North Korea’s nuclear test put US President Barack Obama under pressure Monday to drop his push for direct diplomacy and instead seek tougher international action against the defiant Stalinist state.

The Obama team has suggested recent North Korean provocations amount to a bargaining ploy, but former Bush administration hardliner John Bolton and North Korea analyst Jim Walsh offer different, more ominous readings.

Obama himself is now hinting at a tougher stance than simply seeking the restart of six-party nuclear disarmament talks with North Korea.

“The United States and the international community must take action in response,” the president said in hastily arranged remarks at the White House ahead of a Memorial Day ceremony for war dead.

Pyongyang’s recent “reckless” actions, including an April 5 ballistic missile test, have defied UN resolutions, the Obama said. “As a result, North Korea is deepening its own isolation and inviting stronger international pressure.”

In addition to the underground nuclear test, short-range missiles were reportedly launched on Monday.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began telephone consultations on Monday with Washington’s partners in the so-called six-party process in order to chart a course of action, a State Department spokesman said.

The UN Security Council was due to meet later Monday to take up the matter.

In the six-party talks involving the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia, North Korea agreed in 2007 to scrap its nuclear programs for energy aid.

But the negotiations lapsed late last year over a dispute about disarmament verification steps, and after the United Nations tightened sanctions following the April missile launch the North vowed to conduct a second nuclear blast and more missile tests unless the world body apologized.

Bolton, a former US ambassador to the United Nations under president George W. Bush, said Obama’s emphasis on diplomacy rather than confrontation with Pyongyang gave North Korea the excuse it needed to carry out the new nuclear test.

“This is a moment of truth for this administration,” Bolton told AFP.

“They put all of their faith in the six-party talks. The North Koreans have thumbed their nose at the administration and now we have to see what kind of stuff they (the new administration) are made of,” Bolton said.

He urged Obama’s team to first put North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism following its removal in the waning months of the Bush administration.

Bolton also urged the UN Security Council to expel Pyongyang from the world body as a “persistent violator” of UN resolutions.

Ultimately, Bolton said, North Korea wants nuclear weapons because it is motivated by the desire to preserve its isolated dictatorship, adding it has no interest in nuclear diplomacy.

Walsh, an analyst at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also questioned a standard view that North Korea was taking a hard line to win concessions in negotiations such as direct talks with the United States.

The Obama administration is open to such talks, but has been rebuffed so far by the communist regime.

The incident may have “nothing to do with bargaining,” Walsh said on CNN.

It may reflect “internal dynamics… as it begins to grapple with the issue of succession and leadership change” following reports that leader Kim Jong-il suffered a stroke last August.

“If that’s what is going on, we’re in for more of this for quite some time,” he said.

Another analyst, Bruze Klingner of the conservative Heritage Foundation, called on Obama to put more pressure on China, North Korea’s closest ally, to back tough sanctions.

“Washington should cease the charade of praising Beijing’s behavior in the six-party talks and instead criticize its obstructionism to carrying out the will of the international community as expressed in two UN resolutions,” Klingner said.

Victor Cha, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), said North Korea may want to pursue negotiations in order to achieve the status as a nuclear weapons state in which it can keep “a residual nuclear deterrent” as part of an eventual deal with the international community.

President Obama’s plans to close the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay by early 2010 were rejected by the Senate on Wednesday and the FBI issued a firm warning against moving detainees to U.S. soil.

Democrats joined Republican in voting 90-6 vote to prohibit transferring to the any of the detainees at the facility to U.S. soil. The Senate also rejected Obama’s appeal request for $80 million to close the prison until he provides a detailed plan for what will be done with the 240 men held at the naval base located on Cuba’s southeastern coast.

The Obama administration “should have focused on a plan for these terrorists first. Once it has one, we’ll consider closing Guantanamo, but not a second sooner,” said Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

FBI Director Robert Mueller dealt another blow to Obama’s goal of closing the prison by January 22, 2010 by rejecting Democratic assertions that maximum-security U.S. prisons can safely hold accused terrorists.

“The concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the United States run from concerns about providing financing to terrorists, radicalising others,” said Mueller in a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.

The FBI head also said that the threat of Guantanamo detainees “radicalising” others would be real even if they were held in maximum-security prisons on the U.S. mainland.

Mueller’s comments supported Republican complaints and reflect the public’s deep concern about moving the detainees to the United States – an essential element in closing the prison.

The White House has promised to reveal details of plans for the detainees in a national security speech on Thursday. The Pentagon has said lawmakers were making it “exceedingly difficult” to meet the deadline imposed by the President.

Obama had included $80 million to close Guantanamo Bay as part of an emergency spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The house removed the money out even before the Senate voted to remove it.

Apparently feeling a need to support the President, a handful of Democrats voted against blocking the detainees’ transfer while most sided with the Republicans who had been reeling from their successive election losses in 2006 and 2008.

Some Republicans said they favored closing the prison while warning that some of the suspected high-ranking al-Qaeda terrorists held there may never face trial or be freed.

“Some of these people, literally, are going to die in jail, and that’s okay with me,” said Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I will not shed a tear.”

However, Graham said he backed Obama’s plan to resume military trials for the prisoners and supports that eventual closing of the prison, which he said would help the United States win in the war on terrorism.

“It would help our war effort. It would help operations in the countries in question, in the Middle East at large. It would repair damage with our allies,” said the former military lawyer.

President Obama’s plans to increase the average car’s mileage to 35.5 MPG and reduce auto emissions by 2016 may sound like a victory for just about everyone. While it may be so in the future, the immediate impact on you and me might not feel like a victory.

The immediate price to the customer will be higher car prices and a less choice in vehicle size. The large vehicles that Americans have come to know and love will be harder to find and much more expensive.

Here are ten ways the new plan will affect you and me:

1. Your next car costs about $1,300 more than it would have without Obama’s plan. This is based on the government’s estimates of the cost of the technology to put you a higher-mileage, lower-polluting car. The $1,300 figure is, of course, only a government estimate and critics say it’s going to be a lot more. The government has never proven its ability to accurately estimate the cost of projects in which it is involved.

2. Used car prices are going up. New cars will cost more and may be less desirable so more people will hang onto older cars. This will reduce supply and increase demand for used cars on the market and drive up prices.

3. Pollution will not be reduced anytime soon. The worst 10% of the cars on the road cause over half the emissions. People who drive the worst 10% of the cars on the road are least likely to be able to afford newer, cleaner cars. The government is actually considering incentives for people who scrap their old cars. The older cars that stay on road (because new cars cost too much) will prevent some of the promised pollution and mpg gains.

4. A win for the automakers. They already manufacture lower-emissions cars to meet the existing California laws. Automakers hate having separate rules for California (and the dozen or so states the follow California’s rule) and the rest of the U.S. They will no longer have to make two versions of each car.

5. An even bigger win for Japanese, Korean, and Chinese automakers. Asian automakers produce a higher proportion of fuel-efficient cars already. U.S. automakers are way behind. They will have five years to catch up…but can they do it?

6. Also a win for European automakers that get another chance to show how efficient diesels can be and convince the U.S. that they are better than hybrids.

7. A win for mass transit…maybe. As cars cost more and fuel prices increase people will have more incentive to park their cars and ride the bus or train. But, will the money be available to construct these systems and where will it come from?

8. We will pay more for gas. Economists say that higher fuel prices – by which they mean more taxes – will force Americans to buy more efficient cars…if they can afford them, that is. Politicians hope that higher mileage cars will reduce oil consumption and avoid the need to punish Americans by raising taxes. However, f car mileage goes up and fuel consumption goes down tax revenues will go down with too. As that happens the government will have to either reduce spending or raise the tax rate to make up the difference. Which do you think they will choose?

9. America will be safer. By reducing demand for oil we lessen our dependency on and control by foreign nations that don’t like us and want to destroy us.

10. The government gets more control of what we drive and we get less. Only you can decide if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

On Tuesday President Obama will announce his plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks by 30% by 2016, while ending a dispute between the auto industry and California over state-level emissions laws.

The announcement fills in a cornerstone of Obama’s vowed reworking of the U.S. auto industry, which he had promised to push toward more efficient models. What’s still unclear is just how the industry will pay for the improvements, especially with Chrysler surviving on government loans and General Motors Corp. in line to become majority-owned by the U.S. Treasury.

The announcement by the president Tuesday will include executives from automakers and officials from several states, including Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, whose appearance at the White House had sparked speculation about a Supreme Court nomination.

The deal will fulfill a campaign promise by Obama to allow California’s law limiting carbon-dioxide emissions from vehicles to go into effect. The Bush administration’s had blocked a federal waiver that would have allowed the rules to go forward in California and 13 other states.

Because vehicles emit carbon dioxide any time they burn fuel, the new rules amounted to a mileage standard, something domestic and foreign automakers argued only the federal government had the power to set.

Automakers have been fighting California’s efforts to limit global warming emissions for years, saying the rules were too strict — targeting an average of about 35 m.p.g. by 2016 — and could lead to a patchwork of rules in different states.

The new rule is expected to let California keep its own program targeting carbon emissions from vehicles. It wasn’t immediately clear this afternoon how the administration would measure the progress toward the target.

A senior administration official who would not comment on the topic of the meeting said earlier today that Granholm would be coming to the White House on Tuesday. The Associated Press reported last week that Granholm is on Obama’s short list to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court but the official – who wouldn’t be identified because the meeting and its topic had not yet been made public – said the meeting was unrelated to the Supreme Court.

What did you think of President Obama’s commencement speech Sunday at Notre Dame? How will the Notre Dame controversy change the abortion debate in America?
When a few protesters interrupted President Obama’s speech at the Notre Dame graduation by shouting, “Stop killing our children!” the student body replied by chanting, “Yes, we can.”
This inadvertent juxtaposition of messages was, perhaps, not the best way to placate traditional Catholics.

President Obama gave a good speech at the University of Notre Dame graduation if rhetorical skill is the measure of speaking excellence. Graduation speeches are notoriously tricky: most people little remember anything said in them, but only resent their length. Obama navigated those waters, but he did so by missing the point of the entire controversy surrounding the visit.

Notre Dame aided that misunderstanding, but watching the ceremony made it obvious why their better judgment was clouded. It was moving to see civil rights leaders in Notre Dame’s history honored and live to applaud the nation’s first African-American president. Given University leadership in the cause of civil rights, it is understandable that Notre Dame would wish to honor this President.

Though it was a mistake to give him a high honor, it was not a mistake to let him speak. Anybody thinking there would be widespread disruption at the ceremony or a lack of courtesy knows nothing about Christian higher education. If he had to come and be given an award, Notre Dame students were right to give honor to the office of President by politely hearing him out even if they do not respect the abortion views of the man.

Besides, anyone who thinks traditional Catholic views represent some vast majority of the Notre Dame student body also does not understand the state of Catholic higher education!
President Obama’s speech was a very bad speech in that it pretended to be one thing when it was something else. I predict it will be hailed for boldly confronting the “controversy surrounding his appearance,” but he was not bold and he did not confront the controversy.

The President spoke as if the controversy centered on his appearance at Notre Dame and speech when in reality it centered on his being honored despite his views.

Traditional Christians in the academy were not concerned that the President was invited to speak at a Christian university. Who wouldn’t welcome the chance to hear the perspectives of the single most powerful political figure in the world? President Obama’s views on abortion are wrong, and morally wicked, but listening to an argument on them is not.

President Obama “bravely” defended civil dialogue in his speech when civil dialogue was not the question. No reasonable academic, and no patriotic American, questions the right of our President to speak his mind. All of us are in favor of civil discourse and few see any reason to question the motives of our opponents.

Those who do not want to listen to their opponents are wrong. We should all charitably read opposing views on the great issues of the age and treat our opponents with tough-minded respect. If we still disagree, we should charitably believe for as long as we can that they are misled and not wicked.

The sad truth, as our own lives demonstrate to us, is that we often have noble motives for wicked acts. We did not mean to hurt anybody, but we do. Our positions are not sanctified by our sincerity. This is as true of the proponents of segregation, well-intentioned though they are, as it is of advocates of abortion.
Notre Dame did not just listen to the most powerful abortion advocate in the world, but loudly and publicly honored him. He is a man, perhaps with noble motives, who is sending their tax money to pay for abortion. If the University attacks those who opposed this honoring of an abortion advocate as if they were opposed to free speech or hearing other points of view, then the University will be guilty of grossly distorting the basis for opposition.

Perhaps, the President’s speech will persuade Notre Dame to avoid this tactic. As a warning to college administrators not to slander their critics, the President’s speech may have some good effect.
What of abortion?

About abortion, the President “bravely” said nothing at all to defend his view that it should be legal to take the life of a child in the third trimester or that experimentation on humans (or potential humans) is licit. He said nothing at all to show why the Catholic papacy and bishops are wrong to say that support for abortion is a sin so grave that it overshadows other good deeds in politics.

In short, Notre Dame and the President talked about what they agreed on and ignored their differences. Any pretense that the President was brought to the campus to give all points of view is laughable. President Obama did not give his point of view, but was cheered for “bravely” having it by a school dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Perhaps well-intentioned academics are so skilled at dialogue that they are apt to ignore actions. While President Obama invites Notre Dame to talk, he governs outside of the culture of life.

The First Lady, Michelle Obama, is glamorous, chic, and self assured according to Glamour Magazine’s June Issue featuring ‘The 50 Most Glamorous Women of 2009′ !

“She’s intelligent, self-assured, and chic…. the arms, the sheaths, the cardigans, the belts..,” photographer Norman Jean Roy shares via Glamour’s just unveiled list.

Obama, coming in at no.3 just behind Kate Winslet and Anne Hathaway, was also noted for her confidence… something that might just extend to several over leading ladies including Beyonce (no.11), Halle Berry (no.14) and Rihanna (no.17).

Halle Berry, a new mom and Oscar-winning actress, has no problem in the fashion department. Nor is the former “Catwoman” star ashamed of her game when it comes to stepping out in public without makeup.

According to Glamour, Halle gets extra points for being “confident enough to be seen in public without a lick of makeup… love that”.

But it is afterall Rihanna, the rockstar of leading Glamour ladies, who the magazine says “entrances readers”.

“She almost can’t make a style mistake now,” says designer and host of BRAVO’s “The Fashion Show” Issac Mizrahi.

For the remainder of the top 50 list visit Glamour.com or pick up their exclusive June Issue which features Renee Zellweger on its cover.

University of Notre Dame students who plan to protest the school’s awarding of an honorary degree to President Barack Obama on campus during commencement Sunday are calling for a peaceful, prayerful approach.

“We believe a lot more can be accomplished through prayerful, respectful witness than can be accomplished in angry protest,” said Michele Sagala, a graduating senior and member of ND Response, a coalition of student groups who oppose the school’s decision to award an honorary degree to Obama because of his support of abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research.

Not all those who plan to be on campus Sunday, though, intend to honor the request by ND Response that they refrain from using graphic images and signs. Anti-abortion activist Randall Terry, who already faces a trespassing charge after being arrested on campus May 1 while pushing a stroller containing a doll covered in fake blood, said members of his group, The Society for Truth and Justice, plan to be arrested and to carry graphic signs.

“If Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks had played by the rules that these kids are proposing, Barack Obama would still be on the back of the bus,” he said.

ND Response has received permission from the university to hold a protest on the west end of the South Quad, starting with an all-night prayer vigil starting Saturday night, a rally Sunday afternoon and another prayer vigil for students choosing not to attend the commencement.

Notre Dame’s rules for protests and demonstrations require organizers to be registered with the school and that the protests be led by members of the university community, university spokesman Dennis Brown said. The demonstrations also must be orderly and peaceful.

Eric Scheidler, communications director for the Pro-Life Action League, said members of his group plan to follow the wishes of ND Response members while on campus, but will have members holding graphic signs on public sidewalks along the outskirts of campus.

John Daly, an ND Response spokesman, said he expects 20 to 30 graduating seniors skip commencement and attend the prayer vigil. Sagala will be among them.

“I feel like taking a stand for my faith is something that Notre Dame trained me to do,” she said.

Greer Hannan, another ND Response member who also is graduating, said she and others plan to attend the commencement but to protest Obama’s presence by putting a yellow cross with yellow baby’s feet on either side atop her mortarboard.

“To express our extreme disappointment with the university for inviting Obama to be the commencement speaker but also to call on President Obama to reconsider his positions on life issues,” she said.

Notre Dame is the second of three schools to feature Obama as commencement speaker. He spoke at Arizona State University in Tempe, Ariz. on Wednesday and is slated to speak at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., on May 22.

Arizona State University officials opted not to give Obama an honorary degree typically awarded to commencement speakers, claiming the president needs to accomplish more to earn the degree. But the president shrugged off the decision, telling graduates he embraces the notion that he has more to learn and challenging them to find new sources of energy and never to rely on past achievement.

In President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2010 Proposed Budget, the president recommends that Congress eliminate funding for abstinence education and instead pour funds into condoms and contraceptive-based sex education.

The proposed budget calls for an additional $150 million for contraceptive-only education, which includes competitive grants, research, evaluation and authorization for $50 million in new mandatory condom grants to states, tribes and territories, according to an Abstinence Clearinghouse press release.

The budget eliminates the $133 million set aside for CBAE (Community Based Abstinence Education) and Title V Abstinence Education Program, the two main federal abstinence-education initiatives.

Pregnancy centers and other charitable organizations throughout the country would be among those affected by the elimination of CBAE funds.

“At a time when teens are subjected to an increasingly sexualized culture, it is essential that common-sense legislators from both sides of the aisle reject this extreme attempt to defund the only approach that removes all risk,” said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association.

“Members of Congress would be well-advised to listen to youth and parents in their districts who overwhelmingly support these valuable programs.”

Leslee Unruh, President and Founder of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, said she believed there would be “political backlash” for elected officials if they oppose abstinence education.

February’s Omnibus Appropriations Bill also slashed abstinence program funds to $95 million, $54 million less than previously received.

First Lady Michelle Obama hit Manhattan Tuesday afternoon, visiting the Big Apple for the first time since the inauguration telling folks at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations she was “thrilled” about a visit to the Sesame Street studio.

“I never thought I’d be on Sesame Street with Elmo and Big Bird and I was thrilled. I’m still thrilled. I’m on a high. I think it’s probably the best thing I’ve done at the White House.”
Now, the background: United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice welcomed Mrs. Obama to the U.S. UN Mission-across the street from the UN and the Mrs. Obama spoke to about 150 employees for about ten minutes.

Rice– one of President Obama’s earliest supporters-and a former Clinton White House official– introduced theFirst Lady “It is a great honor to welcome the First Lady of the United States,” Rice said. “The folks gathered here are truly the foot soldiers on the front lines of the new administration.” She called the group “tireless, talented and tremendously dedicated” and said they are “making the change in our foreign policy real every day,” according to the pool report.

Rice then went on to praise the First Lady. “You insist on reminding people that your extraordinary life is rooted in the ordinary women that surrounded you,” Rice said. “We love your style, your warmth, your brilliance.”

More from the pool report by the Wall Street Journal’s Amy Chozick (who profiled White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers in the WSJ last week)

Rice “called FLOTUS “wicked smart” and said she had a gift of UNICEF children’s books, light-up pens and soccer-related stuff to Sasha and Malia.

“Because they don’t have enough,” Mrs. Obama interrupted in the background. “I am thrilled to be here,” FLOTUS said, wearing a black print dress with three-quarter length sleeves by Tracy Feith.

She talked about a Tuesday visit to Sesame Street where she talked about healthy eating and nutrition. “I never thought I’d be on Sesame Street with Elmo and Big Bird and I was thrilled. I’m still thrilled. I’m on a high. I think it’s probably the best thing I’ve done at the White House.” FLOTUS thanked Rice and called her a “trusted advisor and friend to the president.” She returned the compliment and said Rice is “wicked smart.”

“Obama told the crowd she has been trying to get to know her new neighbors in Washington. This is Mrs. Obama’ s first visit to New York since she became first lady and her 10th visit to a government agency.

“Her mission, she says, is to put a spotlight on the nation’s employees who may feel underappreciated. 40 long-time U.N. employees sat to the left of the stage. These included Ivan Ferber who has worked at the U.S. Mission to the U.N. for 47 years. “Longer than I’ve been alive,” Obama said, as she thanked Mr. Ferber.

“Other honored employees included: Bruce Rashkow who has worked at the USUN for 38 years and Raymond Boneski who has worked there for 36 years. FLOTUS talked about her recent meetings with schoolchildren in DC and read a letter sent to POTUS by Jack Turner, a first grader and son of Scott Turner, a USUN employee. “Dear Mr. Obama, Can you come to New York ” the letter read. “People are doing bad stuff in New York.”

“FLOTUS joked that Jack has the potential to become the next NYC police commissioner. Obama told another story about the time Ambassador Rice’s 11-year-old son-visiting his mom’s office during take-your-child-to-work day-threw away his ice cream so that he would make a good first impression on the South African ambassador. “That’s diplomacy right there, for an-year-old to dump his ice cream,” Obama said.

“FLOTUS said people who work at state agencies are willing to “sacrifice and roll up their sleeves” and cited the H1N1 virus. “We know now we cannot wall ourselves off from issues that are challenging our neighbors,” she said. “We are rooting for you and we need you, so thank you so much,” Obama said. After the remarks, FLOTUS posed for photos in an eight-floor foyer with employees. Mass. Sen. John Kerry’s sister, Margaret “Peggy” Kerry, works for the U.S. Mission to the U.N. and was in attendance. “I think it’s great” that the first lady is here, she told reporters. “She made the rounds in Washington and now she’s in New York.”

Here in the heart of the heartland — Sioux City, Iowa — a “pitchfork mentality” is emerging. In a town that has stockyards and a meatpacking company that yields what locals call “aroma alley,” the Republican base, which has been in retreat since the presidential election, is energized and the Democratic majority is growing angry at its own leaders.

Two issues have emerged as critical: a government plan to prevent the deductibility of state taxes on the federal tax form and a state Supreme Court decision to mandate homosexual marriages.

If subject to a vote, these proposals would lose 85 to 15 percent according to recent polls. Yet the state court is seemingly oblivious to public sentiment and is intent on making the law rather than interpreting it. And the Democratic majority in the legislature anticipates a revenue windfall if the tax proposal passes, a windfall it cannot resist.

These two issues are the front burner matters in a state that voted for Barack Obama in the presidential election. But this support for the president is evaporating quickly. In Sioux City even the Democrats at a recent rally contend “he is moving too fast and too far.” Iowans believe America is sliding into a command economy that imperils freedom. Despite the claims by hard-core leftists like Janine Garafalo that these cross-country tea parties are nothing more than discontent with the president’s race, I couldn’t find a scintilla of evidence to support this claim.

The concern is real and deeply felt, uniting most Republicans and many Democrats. These are rumblings in the heartland that President Obama should heed, although that doesn’t appear to be the case. Iowa farmers don’t know John Maynard Keynes, but they do know a power grab when they see one. Fiercely individualistic Iowans are resistant to a Washington bureaucracy that wants to tell them how to live and work. Priming the pump is seemingly acceptable as a method for kicking the economy into gear until the decisions affect personal behavior.

I don’t know if Americans are yet ready for a second American Revolution as some bloggers are suggesting, but I do know that in a state conservative in outlook and disposition, anger is building that may be unprecedented. The “I’m angry and won’t take it any more” refrain at rallies is often bipartisan with some Democrats saying if we only knew “this is the change we’ve been waiting for,” they might have kept on waiting.

Admittedly the Iowa caucus launched the Obama campaign for president about which some Iowans are quite proud. Many state Democrats argue it is still too early to assess the president’s performance. That may be true, but the policy directions established with the Stimulus Bill, the Appropriations Bill and the budget proposal indicate an enormous transfer of capital from the private to the public sector and an accompanying transfer of power as well. This change cannot be overlooked even for those inclined to support the president.

It is possible that if there is an uptick in the economy, the public mood may change. However, it will soon be obvious blame cannot be leveled against former President Bush for the problems Obama inherited. Both the proposals and the state of the economy will soon belong to President Obama and his team. Therefore excuses and rationalizations are not likely to fly.

As I see it, the tea parties are a genuine cri de coeur. They arise as a plaintive eruption from the grass roots. Where this will lead is anyone’s guess since these events are dispersed across the country. At the moment, no one to my knowledge, has attempted to translate the evident frustration into a political movement. But that could happen.

President Obama has chosen to ignore or dismiss these actions. That is a major error. He would be far wiser to address the concerns directly. The longer the anger festers, the more it becomes an impediment to his political fortunes. 2010 isn’t far off for a congressional realignment and 2012 isn’t far either for a Republican in the White House. These tea parties may auger a change as formidable as the one America once experienced in Boston Harbor.