The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Focus on Obama as Tensions Soar Across the Middle East,” shows that the world still looks to the United States for leadership, even as protesters in the Middle East view the Arab Spring as an event occurring largely without any impetus from us.

Meanwhile, Israel is caught between support for authoritarian governments who have been allies and democratic movements by demonstraters favoring the Palestinians. Even more ominously, the Palestinians themselves are starting to get the idea about the power of peaceful protests with thousands marching to the Israeli border from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon last week. If this movement continues, Israel will be faced with the same conundrum about how to react as the Arab authoritarian governments have been.

Against this backdrop comes President Obama’s speech at the State Department today. With his new-found confidence after the raid against Osama bin Laden, there is a lot of speculation about whether he will say anything to break the logjam in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, or espouse any overall policy toward the Arab world in general.

The situation in the Middle East is complicated by the recent pact between Fatah and Hamas among the Palestinians, with Israel refusing to have anything to do with the latter, branded solely as a terrorist organization. As usual, the labryinth of Middle East diplomacy places a severe test on any President.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Obama Opposing Any Compromise on Bush Tax Cuts,” shows a new type of President, one who is finally emerging as a fighter for his Party’s values.

President Obama’s flat-out opposition to breaks for the wealthy, those earning more than $250,000 per year, and his refusal to take the middle road by extending all cuts for one or two years, signals Congressional Democrats that he will stand on principle and back up his colleagues on the Hill by doing what is right instead of what is expedient.

President Obama also proposed a package of cuts for small businesses, effectively outflanking Republicans, by daring them to oppose legislation they themselves had previously supported. As the President said in a speech yesterday, “If I said the sky was blue, the Republicans would say no.”

The President also proposed $50 billion in infrastructure improvements, money to be injected into the economy immediately to build roads, bridges, high-speed rail lines, etc. And popular tax credits for R&D and new equipment purchases would be provided for small businesses as well.

As is his wont, the President seems to wait until disaster is kicking at the door before going into overdrive and saving the day. We saw it with the controversy over Reverend Wright, the persistent primary challenge by Hillary Clinton, and now, hopefully, with the mid-term elections. Let’s just pray it’s not too late.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Strong Steps or Oversteps?” is a news analysis piece looking at the Obama presidency in terms of its relationship with business. The piece is particularly apt in light of Republican representative, Joe Barton, and his statement yesterday that the $20 billion fund to assist suffering Gulf residents, represented a Presidential shakedown of BP.

Other actions taken by President Obama to save the auto industry, and rein in executive compensation by banks who had been saved from failure by the government, were examined in this light as well. The article concluded by noting the unique rationale for each of these actions but left an ominous tone of a revised interpretation should they continue.

And what would have happened in these cases had President Obama taken no action? Total unmitigated disasters that would have doomed his presidency and left him open for excoriation for dereliction of duty.

These Republicans will stop at nothing to oppose this President. They do not care about helping the people, solving problems or relieving suffering. All they care about is their own recapturing of power. It’s difficult for me to come to any other conclusion. I have tried to take an even-handed, measured analysis of stories, but this conclusion is inevitable. They are trying to manipulate President Obama in such a way that “he’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.” This can not be allowed to continue.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “In Afghan Trip, Obama Presses Karzai on Graft,” describes the President’s surprise visit to Afghanistan yesterday. Shrouded in secrecy for security reasons, the trip included a rally with U.S. troops and a meeting with the President of Aghanistan, Hamid Karzai.

While the discussions at the meeting were not explicitly revealed, they were said to include the corruption that remains rampant in the Afghanistan government. While some progress is being made, there is also some backsliding as Mr. Karzai has now assumed the power of appointing all five members of the election commission that monitors political contests in the country.

There is also some bad geo-political news for the United States as Afghanistan is pursuing other alliances inimical to our interests. These include a recent meeting with the President of Iran and an arrangement to have China invest in the country’s copper reserves.

In my opinion, the political timing of this trip could not have been better. After his recent victory on healthcare, President Obama wants to change the subject to avoid giving the stage to his adversaries and their repeal campaign. He also wants to avoid excessive coverage of constituent meetings for Congressman who are returning to their districts. This trip to Afghanistan changes the subject in a way the Republicans cannot dispute.

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “President Plans a Joint Summit on Health Care.” It describes a bipartisan meeting the President is planning for February 25, a televised event designed to allow Republicans to present their ideas and join Democrats at the bargaining table.

The event is designed to meet Republican demands for their participation in a transparent process televised on C-Span. It was announced by President Obama in an interview during the Super Bowl and builds upon his successful meeting with Republicans at the end of January.

The Republican reaction, as might be expected, was lukewarm, and they called upon President Obama to start the process again from the beginning, throwing away months of negotiations, a demand they know he will refuse to meet. Whether they use this demand to refuse participation in the summit at all remains to be seen.

Whether this meeting will result in any real progress remains to be seen, and many think it is being used as a ploy to force the Republicans to take a stand on specific issues rather than just saying no. It may even be a precursor to a more radical attempt to use reconciliation to patch up the differences between the House and Senate legislation.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama, On Own, to Set Up Panel on Nation’s Debt.” It describes the failure to do so by Congress — the vote was 53 in favor in the Senate when they needed 60 votes — but the new commission will have no legal authority to force Congress to act.

The death of the commission in the Senate shows the hypocrisy of both parties in the attempt to get the budget under control. Democratic liberals were afraid of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security cuts while Republicans were afraid of an attempt to raise taxes. The Democrats were also upset by the exemption of the military from the Commission’s jurisdiction while social programs remained a prominent target.

Well, this new executive commission is a little flabergasting. It seems like a waste of time because Congress will do whatever it wants in any case. Meanwhile, the President is buffeted by two opposing forces: the pressure to create jobs in the short term, involving more spending, and the pressure to balance the budget in the long term, involving less spending. His proposed three-year freeze on 8 percent of the government’s expenditures already seems to have been discounted.

Well, let’s see how the State of the Union goes tonight. I’m still upset by the refusal of the House to pass the Senate’s healthcare bill!

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama to Offer Aid for Families in State of Union.” It describes some issues the President will address in his speech including initiatives designed to help middle-class families, senior citizens and students paying back college loans.

Negotiations are still ongoing regarding the healthcare bill, and it is unsure how the President will treat it. Most of the proposals are small-budget items, primarily because of the loss of the election in Massachusetts and the feeling that the people are angry about the rapidly increasing deficit. In fact, the article directly compares President Obama’s new agenda to the “go small” approach of the Clinton White House during a similar time of trouble.

As a political Obama fan, I can’t help but feel a sense of extreme disappointment and sadness while reading the article. There was so much hope for his Presidency, and the current floundering around represents a failure of what might have been. If it weren’t for the Massachusetts election, we would be finishing up healthcare and going on to the next step to help the American people.

How can the voters be so ignorant and manipulated by the Republicans? One day, they will realize they were duped, but it will be too late. Here’s a special dart aimed at you, Mr. DeMint. May it be on your conscience what you’ve truly done. Yes, you’ ve achieved the Waterloo you wished for, on the backs of the American middle class.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama has Goal to Wrest a Deal in Climate Talks.” It describes President Obama’s impending visit to Copenhagen and the possibility he may be able to achieve a last-minute agreement with almost 200 other countries.

His efforts have been given a major assist by Secretary of State Clinton who has buttressed the U.S. efforts by a promise of $100 billion to assist developing countries with the effects of climate change. This contribution was apparently timed to precede and provide momentum to President Obama’s visit.

Some elements do seem to be falling in place. China, who has objected to verficiation measures as an infringement on national sovereignty, is starting to make some slight concessions. Secretary of State Clinton framed the issue in a more diplomatic word, “transparency,” that may make it easier for some nations to comply.

Of course, the Republicans as usual are trying to blockade efforts. Why don’t they just go home and stay out of it, like they’re doing with healthcare? It’s amazing how so few and so outmoded thinkers can cause so much trouble.

Well, if anyone can pull this off, it will be President Obama. Here’s my best wishes for his ultimate success. He could sure use one.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Aggressive Push in White House in States’ Races.” It describes a hands-on political strategy by President Obama and his strategist, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, in intervening in State political campaigns, most recently their request for New York State Governor, David Paterson, to forego a reelection bid.

The article also notes other White House interventions, such as the Senate race in Pennsylvania where they are supporting Senator Arlen Spector in a primary, and another endorsement in a Democratic primary for Senator of Colorado. The New York State intervention, however, is noteworthy because it involves a Governor’s race and the candidate they are trying to beat is Rudy Guiliani, a potential opponent in 2012.

In my opinion, the intervention was most definitely mishandled. Sure, this sort of thing goes on in politics all the time, but it is rare for it to be displayed in the front pages of The New York Times. The timing, just before a visit by President Obama to New York State, was particularly inauspicious. In fact, if the situation was just left alone to play out by natural causes, Andrew Cuomo would have easily defeated Governor Paterson in a primary and gained strength in the effort. Now, the results of any primary will just look like the result of the stereotypical “smoke-filled room.”

So, yes, the intervention by the White House is not surprising or shocking. The poor execution by its operatives most definitely is.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Poll Finds Brightening Outlook on U.S. Economy.” It describes a sea change in attitudes since President Obama’s administration.

The poll is striking in a number of aspects. First, it shows that Republican support has fallen to the lowest level since the poll started asking the question: 31 percent.

Second, a related finding shows that people trust Obama, two-to-one, to keep the country safe, despite scare tactics by Dick Cheney and other nefarious types.

Finally, it shows a widespread attitude, again two-to-one, that Democrats care more about people like me than Republicans do.

What a tremendous reinforcement this must be for President Obama. Despite one of the most crushing series of crises since FDR, he has risen to the challenge and through constant active involvement (compared to the laissez-faire attitude of Republicans), he has almost single-handedly changed the mood of the nation.

Perhaps just as striking as the level of support for President Obama is the level of condemnation for Congressional Republicans. The Republican Party had better change its strategy as the “no” party if it wants to avoid extinction.

Maybe, however, the Republican Party is unable to change, to move beyond failed policies of the past and embrace a more caring, less ideological, attitude. Only time will tell.