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

Question: why is it that on every issue save one, the Obama administration has had its foot on the gas, pressing ahead with all manner of speed and urgency?

Eight hundred billion worth of tax payer money had to be rammed through Congress to avoid an economic apocalypse, we were told. No delay could be tolerated in revamping one sixth of the American economy with health care reform. It needed to be done by August, the President initially said, before letting his self imposed deadline slip to the end of the year.

But on Afghanistan, the administration has said just the opposite: things must be taken slow; the problem must be studied from every angle; and all possible deliberations must be made before coming to any conclusion.

Why hasn't the same logic applied to the administration's approach to health care, for example?

When pressed as to why the decision making process has been so drawn out, the White House has said that sending troops into harm's way is a momentous, life-or-death decision - which it is - and that the President wants to make sure all relevant information has been considered.

But how does that reasoning square with the fact that Obama already sent troops into harms way back in March when he deployed an additional 21,000 soldiers to Afghanistan? That was a life-or-death decision as well, no? Was he not deliberative enough the first time around?

And let's not forget the President's responsibility to the 68,000 troops already stationed in Afghanistan. The life-or-death argument cuts both ways. Their commander submitted a plan to President Obama in August asking for reinforcements. Obama's decision to draw the out the process for months has also had life-or-death consequences for those U.S. soldiers.

Foreign affairs reporting greats, like James Fallows and Howard French, think the White House press core got Obama's Asia trip wrong. And indeed, it does seem the White House media proved yet again too stuck in the moment to see the greater meaning. A key factor, simply ignorance of Asian issues. But in defense of the White House political reporters, foreign affairs reporters often forget their ignorance and misread domestic US politics. Still, great points from French and Fallows.

A gem from Howard French:

A great irony of this, and I'm making generalizations about the coverage, but one great irony is that the fact the Chinese had to pack an audience in Shanghai with Communist party youth and people who were trained to ask very anodyne questions or to ask very obvious political questions. You can look at this on the one hand as a sign of American lack of influence with China, as many people were quick to do, or you can look at it on the other hand as a sign of, ‘Hey we're talking about China like the next great thing and they're so insecure they can't even allow a Q and A with the president?' That to me is a more interesting interpretation.

One reason the Q and A was misread, French smartly argues:

You can't be an expert on every question, and so you're part of the Washington press corps and if you're really good and really diligent, you're going to be expert maybe in a few things and one of those things might not be China.

A gem from Fallows:

This morning on the Chris Matthews show I mentioned earlier, a White House reporter for the Washington Post said that the Shanghai town meeting was another item on the disappointment/failure docket for America. Her argument was essentially: the Chinese outsmarted the Obama team and kept their countrymen from seeing it. I don't remember whether she said it was not broadcast at all or only on one "local" network; as mentioned yesterday, that one network reaches 100 million households.

So to a member of the traveling press pool, viewing the session mainly as a campaign stop whose advance work went either well or poorly, this looked like a bust. Here is how it looked to a foreigner who has just written me -- a person who has lived in China for two decades, still does business there, and speaks Mandarin:

“… The comment from President Obama that I think will have the most impact inside the firewall was not the one about US principles that you quoted in your followups. It was this one:

'Now, I should tell you, I should be honest, as President of the United States, there are times where I wish information didn't flow so freely because then I wouldn't have to listen to people criticizing me all the time. I think people naturally are -- when they're in positions of power sometimes thinks, oh, how could that person say that about me, or that's irresponsible, or -- but the truth is that because in the United States information is free, and I have a lot of critics in the United States who can say all kinds of things about me, I actually think that that makes our democracy stronger and it makes me a better leader because it forces me to hear opinions that I don't want to hear. It forces me to examine what I'm doing on a day-to-day basis to see, am I really doing the very best that I could be doing for the people of the United States.'"