Barack obama

Have you seen Barack Obama's appearance on the satirical interview show Between Two Ferns? What did you think? According to some pundits, it is amazingly funny. Obama is the 'best Between Two Ferns guest ever', says Oliver Franklin at GQ. I must be missing something, because I found it painful and somewhat depressing. There a couple of quite good moments, granted - such as when Obama is busy plugging Affordable Healthcare and the host, Zach Galifianakis, says 'Is this what they mean by drones?' - but the rest is just a bit crap. It is weirdly off, too. At times Obama, trying to be dead pan, just seems to miss the point, and in some moments it looks as if he is having a sense of humour failure. I do get that the key to Two Ferns is that it is awkward.

When Barack Obama warned Vladimir Putin that “there will be costs” for violating Ukrainian sovereignty, I doubt the Kremlin worried too much. The Syria crisis taught is all about Obama and his ‘red lines’. This is a president who recoils at the idea  of any new entanglement, whose attention is on the Pacific rather than Eurasia and is less worried than any of his recent predecessors about Russian aggression. And that’s what makes this situation so dangerous: Putin wants to know where the new red lines lie, and may keep pushing until he finds out. His asking Russia’s parliament for the authority to use troops is, I suspect, is a ploy to see how Washington reacts.

‘Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can repair this world. Yes, we can!’ With these exuberant assurances, the young candidate, buoyed by an unexpectedly strong showing in the Iowa caucuses, vowed to carry on his crusade. One year later, in January 2009, the candidate became president and set out to make good on his promises. That Barack Obama possessed the ability to heal the nation and repair the world seemed in many quarters all but self-evident. As he donned the mantle of the ‘most powerful man in the world’, the expectations that had lifted him into the Oval Office qualified as nothing short of messianic. A dark and depressing interval of American history, symbolised by place names such as Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, was ending.

In the past few days, my colleagues on the Guardian have been publishing stories of national and international significance – indeed, if truth be told, they have been publishing them for most of the autumn. The international scoop was that America’s National Security Agency tapped Angela Merkel’s mobile phone (along with the phones of many more world leaders). As the shock of the revelation has sunk in, most observers have grasped that the shrug-of-the-shoulder explanation that 'spies spy', doesn’t really work in this instance. Spies in democratic countries are meant to be under democratic control. Elected politicians have few problems authorising surveillance on their country’s enemies.

Phew! America has stopped banging its head against the debt ceiling. For now. The world's pre-eminent power can carry on ruining itself for a while longer -- until the next boring-but-incredibly-important fiscal crisis hits. (The dreaded sequester is next up, oh joy). There'll be plenty more soul-searching essays about the eclipse of American power. But it's the poor Republicans who face a more urgent existential crisis. Their party's strategy for handling the issue has been confused and inept.  At every turn, the Democrats have managed (somehow) to present themselves as reasonable, while the Republicans have seemed at best cynical and divided, at worst leaderless and delusional. They have emerged from the tortured negotiations with precisely nothing. Sen.

Does Britain have an obesity problem? On this week's View from 22 podcast, Fraser Nelson discuses the bizarre steps taken by the NHS to deal with our growing weight problem. Do we have such a thing as a 'fat gland'? Why is Britain's changing size so rapidly? And according to Fraser, Nottingham is the 'fattest' part of our country and deep fried Mars bars really are a delicacy. James Forsyth and Isabel Hardman also discuss this week's Westminster reshuffles, what they mean (if anything) for the man for the street and who's up and who's down in the the cabinet and shadow cabinet. What do the changes says about the desires of politicians to remain in power as long as possible?

Barack Obama may not be a great president, but he is a wizard at the blame game. He has fought 'fiscal brinkmanship' battles throughout his presidency, and he tends to come out on top. America's federal government is today closing down, and most pundits refuse to say it's in any way the president's fault. Instead, they accuse his opponents of wrecking the political system. If you read most newspapers, or watch the BBC, you would think that wicked Republicans — 'in hock' to their extremist tea party division —  are shutting down the federal government out of little more than a fit of pique. The Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Patty Murray all said the Grand Old Party had a 'gun to our head'.

There's little need for people opposed to launching any kind of attack on Syria to expend much energy doing so when those tasked with making the case for reminding Bashar al-Assad that using chemical weapons is not something the international community can or will ignore are making such a bloody hash of the job. Here, for instance, is John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, reminding us all that the Americans really don't want to be taking action at all. They've been pushed into doing so, the result of both the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons (why assume Assad's people are clever enough not to use them?) and by President Barack Obama's rhetoric about red lines and so on. But this is not where this American president would really like to be.

There are a number of obvious differences between last week's vote in Parliament and the forthcoming Congressional vote on Syria. But today when he gave his closing statement at the end of the G20 summit, Barack Obama highlighted another very interesting divergence in the way he is approaching the vote. Asked whether he understood the concerns of members of Congress who will have to vote against the will of their constituents, Obama replied: 'Now with respect to Congress and how they should respond to constituency concerns, I do consider part of my job to help make the case and to explain to the American people exactly why I think this is the right thing to do.