The president said that Republicans are eroding cooperation by telling constituents he is “doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.”

For their part, the Republicans pressed Obama on a series of issues ranging from the economy to health care, saying he and congressional Democrats had ignored their ideas.

Obama said he would listen seriously to some of the Republican proposals and insisted that others had, in fact, been incorporated into Democratic measures. But, he also pushed back on other GOP proposals, citing his reasons for opposing them.

Obama used the health care debate — which he described as “bitter and contentious” — to underline the difficulties in changing the “tone” of the debate in Washington.

“It’s not just on your side, by the way,” he said. “It’s on our side as well. This is part of what’s happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to do.”

Obama said that the “component parts” of the health care package were similar to those that were advocated last year by former Republican Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker and Robert Dole, as well as onetime Democratic Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and “similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.”

“You may not agree with Bob Dole and Howard Baker and Tom — and certainly you don’t agree with Tom Daschle on much — but that’s not a radical bunch,” Obama said. “But if you were to listen to the debate, and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you’d think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot.”

“If the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don’t have a lot of room to negotiate with me,” he said. “I mean, the fact of the matter is is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, ‘This guy’s doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.’ ”

Georgia Rep. Tom Price countered by asking, “What should we tell our constituents who know that Republicans have offered positive solutions to the challenges that Americans face and yet continue to hear out of the administration that we’ve offered nothing?”

Obama said Republicans, on health care, needed to put on the table specific ideas that would work. “It can’t just be political assertions that aren’t substantiated when it comes to the actual details of policy, because otherwise we’re going to be selling the American people a bill of goods,” he said.

Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, pressed Obama to commit to an across-the-board tax cut, a proposal which Obama met with skepticism: “If you’re calling for just across-the-board tax cuts and then, on the other hand, saying that we’re somehow going to balance our budget, I’m going to want to take a look at your math and see how that that works.”

Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz called out Obama on his failure to make good on the promises of transparency in shaping the health care legislation. “You stood up before the American people multiple times and said you would broadcast the health care debates on C-SPAN, you didn’t,” Chaffetz said. “I was disappointed, and I think a lot of Americans were disappointed.”

Obama said the “overwhelmingly the majority of it actually was on C-SPAN, because it was taking place in congressional hearings,” but acknowledged the closed-door meetings after the committee process was finished and said, “I think it’s a legitimate criticism. So on that one, I take responsibility.”

The survey of two dozen countries, conducted this spring by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, also found a growing despondency over the international economy, with majorities in 18 nations calling domestic economic conditions poor.

In more bad news for the U.S., people shared a widespread sense the American economy was hurting their countries, including large majorities in U.S. allies Britain, Germany, Australia, Turkey, France and Japan.

Even six in 10 Americans agreed the U.S. economy was having a negative impact abroad.

Views of the U.S. improved or stayed the same as last year in 18 nations, the first positive signs the poll has found for the U.S. image worldwide this decade.

Even so, many improvements were modest and the U.S. remains less popular in most countries than it was before it invaded Iraq in 2003, with majorities in only eight expressing favorable opinions.

Substantial numbers in most countries said they are closely following the U.S. presidential election, including 83 percent in Japan _ about the same proportion who said so in the U.S.

Of those following the campaign, optimism that the new president will reshape American foreign policy for the better is substantial, with the largest segment of people in 14 countries _ including the U.S. _ saying so.

Andrew Kohut, president of Pew, said many seem to be hoping the U.S. role in the world will improve with the departure of President Bush, who remains profoundly unpopular almost everywhere.

“People think the U.S. wants to run the world,” said Kohut. “It’s not more complicated than that.”

Countries most hopeful the new president will improve U.S. policies include France, Spain and Germany, where public opposition to Bush’s policies in Iraq and elsewhere has been strong. Strong optimism also came from countries where pique with U.S. policies has been less pronounced, including India, Nigeria, Tanzania and South Africa.

Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon have the strongest expectations the next president will worsen U.S. policies, consistent with the skepticism expressed on many issues in the survey by Muslim countries. Japan, Turkey, Russia, South Korea and Mexico had large numbers saying the election would change little.

Among those tracking the American election, greater numbers in 20 countries expressed more confidence in Obama, the likely Democratic nominee, than John McCain, the Republican candidate, to handle world affairs properly. The two contenders were tied in the U.S., Jordan and Pakistan.

Obama’s edge was largest in Western Europe, Australia, Japan, Tanzania and Indonesia, where he lived for a time as a child.

The U.S. was the only country where most expressed confidence in McCain. Besides the countries where he and Obama were tied, McCain’s smallest gaps against his rival were in India and China, where neither man engenders much confidence.

The U.S. is seen as the world’s leading economic power by 22 countries in the survey. Yet in 11 countries, more think China will replace the U.S. as the world’s dominant superpower or has already done so than predict that will never happen.

At the same time, China’s favorable ratings have edged downward since last year, with widespread worry over its military power, pollution and human rights record. The survey was taken during China’s crackdown on unrest in Tibet, but before last month’s earthquake in China.

The poll also found:

_Sixty percent or more had favorable views of the U.S. in South Korea, Poland, India, Tanzania, Nigeria and South Africa. One in five or fewer had positive impressions in Egypt, Argentina, Jordan, Pakistan and Turkey.

_Nine in 10 in South Korea and Lebanon say their economies are in bad shape, while eight in 10 Chinese, seven in 10 Australians and six in 10 Indians say theirs are strong.

_Hillary Rodham Clinton, who lost the Democratic nomination to Obama, generally was rated higher than McCain overseas but lower than Obama.

_There is growing pessimism that a stable democratic government will take hold in Iraq, with majorities only in Nigeria, India and Tanzania predicting success.

_Only in the U.S., Britain and Australia do most want U.S. and NATO forces to say in Afghanistan.

_Iran is viewed mostly negatively. Even the eight countries in the survey with large Muslim populations have mixed views. In six of those eight, Muslims oppose Iran getting nuclear weapons.

The polling was conducted from March 17-April 21, mostly in April, interviewing adults face to face in 17 countries and by telephone in the remaining seven. Local languages were used.

The number interviewed in each country ranged from 700 in Australia to 3,212 in China. All samples were national except for China, Pakistan, India and Brazil, where the samples were mostly urban. The margins of sampling error were plus or minus 3 percentage points or 4 points in every country but China and India, where it was 2 points.

Source: huffingtonpost.com

Obama appears at the close of this week to have overcome one of his first hurdles — a furor among labor and activist leaders over his choice of a campaign director of economic policy.

On another potentially dangerous front — building a general election foreign policy team — there is less danger of hostile reaction to the integration of Hillary Clinton advisers into the Obama organization.

Obama’s most provocative move in terms of economic policy has been to hire Jason Furman, who runs the relatively centrist Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution as his staff director for economic policy.

Furman brings with him, as an unpaid adviser, his mentor and the founder of the Hamilton Project, former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, as well as former Treasury Secretary and Harvard President Lawrence Summers.

Both men have advocated pro-business policies and balanced budgets, and have been criticized by liberals who seek more government spending.

At the same time that the economy flourished during Rubin’s and Summers’ tenure (1995-2000) – per capita income rose from $22,153 to $25,469 in inflation-adjusted dollars; median family income rose from $53,349 to $59,398; and unemployment fell from 5.6 to 4.0 percent – both Treasury secretaries were accused of acceding to Wall Street pressure to eliminate deficit spending at the expense of the poor and unemployed.

The Furman appointment faced a flurry of criticism from such figures as AFL-CIO president John Sweeney and blogger-author David Sirota, leading to a substantial bloc of liberal Democrats quickly stepping in to quiet the discontent.

Furman pointedly noted that his circle of advisers will include economists viewed favorably by organized labor and its allies, including University of Texas professor James Galbraith and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.

Also backing Furman were New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who wrote:

“Furman is a very good guy, with a solid track record as a progressive…my sense is that Jason Furman has become a proxy target for some Obama supporters who, now that the Great Satanness has been defeated, are suddenly starting to have the queasy feeling that their hero might be a bit of a …. centrist.”

Other Furman supporters include SEIU president Andy Stern, who told The Huffington Post, “I am completely convinced after hearing from the campaign that Jason will serve Obama’s interests and priorities not his own. And Jared Bernstein’s involvement is also a good sign.”

Bernstein, of the pro-union Economic Policy Institute, has been added to the list of those to be consulted by the Obama campaign. Bernstein said in response to a Huffington Post inquiry:

“The concern that’s surfaced in the last few days maybe comes down to: will Obama be pro-worker in ways that we haven’t typically seen from Jason, [University of Chicago economist and top Obama adviser] Austan Goolsbee, and Rubin, but have seen from EPI types like me? Obviously, I think so and that’s what I’m doing there … It’s a work in progress but I very much like what I’ve seen so far.”

Robert Reich was more cautious in his comments: “My hope is that Jason proves to be an honest broker, and that the views of Bob Rubin & company are balanced by other views and voices within the Party.”

While the Furman controversy reflects the intensifying dispute on trade and globalization policies within the Democratic Party, intra-party tensions over foreign policy and the post-defacto-nomination directions taken by the Obama campaign have not yet been seriously exacerbated — although all bets are off if differences over withdrawal from Iraq begin to surface.

The Obama campaign is reaching out to such Bill and Hillary Clinton stalwarts as former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, and one of her top aides, James Rubin.

In the international relations policy arena, sources in and out of the Obama camp described a more subtle process taking place, as Obama is forced to decide which Clinton experts to add to the team, and at what level in the hierarchy.

“While there are exceptions on both sides, one of the key differences between the Clinton and Obama foreign policy gurus is generational. And this generational split has significant consequences,” one knowledgeable expert said, speaking on background. “In the main, the senior folks in the Clinton administration (1993-2001) went with Hillary, while many of the less senior people went with Obama.”

Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy advisers came of political age during the Cold War, in many cases during in the Carter administration, and tend to see the world in terms of states and state conflicts, this source said. In addition, many of Hillary Clinton’s top advisers “spent eight years dealing with Saddam [Hussein's] intransigence in the 90s,” making them more receptive to the arguments for invading Iraq.

Conversely, this expert argued, many of the Obama advisers are post-Cold War theorists who tend to see the world in terms of failed states, the influence of technology, food crises, non-state actors like Osama bin Laden, the spread of nuclear weapons, and the uneven distribution of the benefits of globalization.

Albright has already voiced her willingness to help Obama, and she is expected to play a significant role — in part because she is not viewed as a competitor for a major post in an Obama administration, and in part because she has hosted many gatherings of foreign policy experts that have included many of those now in the Obama camp.

Two other top Clinton advisers, former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and former national security adviser Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger, face more difficulty in gaining entry to the Obama camp, according to sources.

Holbrooke, who is known to have sharp elbows, reportedly does not get on well with two of Obama’s key advisers, Anthony Lake, national security adviser in Bill Clinton’s first term, and former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice.

While Berger has many supporters, he also damaged his reputation by pleading guilty to unauthorized removal and retention of classified terrorism documents from the National Archives in 2003. He was fined $50,000, lost his security clearance for three years, and was placed on probation for two years.

The likelihood that neither Holbrooke nor Berger will be absorbed into the Obama foreign policy staff or the advisory structure at a high level actually works to lessen the probability of divisive Democratic conflict on this front.

Source: huffingtonpost.com