminal Court and cutting taxes -- and informed them the president expected their vote. The chances for restoring a better balance of power remain unclear. There was a notable silence on the issue during the 2008 presidential campaign. Congressional Democrats and President-elect Barack Obama have been extremely critical of Bush's muscular approach to the executive branch. But though Obama has promised to reverse a number of executive decisions made by Bush, it is hard to tell how far he will go. Most important, it is extremely rare in the postwar period for presidents to voluntarily relinquish power. Democrats in Congress might not be willing to do to Obama what they did to Richard Nixon or even Jimmy Carter in the 1970s. After decades of Republican rule, Democrats now believe they have an opportunity to build a new majority. In addition, in a time of true crisis there will be less incentive to challenge the institutional prerogatives of their president. But Congress and the White House must do something to reverse the trends of the past eight years. We need an executive branch that is accountable and a Congress that is active. So what can be done? The first solution is informal. The White House must alter the dynamic

Question: who must decide whether to strengthen legislative role?

Question: What did julian zelizer say?

Question: whose role was diminished during the bush administration?

Answer: Obama and Congress

Answer: Obama and Congress must decide whether to rein in presidential power.

Answer: Lincoln Chafee

Summary:
Julian Zelizer: Bush administration sought to rebuild presidential power .
He says they wanted to reverse Watergate-inspired reforms from the 1970s .
Zelizer says Congress' role was diminished during the Bush administration .
He says Obama, Congress must decide whether to strengthen legislative role .


Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism," will be published in December by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely about current events.

President Obama is taking a huge step in his presidency. After weeks of careful deliberation, the president has sided with military officials who have been pushing for an escalation of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Explaining his objectives and exit strategy, Obama is expected to announce that he will be sending 30,000 troops, and possibly more, into the region.

With this decision, Obama inches closer to becoming a wartime president. Even though the White House insists that they will continue to work hard on their domestic agenda, historically, presidents who become involved in protracted ground wars find that their presidencies are defined by their military conflicts. The politics that surround a military operation play an enormous role in the political success or failure of an administration.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and many congressional Democrats realize the human and political risks that come from this war. As news broke of President Obama's decision, Pelosi said: "the American people believe that if something is in our national security interest, we have to be able to afford it. That doesn't mean that we hold everything else" stagnant because of those operations.

But war sucks the political oxygen out of almost any presidency. There have been several modern presidents who started their term with an ambitious domestic vision and who ended up with their presidencies totally consumed by war.

President Harry Truman, who served from 1945 to 1953, pulled off a historic upset in his reelection bid against Thomas Dewey in 1948. In the campaign, Truman castigated a "do-nothing" Congress.

When he returned to the White House after the election, Truman fought for an ambitious domestic agenda in 1949 and 1950, which he called the Fair Deal, which included national health care, civil rights, fair housing and more.

While a conservative coalition of southern Democrats and Republicans in Congress defeated most of his proposals, it was the Korean War, which began in the summer of 1950, that brought down his presidency.

When the military operations against North Korea bogged down into a stalemate by 1951, Republicans ripped into the administration for refusing to use enough air power against the communists.

Truman, whose approval ratings plummeted to 23 percent by 1952, decided that he should not run for reelection. "If we had been less trusting, if we had been less soft and weak, there would probably have been no war in Korea!" Republican candidate and military hero Gen. Dwight Eisenhower said on the campaign trail.

Republicans focused their campaign on Korea, Communism and corruption. The Democratic nominee, Adlai Stevenson, lost; Republicans gained control of Congress.

President Lyndon Johnson was on the verge of becoming a transformative president in the winter of 1965. Since taking office, Johnson had presided over the passage of a sweeping body of domestic measures unequaled by almost any president in American history other than Franklin Roosevelt. His accomplishments included Medicare and Medicaid, federal education assistance, civil rights and voting rights, environmental regulations, immigration reform and much more.

Yet all those accomplishments seemed to disappear in the political psyche after the "Americanization" of the war in the spring of 1965, when Johnson authorized a vast increase of ground troops to Vietnam. By 1968, public opinion had turned against the war, with anti-war protesters organizing against "Johnson's War."

In the history books, Vietnam has swamped our memory of Johnson's presidency and eclipsed much of what he accomplished in those early years. "That bitch of a war," Johnson lamented toward the end of his life, "killed the lady I really loved -- the Great Society."

Most recently, there was the experience of President George W. Bush. During the 2000 campaign and in the early months of his presidency, Bush pushed for a type of "compassionate conservatism" that sought to extend

Question: Who became a wartime president?

Question: What is Zelizer's job?

Question: Who becomes a wartime president?

Question: What do wars tend to swallow up?

Question: Which other presidents were weakened by war?

Question: Who was weakened by war?

Answer: Obama

Answer: Woodrow Wilson School.

Answer: Obama

Answer: the political oxygen out of almost any presidency.

Answer: Harry Truman,

Answer: Truman

Summary:
Julian E. Zelizer: The Obama presidency resembles that of Lyndon B. Johnson .
Zelizer says both aimed high and worked skillfully with congressional leaders .
A president can shape legislation without dictating the details, professor says .
Zelizer: Obama has gotten big results from Congress by keeping leaders on his side .


Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism," will be published this fall by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely about current events. Julian E. Zelizer says it's vital that new media provide support for journalism that strives for objectivity. (CNN) -- Last week, Sen. John Kerry convened a discussion of the troubled state of journalism in America by way of a hearing by the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. In Kerry's home state of Massachusetts, the Boston Globe is barely surviving. Several major metro papers have closed down, and there are indications that many more could soon follow. Experts have been warning in recent months that much of the newspaper industry may not survive. While the end of the metro newspaper would constitute a huge blow to journalism and the political system, realistically there might be nothing that we can do. The popularity of news on the Web and the potential of mobile devices such as the Kindle makes it difficult to see how we can sustain news in print -- unless electronic delivery can produce enough revenue to support the cost of newspaper staffs. Sometimes technological innovations and consumer preferences cause changes that are irreversible. The industry has seen other important shifts in the way that Americans receive their news, such as the advent of television news in the 1950s and 1960s. But the real issue is not whether we can save the newspapers, but how we can create the best Internet news system possible. As Kerry said in his opening statement: "There also is the important question of whether online journalism will sustain the values of professional journalism, the way the newspaper industry has." The first challenge we must address has to do with editorial control. A great danger of blog-based news is that information disseminates instantly with very little editorial supervision. On too many sites, information goes right from writer to reader. In the heyday of daily newspapers and network news, the news cycle was slow, lasting over the course of a day. There was a considerable amount of time for reporters, editors, and producers to check and verify information before it reached the public eye. Those days are gone. The result is too often that incorrect information circulates quickly. It will be crucial that television news networks continue to maintain Web sites which have the financial capital to support an editorial and production staff and that the newspapers which do survive find ways to expand their online operations, turning them into commercially lucrative ventures. Only they can finance the kind of infrastructure that good journalism requires. The second challenge we face has to do with polarization. Most studies of politics show that polarization has increased significantly throughout American politics. The media are both a product and cause of this political phenomenon. In Congress, there are fewer centrists in either party who are willing to compromise. Unfortunately, we have seen a similar phenomenon in the news business. During the 1990s, FOX News promoted a style of journalism framed within a clear conservative perspective. In recent years, liberals have mimicked these efforts. The nightly broadcasts of MSNBC have offered a counterpoint on the left, with television shows offering news from a liberal perspective. Bloggers on the Web follow this model as well. Not believing that the norm of objectivity is attainable, they prefer to present their political views openly and tend to be much more partisan in how they interpret world events. Moreover, readers and viewers tend to go for their information to sites and channels where they can see their own perspectives confirmed. It will be difficult to counteract these kinds of trends since they are so deep-rooted in American politics. But at a minimum, someone needs to fund reporters who keep covering the story and who at least strive to achieve as much objectivity as possible. There are many Web sites that do undertake this mission, but it will be essential that there is continued and expanded support for reporting as the metro newspapers slowly vanish

Question: What is endangered by rise of new media?

Question: What did Sen. John Kerry hold a hearing on?

Question: What did Zelizser say about newspapers?

Question: What does john kerry say?

Question: What does Zelizer say?

Answer: objectivity.

Answer: a discussion of the troubled state of journalism in America

Answer: it's vital that new media provide support for journalism that strives for objectivity.

Answer: "There also is the important question of whether online journalism will sustain the values of professional journalism, the way the newspaper industry has."

Answer: it's vital that new media provide support for journalism that strives for objectivity.


Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism," will be published this fall by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely about current events. Julian Zelizer says some of President Obama's political vulnerabilities have started to emerge. PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- June has been rough for President Obama. After experiencing enormous success during his first months in office, some of his political vulnerabilities have started to emerge. As Republicans begin to think about the 2010 midterm elections and moderate Democrats decide how they should vote on Obama's most ambitious initiative, health care, the White House must prevent these weaknesses from becoming debilitating. The first vulnerability is the tension between the left and center of the Democratic Party. Since his election, President Obama has struggled to navigate the divisions that exist between the liberal base of the party, who were the core of his early support, and moderate Democrats, who were also instrumental to his victory. At first, the administration relied on good will and political capital from the election to overcome conflicts, such as when Obama agreed to reductions in the size of the economic stimulus package to placate the conservative Democrats and some Republicans despite the objection of progressives. But the tensions are becoming more pronounced and more difficult to resolve. The president has disappointed gay rights activists for not fulfilling promises they thought he had made on the issue of gay rights. Last week, they expressed their frustration with the Department of Justice's legal brief supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that prohibits same-sex partners from receiving marriage benefits and protects states that don't recognize same-sex marriages. Obama failed to calm the storm even when he extended some employment benefits to the same-sex partners of federal workers. He came under fire for having declined to provide health care and retirement benefits on the grounds that such a move would violate the Defense of Marriage Act. These kinds of left-center tensions will intensify when Congress delves into the final negotiations over health care this summer. Progressive Democrats insist that without a public insurance option health care reform will fail in the long run. Several Democratic moderates have been pushing alternatives that fall far short of that goal. The second vulnerability is the deficit. When Republicans have turned away from cultural issues and toward economics, they have been finding more success at attracting the interest of independents and moderates. Recent polls have shown that the public is concerned about the growing size of the deficit and Republicans have finally gained a bit of political traction by linking Obama's policies to the government's red ink. To be sure, this is not a home run issue for the GOP. Many commentators have pointed to the hypocrisy of Republicans making anti-deficit arguments following the tax-cutting and spending spree that took place under President Bush. Moreover, deficits have a poor track record in terms of being a winning campaign issue. There have not been any presidential candidates or major midterm elections in recent history that hinged on anti-deficit arguments. Many presidents, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, survived while growing the deficit. Polls have shown the public is also notoriously fickle about how much weight it gives to the deficit as an issue, and is often misinformed about the actual size of the deficit. Nonetheless, warning about rising deficits has been an effective tool for weakening the political strength of an incumbent administration. Regardless of the economics of the issue, with some respected economists saying short-term deficits don't matter, many Americans perceive the budget deficit as a symbol for whether a president is keeping federal spending under control. While Republicans might not take back Congress by focusing on the deficit, they can erode Obama's political standing and make it more difficult for him to pass legislation. Finally, there is the economy. The irony for Obama is that as the economy has stabilized, it has become a greater source of political danger. Without an immediate crisis,

Question: concern is growing about what?

Question: which month has been difficult for obama?

Question: Which month has been difficult for President Obama

Answer: size of the deficit

Answer: June

Answer: June


Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism," will be published this fall by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely on current events.

Julian E. Zelizer says so far the Obama presidency resembles that of Lyndon B. Johnson.

PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- While pundits have compared President Obama to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, less attention has been paid to another, perhaps more apt parallel -- Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Sometimes the similarities are striking. Both aimed high, seeking major legislation to reshape America -- Johnson with civil rights and Medicare, Obama with health care and energy legislation. Both Johnson and Obama understood that Congress was a credit-claiming institution whose members did not like to have proposals rammed down their throats.

Johnson's style of political leadership was famous. A creature of the Senate, Johnson loved to lean on legislators and intimidate them into supporting his agenda.

As Senate majority leader from 1955 to 1961, Johnson had been famous for subjecting colleagues to the "Treatment" whereby the hulking Texan cornered a legislator in the hallway, stood eye to eye and made his arguments about a bill until he received assurances of support for particular legislation. Although Johnson slightly changed his posture once he was president, he still relied on this kind of interaction to build support.

As president from November 1963 until January 1969, Johnson worked closely with the Southern committee chairmen and ranking Republicans who dominated the House and Senate. Johnson sought to achieve a delicate mix of maintaining control over deliberations -- thinking of ways to obtain what he wanted without giving the appearance of it being a presidential-led idea -- all while responding to the concerns of the chairmen.

The back-and-forth deliberations with House Ways and Means Chairman Wilbur Mills over the creation of Medicare in 1965 have become the classic example of how a president can work the chamber while allowing a congressional leader into the room to shape a bill in ways with which he'll be comfortable. Johnson agreed to redesign the particulars of the legislation so that the final program would protect the fiscal integrity of Social Security (under which it was included) and contain long-run costs.

Thus far, Obama has taken a similar approach with the economic stimulus and, more recently, with his budget proposal. The president outlined to Congress the basic ideas he wanted in the final product but then left to lawmakers the work of designing the details.

While the downside has been that Obama relinquished control over the structure of the legislation, House and Senate Democrats have felt invested and empowered to produce what Obama's team viewed as successful results.

The second similarity is that Johnson, like Obama, distanced himself from the arguments of liberals who said that conservatives did not need to be feared. Johnson was consumed by his fears of a right-wing resurgence, even after trouncing Republican Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election.

Johnson constantly warned advisers that the most dangerous political force in the country as far as he was concerned was not the left on college campuses but what he called the "reactionary element" within the GOP, and he took this into consideration when shaping legislative proposals.

With domestic policy, Johnson avoided programs that could be tagged as "socialistic," and on foreign policy he worked hard to demonstrate a tough stance against communism. Recently released telephone conversations have revealed that Johnson was obsessed with the 1966 midterm elections after the 1964 election was over, realizing that historically those results were not likely to be good for the White House.

Obama has been reluctant to embrace liberal arguments about an end to the Age of Reagan, courting conservative journalists such as David Brooks instead of liberal pundits such as Paul Krugman. He accepted compromises on legislation in response to moderates in both parties and agreed to a financial bailout that pleased Wall Street, not Main Street. And his administration has steered clear of explicitly nationalizing banks, a step that could be called socialist

Question: What did Zelizer say about Obama and Lyndon Johnson?

Question: What did Julian Zelizer compare the Obama presidency with?

Question: What did the professor say about a president?

Question: whome does The Obama presidency resembles?

Answer: presidency resembles that of

Answer: Lyndon B. Johnson.

Answer: so far the Obama presidency resembles that of Lyndon B. Johnson.

Answer: Lyndon B. Johnson.