Bloomberg's "Political Capital with Al Hunt": Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Bloomberg's Hans Nichols, Mike Tackett, Heidi Przybyla and former Minnesota Rep. Vin Weber.

CBS' "Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer": Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and a round table with Kevin Merida and Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post.

CNN's "GPS with Fareed Zakaria": Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, at left.

CNN's "State of the Union with John King": Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.),  Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Penn.) and CNN's Mary Matalin.

"Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace": Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and a round table with Fox News' contributors Laura Ingraham, NPR's Mara Liasson and Juan Williams and the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol.

NBC's "Meet the Press with David Gregory": Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and a round table with NBC's Andrea Mitchell, Democratic strategist Bob Shrum and Politico's Roger Simon.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Why wait until Sunday for a politics fix? Click here for Twitter alerts on each new Ticket item. Or follow us    @latimestot

Photo: Charles Dharapak / Associated Press  

This week's weekly remarks open with President Obama in Africa opening on foreign affairs. But by the second paragraph out of 20, he gets to what he really wants -- needs -- to talk about: domestic business in general and the economy specifically.

His polls numbers have slipped, especially among seniors and even independents. People still like him a lot (though they now like his wife better).

But they're increasingly worried about some of his programs and these numbers with more digits than civilian calculators can display -- all the spending and unemployment still growing, reform of healthcare that some 70% of Americans are satisfied with now.

You can tell what White House polling has told them by the subjects ticked off in Obama's remarks: We inherited this mess, the economic stimulus bill so urgently pushed in February wasn't really designed to fix the economy, and the switching of terms about jobs. It used to be about creating and/or preserving jobs. Now, preserving jobs comes first, which, like murders not committed, is difficult to prove or disprove without numbers. Which is the point.

Be patient, Obama urges, more spending will kick in this summer. I promise healthcare reforms won't add to the deficit. We're cutting waste. We need clean energy. Etc.

The Republican remarks, provided this week by Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, are in many ways the mirror image.

They see their own poll numbers. It's been six months; the economy belongs to Obama now. Where are the promised jobs? Unemployment at 9.5% is already higher than the 8.5% the administration promised as max. The stimulus bill was larded with pork. We can't afford all this spending and borrowing. The federal government this year alone has borrowed $10Gs for economic stimulus from every American family. Do you feel better knowing that?

This is an argument we will all hear in varying forms from now until next year's midterm elections, when the White House party historically takes a hit in Congress.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Click here for Twitter alerts on each new Ticket item. Or follow us   @latimestot

This week, we’ve made important progress toward the goal of bringing about change abroad and change at home. During my visit to Russia, we began the process of resetting relations so that we can address key national priorities like the threat of nuclear weapons and extremism. At the G-8 summit, leaders from nearly 30 nations met to discuss how we will collectively confront the urgent challenges of our time, from managing the global recession to fighting global warming to addressing global hunger and poverty. And in Ghana [see arrival photo below], I laid out my agenda for supporting democracy and development in Africa and around the world.

But even as we make progress on these challenges abroad, my thoughts are on the state of our economy at home. And that’s what I want to talk to you about today. 

We came into office facing the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. At the time, we were losing, on average, 700,000 jobs a month. And many feared that our financial system was on the verge of collapse. 

As a result of the swift and aggressive action we took in the first few months of this year, we’ve been able to pull our financial system and our economy back from the brink. We took steps to restart . . .

. . . lending to families and businesses, stabilize our major financial institutions and help homeowners stay in their homes and pay their mortgages. We also passed the largest and most sweeping economic recovery plan in our nation’s history.

The Recovery Act wasn’t designed to restore the economy to full health on its own, but to provide the boost necessary to stop the free fall. It was designed to spur demand and get people spending again and cushion those who had borne the brunt of the crisis. And it was designed to save jobs and create new ones. 

In a little over 100 days, this Recovery Act has worked as intended. It has already extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have lost their jobs in this recession. It has delivered $43 billion in tax relief to American working families and businesses. Without the help the Recovery Act has provided to struggling states, it's estimated that state deficits would be nearly twice as large as they are now, resulting in tens of thousands of additional layoffs -- layoffs that would affect police officers, teachers and firefighters. 

The Recovery Act has allowed small businesses and clean energy companies to hire new workers or scrap their plans for eliminating current jobs. And it’s led to new jobs building roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects, thousands of which are only beginning now. In the months to come, thousands more projects will begin, leading to additional jobs.  

Now, I realize that when we passed this Recovery Act, there were those who felt that doing nothing was somehow an answer. Today, some of those same critics are already judging the effort a failure although they have yet to offer a plausible alternative. Others believed that the recovery plan should have been even larger, and are already calling for a second recovery plan. 

But, as I made clear at the time it was passed, the Recovery Act was not designed to work in four months -- it was designed to work over two years. We also knew that it would take some time for the money to get out the door, because we are committed to spending it in a way that is effective and transparent. Crucially, this is a plan that will also accelerate greatly throughout the summer and the fall. We must let it work the way it’s supposed to, with the understanding that in any recession, unemployment tends to recover more slowly than other measures of economic activity. 

I am confident that the United States of America will weather this economic storm. But once we clear away the wreckage, the real question is what we will build in its place. Even as we rescue this economy from a full-blown crisis, I have insisted that we must rebuild it better than before.

Without serious reforms, we are destined to either see more crises, or suffer stagnant growth rates for the foreseeable future, or a combination of the two. That’s a future I absolutely reject. And that’s why we’re laying a new foundation that’s not only strong enough to withstand the challenges of the 21st century, but one that will allow us to thrive and compete in a global economy. That means investing in the jobs of the future, training our workers to compete for those jobs, and controlling the healthcare costs that are driving us into debt.  

Through the clean energy investments we’ve made in the Recovery Act, we’re already seeing start-ups and small businesses make plans to create thousands of new jobs. In California, 3,000 people will be employed to build a new solar plant. In Michigan, investment in wind turbines and wind technology is expected to create over 2,600 jobs. And a few weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed historic legislation that would finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy, leading to whole new industries and jobs that can’t be outsourced.

To give our workers the skills and education they need to compete for the high-tech, high-wage jobs of the future, we’re working on reforms that will close achievement gaps, ensure that our schools meet high standards, reward our teachers for performance and give them new pathways to advancement.

Finally, we have made important progress in the last few weeks on healthcare reform that will finally control the costs that are driving our families, our businesses and our government into debt. Both the Senate and the House have now produced legislation that will bring down costs, provide better care for patients, and curb the worst practices of insurance companies, so that they can no longer deny Americans coverage based on a preexisting medical condition. 

It’s a plan that would also allow Americans to keep their health insurance if they lose their job or if they change their job.  And it would set up a health insurance exchange: a marketplace that will allow families and small businesses to access one-stop shopping for quality, affordable coverage, and help them compare prices and choose the plan that best suits their needs. One such choice would be a public option that would make healthcare more affordable through competition that keeps the insurance companies honest.

One other point. Part of what makes our current economic situation so challenging is that we already had massive deficits as the recession gathered force. And although the Recovery Act represents just a small fraction of our long-term debt, people have legitimate questions as to whether we can afford reform without making our deficits much worse.

So let me be clear; I have been firm in insisting that both healthcare reform and clean energy legislation cannot add to our deficit. And I intend to continue the work of reducing waste, eliminating programs that don’t work, and reforming our entitlement programs to ensure that our long-term deficits are brought under control.

I said when I took office that it would take many months to move our economy from recession to recovery and ultimately to prosperity. We are not there yet, and I continue to believe that even one American out of work is one too many. But we are moving in the right direction. We are cleaning up the wreckage of this storm. And we are laying a firmer, stronger foundation so that we may better weather whatever future storms may come. This year has been and will continue to be a year of rescuing our economy from disaster.

But just as important will be the work of rebuilding a long-term engine for economic growth. It won’t be easy, and there will continue to be those who argue that we have to put off hard decisions that we have already deferred for far too long. But earlier generations of Americans didn’t build this great country by fearing the future and shrinking our dreams.

This generation -- our generation -- has to show that same courage and determination. I believe we will. Thanks for listening.   ###

Hello. I’m House Republican Whip Eric Cantor and I have the great privilege of representing the hardworking people of Virginia’s 7th District. 

American families and small businesses today are struggling.

Republicans have put forth thoughtful, serious and comprehensive plans of action that put jobs first. We offered an economic recovery plan that would have revitalized struggling small businesses and helped middle-class families by putting Americans back to work. 

Yet, the president, in tandem with Democrats in Congress, have pushed through a $787-billion bill full of pork barrel spending, government waste and massive borrowing cleverly called ‘stimulus.’

There is no doubt that our nation faces many challenges, but the plain truth is that President Obama’s economic decisions have not produced jobs, have not produced prosperity and have not worked.

President Obama has already asked you to borrow trillions, and so far nearly 3 million jobs have been lost this year alone. 

Remember the promises? They promised you if you paid for their stimulus, jobs would be created immediately. In fact, they said that unemployment would stay under 8%.

Yet just months later, they are telling us to brace for unemployment to climb over 10%. They promised jobs created. Now, they scramble to find a way to play games with government numbers by claiming jobs saved.

Simply put, this is now President Obama’s economy and the American people are beginning to question whether his policies are working. 

But that doesn’t mean we are out of options. Together, we can bring about a strong and real recovery. We can create an environment that empowers small businesses and American workers to thrive. We must focus on job creation and restoring the financial and retirement security lost by millions. 

And for the sake of our children and our long-term fiscal viability, Washington must stop spending money that it doesn’t have. 

That’s why every day, my Republican colleagues are fighting to enact policies that will stabilize our economy, create jobs and ignite prosperity. You and your family deserve no less. 

Since January, we have offered alternatives to the out-of-control, big government, Democrat agenda that unfortunately became law and has completely failed to create jobs. Our plan is simple and smart -- and its strength is that it doesn’t invest in Washington, it invests in the American people.

We believe Washington should stop its war on the middle class and reduce tax rates so every hardworking, taxpaying family in America will see an immediate increase in their income. A prosperous middle class is critical for our entire nation’s well-being.

We believe Washington must stop targeting America’s small businesses and instead should empower them by allowing employers to take a tax deduction to free up funds to retain and hire new employees.

Our history proves that it is the small businessmen and women who will reignite our economy by putting people back to work. Washington should get out of the way and encourage small-business employers to start or grow a business.

Lastly, we believe Washington must be responsible for every taxpayer dollar that it spends. Washington must live within its means. We will not support tax hikes to pay for even more so-called stimulus spending.

The overwhelming majority of Americans are working hard and are playing by the rules. They are providing for their families and doing their part to return America to the pinnacle of prosperity.

Their reward? Trillions more in debt. 

For the "stimulus" alone, Washington borrowed nearly $10,000 from every American household. Let me ask you: Do you feel $10,000 richer today?  Do you feel $10,000 better off? If you don’t, please know most people agree.

That is why we continue our fight because during these tough economic times, it often seems that Washington is offering you few choices except for spend and borrow. I’m here today to let you know there are alternatives: common-sense tax relief, smart and necessary reductions in spending, and intelligent policies that do not bankrupt our nation.

That is why I’m asking you to join our fight for accountability and common sense. We can do better and we will do better, but first we have to come together to change what is going on. The time is critical; the choice is yours. I’m Eric Cantor, and on behalf of my Republican colleagues, join with us to get Washington working for you once again. Thank you for listening.    ###

Photo credits: Ron Edmonds / Associated Press; Saul Loeb / AFP/Getty Images; office of Rep. Cantor.

Kathleen Sebelius -- the Obama administration's secretary of Health and Human Services nominee who did not have big back-tax problems -- announced this afternoon that she's sending $30,516,050 to California immediately to fight flu.

That's nothing to sneeze at. In fact, it's nearly 10% of all the flu money that HHS is distributing nationwide to those other puny states. See, there is a reason for having Nancy Pelosi. And Oprah, though she's only a California part-timer. Payback for those 55 juicy electoral votes last Nov. 4? And keep those Golden Staters healthy and alive.

(Or as loyal Ticket reader Kenneth tweets: "That leaves only 90% for the other 56 states.")

We weren't going to bother writing about such piddling chump change as millions, given the trillions we've moved up to discussing since January.

But that extra 50 bucks at the end pushed it over the top and clearly showed the transparent commitment to public health of both the Democratic president and Sebelius (shown above demonstrating how to spread a flu virus as quickly as possible).

In an additional multimedia sign of Obama's commitment to public health, Sebelius notes she's launched a contest for ordinary germy citizens to make their own anti-flu public service videos. After all these public health grants, however, there's only $2,500 left for a prize; talk about chump change. (And no prize for pro-flu videos.)

We were just enjoying the middle of summer when Sebelius warns, "With flu season around the corner, we must remain vigilant and do all we can to prepare our nation and protect public health. These grants will give states valuable resources to step up their flu-preparedness efforts.”

All right, it is chump change for the most populous state, given California's gabillions of dollars in red budget ink. But you'd think 30 mil would pretty much guarantee good health around California for everyone as long as we seal the border with Oregon. And maybe Arizona.

Perhaps some other less-important states would be willing to forfeit some or all of their federal flu-fighting funds so that Californians could avoid sneezing and continue to enjoy the sunshine that makes its way through the smog.

There's way too many numbers in the announcement to really bother with. Suffice to say, there are grants for public health -- L.A. alone is getting $8,510,041.

But, disturbingly, there are also immense grants for hospital preparedness. This would seem to indicate that the feds are not really counting on total prevention of the various flus that, according to media reports only a couple of months ago, threatened the human race with extinction.

Never mind washing your hands frequently. The only answer is obviously more money.

-- Andrew Malcolm

No money necessary to click here for Twitter alerts on each new Ticket item. Or follow us @latimestot

Photo: Associated Press

(UPDATE: Oops. Now another peekaboo pic has shown up. Different woman. Same angle. Same two guys. Over here.)

OK, let's help the poor guy out here. It's a bipartisan gender solidarity thing.

Yes, yes, he's president of the United States of America. The most powerful male in the free world, perhaps le monde entier. Pretty wife. Great abs. Loving father. And a real good talker.

He better be 'cause, as they fly down to Africa right now, Mrs. Obama with the buff bare arms may be asking her hubby one or two questions about this photo that's been flying all over the world ahead of them for a day now. Just as Desi Arnaz would ask his wife in the old "Lucy" show.

On the surface it might possibly appear to some jealous people that the 47-year-old ex-senator from Illinois is eyeing the working backside of Mayara Rodriguez Tavares, a 17-year-old youth delegate from Buenos Aires, no, wait, Brazil at the G-8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy. (And President Nicolas Sarkozy is checking it out too. But he's French.)

Such a suspicion about the nation's male chief executive is absolutely ridiculous, of course, and relies on the tired, old -- and patently erroneous -- sexist cliche about men having a roving eye for the opposite sex, even when they may already be in the company of a member of same said opposite gender.

There have, over the eons, been billions of misunderstandings like this between women and their men when the female followed the man's eyes and perceived them to be glued on some portion of another female's anatomy, back or front. It even happened in cave days when folks wore skimpy animal pelts. That's an Internet fact.

Those patently mistaken female impressions of visual infidelity have led to some verbal outbursts, punched arms, swung purses and long silences in the car followed by a night on the living room couch.

If the offended women would only wait one sec, they could learn the real honest-to-God object of their male's admiration. Most often, the male doesn't even know what other woman his lady is talking about. He was simply admiring a really attractive red sports car that was passing in the same spot but is now unfortunately out of sight.

The car one won't work this time. But there are other obfuscating explanations. Maybe the president had a speck in his eye -- it can happen to presidents anytime even with the Secret Service around -- and was looking down to try and get it out. Could be.

Also, as Ticket reader Tom points out, she does have great shoes.

The most innocent excuse or explanation is that the president was in the process of turning his head to thoughtfully take the hand of his life partner and help her safely down the last large step there so she wouldn't trip and embarrass herself with all the cameras around. What a guy! Chivalry lives!

And those European cameramen -- you know them -- cleverly snapped the photo to make it appear like he was looking at the long curly, brown hair and the female derriere in shiny red material that he hadn't even actually noticed was there. In fact, was there a woman there?

It's all perfectly innocent. So help him out, guys -- or gals. What other explanation can we helpfully offer the first man?

-- Andrew Malcolm

Photos of other male presidential encounters with derrieres below.

Click here for Twitter alerts on each new Ticket item. Or follow us  @latimestot

Here, last summer at the Beijing Olympics President Bush passes up an offer by Olympic volleyballer Misty May-Treanor to slap her butt and wisely chooses instead to brush her back, as chronicled for history here.
In this photo earlier this year President Sarkozy of France and his wife, Carla Bruni, greet the Obamas in France, as chronicled here on The Ticket.

Photo credits: Photo: Maurizio Bambatti / EPA (top); Gerald Herbert / Associated Press (Bush); Pool (Sarkozy and wife).

Public opinion polls are showing a dip in the president's approval. Critics in Congress are piling on his healthcare plan. And lots of Americans are questioning why the mega-billion stimulus plan has not sparked a new era of job creation.

So the White House must have been less than thrilled at the timing of the Group of 8 meetings in Rome this week. Just at a time when he might have been needed politically on the home front, President Obama found himself in meetings with Russian officials in gilded halls in the Kremlin -- where those officials made sure the streets were empty of the usual Obamamania -- talking about climate control to a few European nations but without China, a critical player on the issue, and getting a private audience with Pope Benedict XVI in the august halls of the Vatican.

Even Obama, at a press conference from Rome, wondered about the wisdom of so many G-whatever meetings in so many forums to so little effect.

The one thing I will be looking forward to is fewer summit meetings, because, as you said, I've only been in office six months now and there have been a lot of these.  And I think that there's a possibility of streamlining them and making them more effective.  The United States obviously is a absolutely committed partner to concerted international action, but we need to, I think, make sure that they're as productive as possible.

The president also had a lot to say about healthcare, Iranian nuclear weapons and food security. You can read the full transcript below.

Then it was off with First Lady Michelle Obama and their daughters, Malia and Sasha, to meet with the Pope, followed by a trip to Ghana, a country Obama praised as "a functioning democracy [with] a president who's serious about reducing corruption, and ... significant economic growth."

-- Johanna Neuman

The Ticket goes inside politics several times a day. Click here for Twitter alerts of each new item. Or follow us @latimestot

Photo: Activists perform in masks of President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Rome this week where the G-8 failed to get developing nations on board for climate control. Credit: Reuters

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________
 For Immediate Release                               July 10, 2009

PRESS CONFERENCE
BY THE PRESIDENT

U.S. Press Filing Center
L'Aquila, Italy

2:18 P.M. CEST

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Please, everybody have a seat.  I apologize for being a little bit late.  Good afternoon.  We have just concluded the final session of what has been a highly productive summit here in L'Aquila.  And before I discuss what we've achieved these past three days, I'd like to take a moment to express my thanks to Prime Minister Berlusconi, his staff, the people of Italy for their extraordinary hospitality and hard work in setting up this summit.  And particularly I want to thank the people of L'Aquila for welcoming us to your home at this difficult time.  We've seen how you've come together and taken care of each other, and we've been moved by your courage and your resilience and your kindness.

     I'm confident that L'Aquila will be rebuilt, its splendor will be restored, and its people will serve as an example for all of us in how people can rise up from tragedy and begin anew.  And we will keep this place and its people in our prayers and our thoughts in the months and years ahead.

     We've come to L'Aquila for a very simple reason:  because the challenges of our time threaten the peace and prosperity of every single nation, and no one nation can meet these challenges alone.  The threat of climate change can't be contained by borders on a map, and the theft of loose nuclear materials could lead to the extermination of any city on Earth.  Reckless actions by a few have fueled a recession that spans the globe, and rising food prices means that 100 million of our fellow citizens are expected to fall into desperate poverty.

     So right now, at this defining moment, we face a choice.  We can either shape our future or let events shape it for us.  We can let the stale debates and old disagreements of the past divide us, or we can recognize our shared interests and shared aspirations and work together to create a safer and cleaner and more prosperous world for future generations.

     I believe it's clear from our progress these past few days that path that we must choose.

     This gathering has included not just leaders of the G8, but leaders from more than 25 nations, as well as representatives from major international organizations such as the U.N., IMF, WTO, and others.  And after weeks of preparation and three days of candid and spirited discussions, we've agreed to take significant measures to address some of the most pressing threats facing our environment, our global economy, and our international security.

     Let me outline what I believe have been the most significant items that emerged from L'Aquila.  First, there was widespread consensus that we must all continue our work to restore economic growth and reform our national and international financial regulatory systems.  I'm pleased that the United States has taken the lead on this reform at home, with a sweeping overhaul of our regulatory system -- a transformation on a scale that we have not seen since the aftermath of the Great Depression.

     But while our markets are improving, and we appear to have averted global collapse, we know that too many people are still struggling.  So we agree that full recovery is still a ways off; that it would be premature to begin winding down our stimulus plans; and that we must sustain our support for those plans to lay the foundation for a strong and lasting recovery.  We also agreed that it's equally important that we return to fiscal sustainability in the midterm after the recovery is completed.

     Second, we agreed to historic measures that will help stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and move us closer to the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons.  In Prague, I laid out a comprehensive strategy to advance global security by pursuing that goal.  In Moscow, President Medvedev and I agreed to substantially reduce our warheads and delivery systems in a treaty that will be completed later this year.

     And this week, the leaders of the G8 nations embraced the strategy I outlined in Prague, which includes measures to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty; to encourage nations to meet their arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation commitments; and to secure nuclear weapons and vulnerable nuclear materials so they don't fall into the hands of terrorists.

     I also invited leaders from the broader group of nations here to attend a Global Nuclear Summit that I will host in Washington in March of next year, where we will discuss steps we can take to secure loose nuclear materials; combat smuggling; and deter, detect, and disrupt attempts at nuclear terrorism.

     Now, we face a real-time challenge on nuclear proliferation in Iran.  And at this summit, the G8 nations came together to issue a strong statement calling on Iran to fulfill its responsibilities to the international community without further delay.  We remain seriously concerned about the appalling events surrounding the presidential election.  And we're deeply troubled by the proliferation risks Iran's nuclear program poses to the world.

     We've offered Iran a path towards assuming its rightful place in the world.  But with that right comes responsibilities.  We hope Iran will make the choice to fulfill them, and we will take stock of Iran's progress when we see each other this September at the G20 meeting.

     Third, we took groundbreaking steps forward to address the threat of climate change in our time.  The G8 nations agreed that by 2050, we'll reduce our emissions by 80 percent and that we'll work with all nations to cut global emissions in half.  And 17 of the world's leading economies -- both developed and developing nations alike -- made unprecedented commitments to reduce their emissions and made significant progress on finance, adaptation, and technology issues.

     In the United States, we've already passed legislation in the House of Representatives that puts us on track to meeting this 80 percent goal.  And we made historic clean energy investments in our stimulus, as well as setting aside -- setting new fuel-efficiency standards to increase mileage and decrease pollution.  Because we believe that the nation that can build a 21st century clean energy economy is the nation that will lead the 21st century global economy.

     We did not reach agreement on every issue and we still have much work ahead on climate change, but these achievements are highly meaningful and they'll generate significant momentum as we head into the talks at Copenhagen and beyond.

     Finally, we have committed to investing $20 billion in food security -- agricultural development programs to help fight world hunger.  This is in addition to the emergency humanitarian aid that we provide.  And I should just note that going into the meeting we had agreed to $15 billion; we exceeded that mark and obtained an additional $5 billion of hard commitments.  We do not view this assistance as an end in itself.  We believe that the purpose of aid must be to create the conditions where it's no longer needed -- to help people become self-sufficient, provide for their families, and lift their standards of living.  And that's why I proposed a new approach to this issue -- one endorsed by all the leaders here -- a coordinated effort to support comprehensive plans created by the countries themselves, with help from multilateral institutions like the World Bank when appropriate, along with significant and sustained financial commitments from our nations.

     I also want to speak briefly about additional one-on-one meetings I had with leaders here outside of the G8 context.  These meetings were tremendously valuable and productive.  We spoke about how we can forge a strong, coordinated, and effective response to nuclear proliferation threats from Iran and North Korea.  We also discussed challenges we faced in managing our economies, steps we can take together in combating climate change, and other important matters.  And I believe we laid a solid foundation on these issues.

     Ultimately, this summit and the work we've done here reflects a recognition that the defining problems of our time will not be solved without collective action.  No one corner of the globe can wall itself off from the challenges of the 21st century or the needs and aspirations of fellow nations.  The only way forward is through shared and persistent effort to combat threats to our peace, our prosperity and our common humanity wherever they may exist.

     None of this will be easy.  As we worked this week to find common ground, we have not solved all our problems.  And we've not agreed on every point.  But we've shown that it is possible to move forward and make real and unprecedented progress together.  And I'm confident we'll continue to do so in the months and years ahead.

     So with that, let me take a few questions.  I've got a list that I'm working off of, and I'm going to start with Peter Baker.

     Peter.

     Q    (Inaudible.)

     THE PRESIDENT:  I'm sorry, your mic didn't -- it's not working.

     Q    Hello?  Yes, that's better.  Thank you, sir.

     Mr. President, we were told that you made your appeal for the food security money during the meetings personal by citing your family experience in Kenya, your cousin and so forth.  I wonder if you could relate to us a little bit of what you said then, and talk about what -- your family experience, how that influences your policies and approach.

     THE PRESIDENT:  What you heard is true, and I started with this fairly telling point that when my father traveled to the United States from Kenya to study, at that time the per capita income and Gross Domestic Product of Kenya was higher than South Korea's.  Today obviously South Korea is a highly developed and relatively wealthy country, and Kenya is still struggling with deep poverty in much of the country.  And the question I asked in the meeting was, why is that?  There had been some talk about the legacies of colonialism and other policies by wealthier nations, and without in any way diminishing that history, the point I made was that the South Korean government, working with the private sector and civil society, was able to create a set of institutions that provided transparency and accountability and efficiency that allowed for extraordinary economic progress, and that there was no reason why African countries could not do the same.  And yet, in many African countries, if you want to start a business or get a job you still have to pay a bribe; that there remains too much -- there remains a lack of transparency.

     And the point that I was trying to underscore is, is that as we think about this issue of food security, which is of tremendous importance -- I mean, we've got 100 million people who dropped into further dire poverty as a consequence of this recession; we estimate that a billion people are hungry around the globe.  And so wealthier nations have a moral obligation as well as a national security interest in providing assistance.  And we've got to meet those responsibilities.

     The flip side is, is that countries in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere in the world that are suffering from extreme poverty have an obligation to use the assistance that's available in a way that is transparent, accountable, and that builds on rule of law and other institutional reforms that will allow long-term improvement.

     There is no reason why Africa cannot be self-sufficient when it comes to food.  It has sufficient arable land.  What's lacking is the right seeds, the right irrigation, but also the kinds of institutional mechanisms that ensure that a farmer is going to be able to grow crops, get them to market, get a fair price.  And so all these things have to be part of a comprehensive plan, and that's what I was trying to underscore during the meeting today.

     Q    And your own family, sir?

     THE PRESIDENT:  What's that?

     Q    Your own family?

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the point I was making is -- my father traveled to the United States a mere 50 years ago and yet now I have family members who live in villages -- they themselves are not going hungry, but live in villages where hunger is real.  And so this is something that I understand in very personal terms, and if you talk to people on the ground in Africa, certainly in Kenya, they will say that part of the issue here is the institutions aren't working for ordinary people.  And so governance is a vital concern that has to be addressed.

     Now keep in mind -- I want to be very careful -- Africa is a continent, not a country, and so you can't extrapolate from the experience of one country.  And there are a lot of good things happening.  Part of the reason that we're traveling to Ghana is because you've got there a functioning democracy, a President who's serious about reducing corruption, and you've seen significant economic growth.

     So I don't want to overly generalize it, but I do want to make the broader point that a government that is stable, that is not engaging in tribal conflicts, that can give people confidence and security that their work will be rewarded, that is investing in its people and their skills and talents, those countries can succeed, regardless of their history.

     All right, Michael Fletcher, The Washington Post.

     Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  As you've pushed for an agreement to reduce nuclear stockpiles between Russia and the U.S., part of your rationale has been that you want to have the moral authority to then turn to North Korea and Iran to get them to suspend their programs.  Why will they listen to what the U.S. and Russia have to say?  What would it matter to them what we do?

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I don't think it matters so much necessarily that they will listen to the United States or Russia individually.  But it gives us the capacity, as the two nuclear superpowers, to make appeals to the broader world community in a consistent way about the dangers of nuclear proliferation and the need to reduce that danger and hopefully at some point in time eliminate it.

     So there are countries that have decided not to pursue nuclear weapons.  Brazil, South Africa, Libya have all made a decision not to pursue nuclear weapons.  Now, part of the concept behind the Non-Proliferation Treaty was countries could develop peaceful nuclear energy, they would not pursue nuclear weapons if they were signatories to the treaty, and in turn the United States and Russia would also significantly reduce their nuclear stockpiles.

     And so part of the goal here is to show that the U.S. and Russia are going to be fulfilling their commitments so that other countries feel that this is an international effort and it's not something simply being imposed by the United States or Russia or members of the nuclear club.  And I am confident that we can rebuild a non-proliferation framework that works for all countries.  And I think it's important for us to establish a set of international norms that can be verified, that can be enforced.  And when we are speaking to Iran or North Korea it's not a matter of singling them out, but rather it's a set of international norms of behavior that we're expecting everybody to abide by.

     Paolo Valentino.

     Q    President, it seems that yesterday morning you had a very spirited and lively discussion within -- with the G8-plus-5-plus-1, ignited by President Lula objection to the format, to the adequacy of the G8 as a forum.  And, well, I would like -- what was your argument in this discussion and whether or not you have the feeling that the days of the G8 are over?  And a very -- a second question, but very light, after six months wheeling and dealing with these international forums -- G20, NATO, and G8 -- do you find it more complicated or less complicated to deal with that than with the American Congress?  (Laughter.)

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the -- on the second question it's not even close.  I mean, Congress is always tougher.  But in terms of the issue of the Gasoline and what's the appropriate international structure and framework, I have to tell you in the discussions I listened more than I spoke, although what I said privately was the same thing that I've said publicly, which is that there is no doubt that we have to update and refresh and renew the international institutions that were set up in a different time and place.  Some -- the United Nations -- date back to post-World War II.  Others, like the G8, are 30 years old.

     And so there's no sense that those institutions can adequately capture the enormous changes that have taken place during those intervening decades.  What, exactly, is the right format is a question that I think will be debated.

     One point I did make in the meeting is that what I've noticed is everybody wants the smallest possible group, smallest possible organization, that includes them.  So if they're the 21st-largest nation in the world, then they want the G21, and think it's highly unfair if they've been cut out.

     What's also true is that part of the challenge here is revitalizing the United Nations, because a lot of energy is going into these various summits and these organizations in part because there's a sense that when it comes to big, tough problems the U.N. General Assembly is not always working as effectively and rapidly as it needs to.  So I'm a strong supporter of the U.N. -- and I said so in this meeting -- but it has to be reformed and revitalized, and this is something that I've said to the Secretary General.

     One thing I think is absolutely true is, is that for us to think we can somehow deal with some of these global challenges in the absence of major powers -- like China, India, and Brazil -- seems to me wrongheaded.  So they are going to have to be included in these conversations.  To have entire continents like Africa or Latin America not adequately represented in these major international forums and decision-making bodies is not going to work.

     So I think we're in a transition period.  We're trying to find the right shape that combines the efficiency and capacity for action with inclusiveness.  And my expectation is, is that over the next several years you'll see an evolution and we'll be able to find the right combination.

     The one thing I will be looking forward to is fewer summit meetings, because, as you said, I've only been in office six months now and there have been a lot of these.  And I think that there's a possibility of streamlining them and making them more effective.  The United States obviously is a absolutely committed partner to concerted international action, but we need to I think make sure that they're as productive as possible.

     Hans Nichols.

     Q    Hans had other obligations, sir.

     THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, I notice you're not Hans.  (Laughter.)

     Q    Right.  Roger Runningen -- we swapped.  Anyway, thank you very much for the question.

     I'd like to return to domestic issues, Mr. President -- health care.  The momentum seems to have slowed a bit.  The Senate Finance Committee is still wrestling with the cost issue.  The Blue Dog Democrats, members of your own party, yesterday said they had strong reservations about what's developing so far.  I was just wondering, when are you going to be jumping in really full force with this?  Do you have any sweeteners planned?  What is your push before the August recess?

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we jumped in with both feet.  Our team is working with members of Congress every day on this issue, and it is my highest legislative priority over the next month.

     So I think it's important just to recognize we are closer to achieving serious health care reform that cuts costs, provides coverage to American families, allows them to keep their doctors and plans that are working for them.

     We're closer to that significant reform than at any time in recent history.  That doesn't make it easy.  It's hard.  And we are having a whole series of constant negotiations.  This is not simply a Democratic versus Republican issue.  This is a House versus Senate issue; this is different committees that have different priorities.

     My job is to make sure that I've set some clear parameters in terms of what I want to achieve.  We have to bend the cost curve on health care, and there are some very specific ways of doing that -- game changers that incentivize quality as opposed to quantity, that emphasize prevention.
     There are a whole host of things that I've put on the table that I want to see included.  I've said that it's got to be budget neutral, it's got to be deficit neutral, and so whatever bill is produced has to be paid for, and that creates some difficulties because people would like to get the good stuff without paying for it.

     And so there are going to be some tough negotiations in the days and weeks to come, but I'm confident that we're going to get it done.  And I think that, appropriately, all of you as reporters are reporting on the game.  What I'm trying to keep focused on are the people out in states all across the country that are getting hammered by rising premiums.  They're losing their jobs and suddenly losing their health care.  They are going into debt.  Some are going into bankruptcy -- small businesses and large businesses that are feeling enormous pressure.  And I'm also looking at the federal budget.

     There's been a lot of talk about the deficit and the debt and, from my Republican colleagues, you know, why isn't Obama doing something about this, ignoring the fact that we got into the worst recession since the Great Depression with a $1.3 billion deficit.  Fair enough.  This is occurring my watch.

     What cannot be denied is that the only way to get a handle on our medium- and long-term budget deficits is if we corral and contain health care costs.  Nobody denies this.  And so my hope is, is that everybody who is talking about deficit reduction gets serious about reducing the cost of health care and puts some serious proposals on the table.  And I think it's going to get done.

     It is going to be hard, though, because as I said I think in one of the town hall meetings that I had, as dissatisfied as Americans may be with the health care system, as concerned as they are about the prospects that they may lose their job or their premiums may keep on rising, they're also afraid of the unknown.  And we have a long history in America of scaring people that they're going to lose their doctor, they're going to lose their health care plans, they're going to be stuck with some bureaucratic government system that's not responsive to their needs.  And overcoming that fear -- fear that is often actively promoted by special interests who profit from the existing system -- is a challenge.  And so my biggest job, even as my staff is working on the day-to-day negotiations with the House and Senate staffs, my biggest job is to explain to the American people why this is so important and give them confidence that we can do better than we're doing right now.

     Q    Is it pretty much a do-or-die by the August recess?

     THE PRESIDENT:  I never believe anything is do-or-die.  But I really want to get it done by the August recess.

     Christi Parsons -- hometown girl.  Is Christi around?  Christi is not here?  I'm disappointed.  Do we have any members of the foreign press here?  Yes, I'll use Christi's spot for -- just so that you guys have a chance to ask a question.

     Q    Thank you very much --

     THE PRESIDENT:  I'm sorry, I can't hear you -- can somebody make sure the mic is working?

     Q    On this trip you have been talking about state sovereignty as a cornerstone of international order.  How do you reconcile that with the concept of responsibility to protect, which used to be the cornerstone for lots of victims?

     THE PRESIDENT:  I'm sorry, how do I reconcile that with responsibility to protect, which used to be what?

     Q    The cornerstone of hope for lots of people in post-war conflict.

     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, if I understand your question correctly, on the one hand we think that respecting the sovereignties of nation states is important.  We don't want stronger nations bullying weaker nations.  On the other hand, where you have nations that are oppressing their people, isn't there an international responsibility to intervene?  It is one of the most difficult questions in international affairs.  And I don't think that there is a clean formula.  What I would say is, is that in general it's important for the sovereignty of nations to be respected and to resolve conflicts between nations through diplomacy and through international organizations in trying to set up international norms that countries want to meet.

     There are going to be exceptional circumstances in which I think the need for international intervention becomes a moral imperative, the most obvious example being in a situation like Rwanda where genocide has occurred.

     Gordon Brown during the last session told a incredibly powerful story, and I may not be getting all the details perfectly right, but he said he had gone to Rwanda, went to some sort of museum or exhibition that commemorated the -- or marked the tragedy in Rwanda, and there was a photograph of a 12-year-old boy, and it gave his name, and that he loved soccer, and he wanted to be a doctor, and provided his biography.  And the last line on this exhibit said that right before he and his mother was killed, he turned to his mother and he said, "Don't worry, the United Nations is going to come save us."

     And that voice has to be heard in international relations.  The threshold at which international intervention is appropriate I think has to be very high.  There has to be a strong international outrage at what's taking place.

     It's not always going to be a neat decision, and there are going to be objections to just about any decision, because there are some in the international community who believe that state sovereignty is sacrosanct and you never intervene under any circumstances in somebody's internal affairs.

     I think rather than focus on hypotheticals, what my administration wants to do is to build up international norms, put pressure -- economic, diplomatic, et cetera -- on nations that are not acting in accordance with universal values towards their citizens, but not hypothesize on particular circumstances, take each case as it comes.

     Richard Wolf.

     Q    I guess I have to follow on that, Mr. President.  Is Iran in that category?  And are you disappointed that while you came up with a statement of condemnation from the G8, you did not come up with any kind of extra sanctions having to do with their crackdown on protestors?

     THE PRESIDENT:  I have to say, I read, Peter, your article and maybe some others.  This notion that we were trying to get sanctions or that this was a forum in which we could get sanctions is not accurate.

     What we wanted was exactly what we got, which is a statement of unity and strong condemnation about the appalling treatment of peaceful protestors post-election in Iran, as well as some behavior that just violates basic international norms:  storming of embassies, arresting embassy personnel, restrictions on journalists.  And so I think that the real story here was consensus in that statement, including Russia, which doesn't make statements like that lightly.

     Now, there is -- the other story there was the agreement that we will reevaluate Iran's posture towards negotiating the cessation of a nuclear weapons policy.  We'll evaluate that at the G20 meeting in September.  And I think what that does is it provides a time frame.  The international community has said, here's a door you can walk through that allows you to lessen tensions and more fully join the international community.  If Iran chooses not to walk through that door, then you have on record the G8, to begin with, but I think potentially a lot of other countries that are going to say we need to take further steps.  And that's been always our premise, is that we provide that door, but we also say we're not going to just wait indefinitely and allow for the development of a nuclear weapon, the breach of international treaties, and wake up one day and find ourselves in a much worse situation and unable to act.

     So my hope is, is that the Iranian leadership will look at the statement coming out of the G8 and recognize that world opinion is clear.

     All right, thank you very much, everybody.  Arrivederci.

                         END               2:54 P.M. CEST

Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee set off a political bombshell this week. In a leaked letter, they disclosed that CIA Director Leon Panetta -- four months after taking office -- learned that his agency had misled Congress about a special project. He canceled the program and scheduled closed-door meetings with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees the next day to brief them.

Ever since, observers of the national security scene have been puzzling over the story. Aside from the disturbing -- but not particularly surprising news -- that someone at the CIA sat on this news for four months after getting a new boss, the question is: what classified program did Panetta close down?

Early speculation rested on waterboarding, a technique the Bush administration used in interrogating terrorists. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had earlier accused the CIA of misleading her on use of the controversial practice. But President Obama has already banned waterboarding, so it's not something Panetta would need to shut down.

Now, some are quoting the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, who in March alleged that a secret army of CIA operatives reported to former Vice President Dick Cheney. In remarks he has not substantiated in print, Hersh talked about "a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office.... It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on."

Cheney makes a convenient target. He's already enraged Democrats for suggesting that Obama's policies are making the United States more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. In fact, Panetta accused Cheney of hoping America would be attacked again, just to prove his point. As a result, some Republicans argue that the Democrats are just floating the Cheney rumor to deflect attention away from Pelosi's credibility on the issue.

Others argue that there is less there than meets the eye. As one unnamed former intelligence official told the Washington Post, "This characterization of something that began in 2001 and continued uninterrupted for eight years is just wrong. Honest men would question that characterization. It was more off and on." If the nature of the program could be revealed, said the source, it would be seen as "no big deal."

Either way, look for the guessing game to continue.

-- Johanna Neuman

Photo Credit: Getty Images

The Ticket goes inside politics several times a day. Click here for Twitter alerts of each new item. Or follow us @latimestot

Possibly a very important policy change quietly emerged in the daily schedule of Vice President Joe Biden today.

Loyal Ticket readers know that, as a patriotic duty, we monitor the longtime senator's schedule with a close eye for detail because, after all, this man is only a heartbeat away from having to give a toast at a G-8 summit. We've especially noted Biden's innumerable  "private meetings" that are closed to the press because, well, they're private.

And we've wondered aloud how this Democratic VP's private meetings with unnamed people on unnamed subjects differs from the private meetings with unnamed people that his evil predecessor had that got so many Democratic senators and representatives worried about nefarious secrets.

On one recent long weekend, the man who became a Delaware senator when his future boss, Barack Obama, was an inexperienced fundraiser of only 11, devoted an entire Monday to "private meetings" that are closed press in his Delaware home.

If that isn't dedication for the $208,000 salary.

Well, today's schedule, unlike many at the end of Biden's work weeks, contains no "private meetings." Not one.

Having spent Thursday traveling and successfully selling the nation on the so far hard-to-detect effects of the $787-billion Obama administration economic stimulus spending plan that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave them, Biden will show up for work around 11 today.

He'll join Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in a roundtable to discuss only the rising costs of healthcare for people who own or work for small businesses. One suspects the absent president's ambitious plan to spend billions more to impose his healthcare reforms might also be mentioned.

OK, so figure an hour for the roundtable, maybe 75 minutes max. You can only talk about that stuff so long before requiring healthcare yourself. Fifteen minutes for handshaking, cellphone photos and congratulations on the excellent roundtable. The VP should be outta there by 12:30.

That leaves -- what? -- five, maybe six hours to make it a seven-hour workday.

According to the White House schedule, Biden will not spend the remainder of the workday in private meetings that are closed press.

Instead: "The Vice President will spend the remainder of the day in meetings that are closed press."

You get the difference, right?

(Friday UPDATE 7 p.m.: According to the VP's weekend schedule, if you need to reach him about the stimulus plan or something, both days he will be in Delaware where "There are no public events scheduled." No public mention of private meetings.)

-- Andrew Malcolm

Twitter alerts on each new Ticket item are open to the press or anyone simply by clicking here. Or follow us   @latimestot

Photo: Getty Images

(UPDATE: As predicted Burris did announce Friday that he will not seek election in 2010.)

If you were thinking of running for Barack Obama's old U.S. Senate seat from Illinois but were holding off because of incumbent Roland Burris' intention to run next year, change of plans.

Looks like on Friday afternoon in Chicago, a time designed to minimize public attention, the 71-year-old Democratic veteran of Illinois' bare-knuckles brand of politics will announce he's decided not to run in 2010. Purely his own choice, of course. And all for the better of his state.

The first clue actually came when Illinois Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, now indicted for trying to auction off his nomination to fill the new president's vacant Senate chair, chose Burris as one of his final official acts before impeachment.

That tainted nomination, initially resisted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his No. 2, Dick Durbin, also of Illinois (see smiley photo above), eventually went through after a face-saving song-and-dance ...

... routine and certification by the Illinois Legislature, also controlled by Democrats, amazingly.

The second sign of political doom came as the Senate's other 99 members shunned Burris, who saw his appointment to the exclusive club as a career-topping moment for a poor black man growing up in Republican downstate Illinois.

Although he never lost to a Republican, the former state controller and attorney general hasn't won an election in 19 years, losing primary bids for the governor's office and a run at being mayor of Chicago, when he knew darn well that office belongs to the Daley family.

Had Burris run for election next year, Republican Rep. Mark Kirk would have had a good chance of knocking him off and ruining the Democrats' new 60-seat thing in Washington.

But first Burris would have certainly faced opposition in a Democratic primary (Durbin ensured that by spreading word he would not support his party colleague), as the party's powerful clans quietly come together to dump Burris, like everyone choosing the other team in a schoolyard game of dodgeball.

At least two Democrats have indicated their interest in possibly seeking the Obama-Burris seat -- Cheryle Jackson, president of the Chicago Urban League, and Chris Kennedy (yes, that famous family's in the Midwest too), son of former U.S. Atty. Gen. and N.Y. Sen. Robert Kennedy.

Another sign of serious trouble: During the first quarter of 2009, Burris' candidacy raised a grand total of $845. The word was out back home: Let him hang.

Another problem, of course, was Burris' evolving memory about contacts he may or may not have had with Blagojevich (photo, right), or possibly the ex-governor's brother, about maybe perhaps raising money, although no one but a cynic would ever think that could affect the Senate appointment. Burris maintained there had been none, but as evidence emerged to the contrary -- those pesky wiretap transcripts again -- Burris allowed as how maybe there had been some.

On Wednesday, Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan said she'd run for reelection, rather than the Senate or challenge the new Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, who has his own share of troubles facing a 2010 campaign. With the state budget deeply in the red -- as the exiting Blagojevich accurately predicted -- Quinn has earnestly proposed a recipe for rejection: a huge income tax increase during a recession and just before an election.

Originally, Quinn was merely a political placeholder added to the winning Blagojevich ticket because somebody needed to be lieutenant governor. Quinn was so influential that during Blagojevich's last 18 months in office the governor never felt the need to even talk with Quinn. (Good thing too as it turned out, given all the Fed wiretapping going on in the Land of Lincoln.)

So Quinn may be allowed to hang too. Until someone better happens to emerge before next spring's primary.

-- Andrew Malcolm

The Ticket goes inside politics several times a day. Click here for Twitter alerts. Or follow @latimestot

Photo credits: Susan Walsh / Associated Press; M. Spencer Green / Associated Press

During the Monday memorial service in Los Angeles, Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee told the thousands of mourners in Staples Center (and the hundreds of millions of fans around the world, eagerly watching on television) that she would introduce a resolution in the hope of honoring the King of Pop for his humanitarian efforts around the world.

The Democratic congresswoman displayed a framed copy of the resolution she was proposing and insisted it would come to the floor.

On the face this would seem to be a no-brainer: iconic singer and long-time donor to charities gets a last recognition. Besides, anyone whose death can so monopolize the public arena should be a slam-dunk for a congressional resolution.

Not so fast, as The Ticket warned Wednesday in this item.

Some Republicans, including Long Island Rep. Peter King, said they had problems with the adulation pouring over Jackson. King, in a video posted on YouTube, called the....

...late singer a “pervert, child molester, [and] pedophile" and said he would oppose any resolution.

This morning, Speaker Nancy Pelosi weighed in and seemed to throw cold water on a resolution, but indicated she would allow members to express their sorrow.

 "Do you favor bringing a Jackson memorial resolution to the floor?” Pelosi was asked at a televised news conference.

“Michael Jackson was a great, great performer," Pelosi said. There’s "lots of sadness there for many reasons."

The speaker then tried to strike a diplomatic note, replying that there is “ample opportunity for members to say what they want on the floor, so a resolution is unneeded.”

The issue, of course, involves the molestation charges brought against Jackson. The congresswoman noted at the memorial that Jackson was acquitted of the criminal charges and attacked those who "don’t understand the hearts of entertainers" and "don’t know how they heal the world on behalf of America."

"We understand the Constitution,” the Texas congresswoman said at the memorial. “We understand laws and we know people are innocent until proven otherwise. That is what the Constitution stands for."

The congresswoman explained how she helped bring Jackson to a 2004 meeting in her Capitol Hill office with ambassadors from African countries. At the time, Jackson was considering a tour to raise money to fight AIDS.

– Michael Muskal

Resolved, that anyone interested in politics should click here for Twitter alerts on each new Ticket item. Or follow    @latimestot

These days, federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor is not in her New York chambers. She's not weighing cases or interrogating counsel or even writing opinions.

Instead, with hearings to start Monday in the historic, much-anticipated Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation process, Sotomayor is holed up in a small office in the Eisenhower Old Executive Office Building next to the White House.

A group of young aides and lawyers assigned by Team Obama poses mock questions based on research about each committee member's records. But mostly, reports CNN, Sotomayor is sitting quietly by herself, reading her back opinions, boning up on anything that might provoke a senator to raise a fuss.

"She's got to hit the books," said Thomas Goldstein, a D.C. appellate attorney. "They can ask you about any part of the law. And she's got to be ready for that."

In an earlier round of get-acquainted-sessions, Sotomayor met with 70 of the Senate's 100....

...members, which should help the cordiality quotient. And the newest senator, Minnesota's Al Franken, has already tipped his hand that he plans to ask her about campaign finance laws, expected to come before the court this session.

If so, Sotomayor is likely to duck. Ever since Ruth Bader Ginsburg's confirmation hearings in 1993, nominees have politely avoided answering questions about their views on sensitive issues like abortion or gun control. Here's a typical Ginsburg answer, now boiler plate among judicial nominees:

In the end, Sotomayor's hearings could prove less riveting than the buildup suggests. The Democrats now have a 60-vote majority in the Senate, so her confirmation -- barring some misstep or damaging disclosure -- seems likely.

In addition, Sotomayor would become the 111th justice on the Supreme Court -- but the first Latino ever to serve on the court. With Latinos a growing and important voting bloc in American politics, we imagine it would be tough for a lot of senators to vote no at such a historic moment.

But the greatest asset Sotomayor has going for her on Capitol Hill is her personal story. Born in the Bronx to Puerto Rican parents, robbed of a father's love by his early death when she was 9 years old, she lived in a housing project as her mother worked two jobs to give her a shot at an Ivy League education.

Once in college, Sotomayor excelled -- summa cum laude from Princeton, editor of the Yale Law Journal. Later, after working as an assistant D.A. in New York and for a private law firm, she was appointed to the district court by President George H.W. Bush and to the appellate court by President Clinton.

Oh, and she's contributed time and money to a lot of charitable causes.

-- Johanna Neuman

Photo: Getty Images

Whatever happens on Monday, Top of the Ticket will be there. We're live blogging the hearings, posted explainers and analytical takes, and hoping in every way to take you inside the committee room.
Click here for Twitter alerts of each new item. Or follow us @latimestot

Vice President Biden traveled to Ohio today, trying to salvage public support for President Obama's $787-billion stimulus package. (Details from the vice president's office below.)

With the president in Italy for the G8 summit meetings, it falls to his vice president to try to staunch the fall in public opinion. And with more and more Americans questioning the effectiveness of the massive government bailout, a new Quinnipiac Poll shows that Obama's approval rating has dropped 13 points in the last two months in Ohio, a bellwether state for presidential elections for more than a century. The plunge: from 62% approval in May to 49% now.

"The economy in Ohio is as bad as anywhere in America," said Peter Brown, who runs the Quinnipiac Poll. "These numbers indicate that for the first time, voters have decided that President Barack Obama bears some responsibility for their problems."

Adding to the administration's woes is news that state legislatures are -- imagine! -- playing politics with decisions on where to spend the stimulus dollars. Tracing the first monies dispersed by the....

...administration, the New York Times, in an examination of the 5,274 transportation projects approved so far, found that "the 100 largest metropolitan areas are getting less than half the money" from transportation stimulus funds. Since large cities have major congestion and transportation issues, on its face this seems silly.

In Ohio, for instance, Cleveland was initially promised $200 million to help build a five-lane bridge to replace the 50-year-old Innerbelt Bridge, so deteriorated that officials last fall banned heavy truck traffic.

But then state officials, worried about meeting federal deadlines, decided to spend $115 million of that money on "shovel-ready projects." So, at the moment, the largest stimulus project in Ohio is bolstering the Nelsonville Bypass in southeastern Ohio to improve transportation to Appalachia.

Transportation to Appalachia? Not exactly a good way to alleviate traffic congestion in the cities. One expert called it the typical "peanut-butter" approach by state legislators eager to be reelected.

“If we’re trying to recover the nation’s economy, we should be focusing where the economy is, which is in these large areas,” said Brookings Institution's Robert Puentes said. “But states take this peanut-butter approach, taking the dollars and spreading them around very thinly, rather than taking the dollars and concentrating them where the most complex transportation problems are.”

Maybe Biden will explain all this soon. In the meantime, USA Today, looking at the first "easily traceable" $17 billion, found that counties that supported Obama during the 2008 election received twice as much money as those that went for his rival John McCain. This seems on its face contradictory to the Times' finding probably something about apples and oranges.

What is clear is that folks are unhappy with the pace of the recovery and worried that the debt-producing program will only add to the nation's economic woes.

-- Johanna Neuman

Photo credit: Associated Press, from June "Road to Recovery" trip Biden took to promote the stimulus package. This was at a road project in Carlisle, Pa.

The Ticket goes inside politics several times a day. Click here for Twitter alerts of each new item. Or follow us @latimestot

White House News Release:
Vice President Biden Highlights Recovery Act Progress in Ohio

Announces $3.5-Million Community Development Block Grant for Cincinnati

Cincinnati — In a visit to the American Can Building in the northside neighborhood of Cincinnati, Vice President Biden this morning highlighted the many ways in which the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) is supporting Southwest Ohio.

The American Can Building, a formerly abandoned factory that is being converted to a multi-use economic development project, is just one of thousands of Ohio projects and facilities to benefit from the act. Vice President Biden was joined at the site by Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory.“Roads plus teachers plus cops plus jobs equals a community — and that equals paychecks and prosperity,” said Vice President Biden. “In other words, it equals a better future right here in southwest Ohio.”

So far, $4.4 billion in Recovery Act funds have been obligated to Ohio, including $2 billion for education, $1 billion for health care and $445 million for transportation. These investments are already lifting up Cincinnati by funding health-care research, strengthening police officers and our armed forces, cleaning area parks and contributing to many other local goals.

Today, to add to that list, the Vice President announced the approval of the City of Cincinnati’s plan to use a $3.5-million federal grant to help stabilize and revive local neighborhoods, rehabilitate affordable housing and improve key public facilities.

Funded through the Recovery Act and run through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program will support state and local community development while stimulating employment at sites like the American Can Building, which is receiving $1.6 million of those funds.

“The President’s Recovery Act allows us to invest in local solutions to the many challenges our cities and counties are confronting,” said Secretary Donovan. “I’m pleased to stand with the people of Cincinnati as they work to build a real and lasting recovery for themselves and their children.”

Overall, the Recovery Act is touching upon all aspects of Ohioans’ lives, from affordable housing and transportation to education and job creation. Taken together, these improvements mean a more competitive Cincinnati that will attract businesses, families and jobs.Across the country, $174 billion of the Recovery Act have been committed in its first 130 days, including $43 billion in tax cuts.

One third of the act’s total funding is devoted to tax cuts for 95% of Americans. The act is also on pace to save or create 750,000 jobs in its first 200 days, or more than 3,000 jobs per day.For additional information on the Recovery Act, including breakdowns by category, state and agency, please visit http://www.recovery.gov.   ###

Remember all that talk last winter about the historic awfulness of the inherited economy and how urgently the new Obama administration needed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's economic stimulus bill to get through Congress and the president flew all the way out to Denver to sign the $787-billion bill because, well, because they didn't have an Air Force One photo shoot for New York that day?

And how it was absolutely, really, essentially important to start spending all that money ASAP so that it would create good, solid, strong, patriotic American jobs right here in America? And keep the jobless rate maybe somewhere around 8-8.5%?

Which seems really pretty good today now that it's already at 9.5% and predicted to exceed 10% for much of the next year, which takes us right up close to -- oh, oh, look out! -- the 2010 midterm elections.

In fact, back in April at one $3.4-billion spending ceremony for the media, Vice President Joe Biden, who's got a lot of private meetings to attend but was still assigned to drive the stimulus spending hard, said: "This is jobs -- jobs!" Creating or saving a gazillion-point-five jobs used to be the main goal.

Not anymore.

More change. That was April. This is July. And the spending sujet du jour has moved on to....

...healthcare reform, which is absolutely essential to get through Congress ASAP because the economic recovery depends on it as do millions of Americans who, the president promises, will face disastrous medical cost increases if we don't spend several hundred billion more, though some of that will be covered by savings, he also promises.

Today the president is in Italy. And Biden's political talking points take him to New York to tout the economic recovery and out to Ohio, where new polls indicate the administration's popularity is sagging, to discuss healthcare and small businesses.

Back in Washington, however, ABC's ever-vigilant Rick Klein reports on a mystery: It seems that about 10 days ago job creation was quietly dropped as a major criteria for rating proposed projects for potential funding over at the Department of Energy. Even as grumbling grows about the glacial pace of recovery (jobs) from the once much-vaunted funding.

Not only do jobs no longer matter in choosing projects to get money, but power grid upgrade project officials need only report the jobs quarterly.

A department Q&A asks: "Will DOE use the number of jobs estimated to be created and/or retained as a criterion for rating a proposal for funding?”  The answer: "No."

A department spokeswoman explained to Klein that although job creation no longer mattered in choosing which projects to fund, job creation still mattered in choosing which projects to fund. It "will be taken into account," she said.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Clicking here will also do nothing for the economy. But you'll get free Twitter alerts for each new Ticket item. Or follow us   @latimestot

Photo: Associated Press