The Washington Post reports on a subtle but substantial effort by the Obama administration to diminish lobbyists' outsized hold on U.S. policy. The Post reports:

Hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists are likely to be ejected from federal advisory panels … The new policy -- issued with little fanfare this fall by the White House ethics counsel -- may turn out to be the most far-reaching lobbying rule change so far from President Obama, who also has sought to restrict the ability of lobbyists to get jobs in his administration and to negotiate over stimulus contracts.

The initiative is aimed at a system of advisory committees so vast that federal officials don't have exact numbers for its size; the most recent estimates tally nearly 1,000 panels with total membership exceeding 60,000 people.

Under the policy, which is being phased in over the coming months, none of the more than 13,000 lobbyists in Washington would be able to hold seats on the committees, which advise agencies on trade rules, troop levels, environmental regulations, consumer protections and thousands of other government policies.

The lobbyists are not banned from joining committees. They are “encouraged” not to participate. But that policy shift may amount to a de facto prohibition. The Post reports that several Cabinet secretaries have already decided to follow the recommendation.

Committee members are generally unpaid. But a committee position offers lobbyists an opportunity to skew recommendations toward their client's interest rather than the nation's or overall industry's best interests. Consequently, lobbyists' presence on the panels undermines the core objective of the advisory committees.

In this morning's Washington Post, Joel Achenbach picks up on the "All Head and No Gut" theme that David Paul Kuhn wrote about yesterday.

One quote in particular struck me from Achenbach's piece:

Sean Wilentz, a history professor at Princeton, says Obama has suffered from unrealistic expectations among those who put him in office. "They kind of were sold Utopia, and they bought it, and it didn't happen," he says. "People were comparing the candidate to Abraham Lincoln before he served a day of his presidency. Nobody can live up to that."

Where did "people" get the idea of comparing Obama to Lincoln? Could it be because Obama chose a place intimately associated with Lincoln - the Old Statehouse in Springfield, Illinois - from which to launch his bid for the White House? Or was it because Obama invoked similarities between their resumes on the stump throughout the 2008 campaign; or because he consistently made references to building a "Team of Rivals" cabinet like Lincoln; or because Obama chose, as part of his inaugural festivities, to retrace Lincoln's route to the Capitol via train, culminating in a star-studded pre-inaugural party staged at - surprise, surprise - the foot of the Lincoln memorial; or because Obama chose to be sworn in using the same Bible as Lincoln?

With all due respect to Professor Wilentz, no one has traded more on the Lincoln-Obama comparison more than Obama himself. So to the extent Obama is suffering from being unable to live up to expectations brought on by that comparison, it is a self-inflicted wound.

President Obama will attend the U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen on December 9, Reuters first reported.

It has been unclear for months whether Obama would attend the global summit. He is without climate change legislation. And since summer the prospects for cap-and-trade's passage have dramatically dwindled.

The New York Times reported Monday that the Obama administration will propose short-term targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the conference. As the Times notes, from a political standpoint, the proposed targets are partly an effort to win the global blame game.

Inevitably, any failure to attain an international agreement will fall heavily on the United States. But some concrete U.S. proposals will help offset American culpability.

China recently surpassed the United States as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, the primary gas linked to climate change, almost a decade before experts once predicted. The U.S. remains the largest per capita emitter, as China readily notes, and the second largest emitter overall.

Naturally, Obama was hesitant to appear in Denmark without legislation or any concrete proposals. The House has passed its version of the climate change bill. But Senate passage deserves long odds.

To the discredit of the Democratic leadership and Obama, the prolonged health care debate has had significant collateral damage in Congress. And there is no more significant legislative casualty than the climate change bill.

Energy reform was always going to be the more difficult push. But today there is little patience among moderate Democrats to swallow another bitter pill. The economy and jobs will dominate next year's legislative agenda. This White House has leaked to reporters that Obama intends to seize next January's State of the Union address as a pivot point from health care to the economy. Almost any bill next year will be framed as a jobs bill, as Democrats are attempting to do with cap-and-trade.

In the near term, however, this president had to keep his eye on cap-and-trade's impact on the international stage. Obama's absence from Copenhagen would have only further undermined the conference and his effort—which is thus far more symbolism than substance—to reengage the international community.

Obama's nonattendance would have also provided some bad political theater. Obama traveled to Copenhagen earlier this year in a failed eleventh hour bid to help his native Chicago win the Olympics. One can envision the embarrassing comparison had Obama not flown to Copenhagen for, let's say, a more substantial world affair.

On the same day Politico knocks the White House for it's addiction to, and at times questionable use of the word "unprecedented" the Daily Telegraph reports:

[British Defense Secretary Bob] Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.

Oy.

A week ago Barack Obama's grassroots team Organizing for America used the kick-off of Palin's book tour to try and raise some extra dough.

Today, Joe Sestak jumps into the fray to condemn Sarah Palin's recent comment about President Obama not having enough respect for our troops - but mostly as a way of taking a shot at his primary opponent Arlen Specter. Sestak's press release reads, in part:

"This incident is only the latest in a long list of reasons of why Joe Sestak disagrees with Arlen Specter that Sarah Palin would have been the "better choice" to serve a heartbeat away from the presidency, as Specter said on Hardball this past August.

"Instead, Joe Sestak did not vote for Sarah Palin because he believes strongly that she was not the better choice to be Vice President, nor is she correct today in her criticisms of our Commander in Chief. There is no President who does not respect our servicemembers and their, and their families', sacrifices."

Rest assured Democrats across the country will continue to try and find ways to use Sarah Palin to their political advantage.

Heading into an extended Thanskgiving weekend President Barack Obama has little to be thankful for as far as public opinion goes, according to a new poll by USA Today/ Gallup.

Obama's overall job approval is at 50 percent in the poll. That's the good news.

Support for Obama's handling of Afghanistan has "plummeted," with only 35% approving of the way he's handling the war while 55% disapprove. The USA Today article lays out yet more bleak news for the President:

On a series of fronts, Obama is moving against headwinds:

• By more than 2-1, Americans say the United States shouldn't close the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, as Obama has promised.

• By 49%-44%, they oppose passing a health care bill in Congress this year, which he calls critical.

• A majority are against holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York, and nearly six in 10 say the self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind should be tried in a military rather than a civilian court. That's at odds with the decision announced this month by Attorney General Eric Holder.

When it comes to seven specific areas, Obama no longer commands majority support on any. On only two — energy policy and global warming — does he have a net positive rating. On the economy, health care, jobs and Afghanistan, a majority disapprove of how he's doing. There's an almost even divide on his handling of terrorism: 45% approve, 47% disapprove.

Overall, President Obama's job approval has now dipped under the 50% mark in the RCP Average for the first time.

It's irresistible, I suppose, for a Democratic polling outfit to run out into the field to try and gauge support for a third party presidential run by Lou Dobbs.

Thus we have the following utterly meaningless numbers from Democracy Corps:

Likely Voters
Obama (D) 45
Romney (R) 38
Nader (G) 4
Dobbs (AF) 6

Far more important is the 2010 generic ballot question, which finds Democrats leading Republicans by 2 points, 47-45. That's a slight tightening from Dem Corps' last poll which has Democrats up four points.

Overall, Democrats lead Republicans by less than 1/2 point in the RCP Average for the 2010 Generic Congressional ballot.

After a pathetic attempt to gin up controversy by alleging vote fraud by ACORN, Doug Hoffman concedes again in NY-23. Let's hope this one sticks.

US Weekly says Angelina Jolie is no fan of President Obama:

"She hates him," a source close to the U.N. goodwill ambassador, 34, tells the new issue of Us Weekly (on newsstands now).

"She's into education and rehabilitation and thinks Obama is all about welfare and handouts. She thinks Obama is really a socialist in disguise," adds the source. [snip]

"Angie isn't Republican, but she thinks Obama is all smoke and mirrors," the source says.

This is one of those table turning brain teasers. Whenever any Hollywood celebrity would trash Bush, the left would applaud and the right would dismiss them as empty-headed, out of touch cultural leftists.

So will those on the right now jump to applaud Jolie as some sort of astute political observer who's not drinking the Obama Kool-Aid? (Incidentally, her father, Jon Voight, is a vociferous Obama critic). And will she be ostracized by the Hollywood community as a heretic for having the temerity to criticize the president?

The political fallout from Patrick Kennedy's fight with Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin is yet to be gauged by polls, but one can't assume that the Rhode Island Democrat will suffer as a result. People I've talked to detect a rise in sympathy for the late Ted Kennedy's son — including those long troubled by Patrick's tortured history with drugs and mental illness, plus his career-long reliance on the Kennedy name and connections.

So far, most of the many letters that have arrived from all over the country to Kennedy's home-state paper, The Providence Journal, about the Tobin-Kennedy faceoff have denounced the bishop, Journal editorial-page editor Robert Whitcomb told me. But the issue is very volatile and this could quickly go into reverse as letter-writing campaigns proliferate.

The heated exchanges started in September, when the bishop sent public letters to members of Rhode Island's congressional delegation urging them to reject a health-care overhaul if it provides funding for abortion. (The Journal provides a useful timeline, parts of which I relay here. ) Kennedy blasted back, questioning the “pro-life” credentials of church leaders who would oppose universal health coverage.

Early this month, in a letter to the Rhode Island Catholic, Tobin implored Kennedy to repent, and called his position “unacceptable to the church and scandalous to many of our members.” On Friday, Kennedy told The Journal that the bishop had told him not to receive Communion and ordered diocesan priests to deny him the sacrament. Tobin responded that he had advised, not told, Kennedy to refrain from Communion in a 2007 letter and had never instructed priests on the matter.

Many observers wonder whether Tobin, who appeared yesterday on MSNBC's “Hardball,” had opportunistically attacked Kennedy, now that his father is no longer around to protect him.  Ted Kennedy's position on abortion was indistinguishable from his son's, yet the church gave the powerful Massachusetts senator a full Catholic funeral. Ted also received Communion at Cardinal Sean O'Malley's installation as archbishop six years ago.

Nor has the Church publicly rebuked the three other members of Rhode Island's congressional delegation. Democratic Sen. Jack Reed is a pro-choice. Democratic Rep. Jim Langevin, though against abortion, supports embryonic stem-cell research, which the Church opposes. Both are Roman Catholics. Rhode Island's other U.S. senator, Sheldon Whitehouse, is staunchly pro-choice, but he is an Episcopalian, probably a good thing to be in this fracas.

Although Rhode Island is the most Catholic state in the nation, it remains firmly in the pro-choice camp. In 1986, a church-backed state referendum that would have banned all abortions in Rhode Island if Roe v. Wade were overturned lost by a margin of 65 percent to 35 percent. A state poll done four years ago found public opinion on abortion virtually unchanged, with 63 percent of Rhode Islanders identifying themselves as pro-choice. Rhode Island ranks 11^th out of 50 states in support of legal abortion.

www.fromaharrop.com