When Britain Met the Obamas...

Well Barack and Michelle have come... and gone. This is a country where Barack is lavishly adored, and he made a good impression on this visit. But I think he did surprise a few folks by being, as one commentator put it "more of the Professor". In his press conferences he was substantive but he chose his words carefully and with slow precision. In social occasions he flashed his bright smile and the Brits warmed to him - but he had a lot on his plate in this trip and winning over the masses wasn't nearly so important as winning over the men and women representing the 19 other countries of the G20.

So the task of dazzling and delighting the hearts of the people fell, as it often does to the First Lady. Fortunately, Michelle managed it in style.

Michelle Obama is not an elected public official, but she's married to one who has also prevailed over considerable adversity, only just starting the really hard part too. So we can be impressed by a performance which combines discipline with evident emotion. "I do hugs," she is reported as saying to the girls, who promptly behaved as if she were Whitney Houston.

The BBC reports:

She has attracted as much interest and column inches as her husband on this London trip; creating a buzz with her dazzling outfits, her own schedule of events and her own fanbase.

Columnist Mariella Frostrup was also suitably impressed:

She arrived resplendent in green and turquoise, accepting the attendant fuss with good humour and a discernible slice of healthy cynicism. Distributing hugs and handshakes wherever she moved, she looked like a woman trained in the art of being centre of attention.

When I asked if she'd been prepared for the hysterical reception they had received everywhere, she replied with a girlish grin that nobody could be prepared for such an experience.

Yet conversations such as the one the day before - when she attempted to excite the Obama girls with details of her visit to the Queen, and they preferred to tell mum about their April Fool's antics at home - kept life in perspective. Her mission, she said, was to make sure her daughters, who will still be young when they depart the White House, are equipped for life beyond the bubble.

My thinking is this: Michelle is a smart, down to earth, successful woman in her own right and a naturally affectionate human being. These are great qualities in public figure. I've met her and found her effortlessly charming. Although the question of whether the charm really is "effortless" is an interesting one.

Her now-famous meeting with the Queen (engaging in what appears to be the first mutual and consensual public hug in Elizabeth II's entire reign - another Obama first!) reminded me that one of America's tactical disadvantages on the international stage is the absence of a Head of State separate from the head of Government. Please note - I'm NOT advocating for an American monarchy (I'm not even crazy about having one here) but for the recognition that there is a difference between the role of a Head of State in generating national and international goodwill and performing ceremonial duties, and that of a government leader, who sometimes needs to negotiate, disagree, possibly even argue with the other world leaders. This cannot comfortably be done by someone in the role of Head of State - who needs to be above and beyond politics.

That division was very much on display this week as Barack was doing hard core international negotiation and Michelle was visiting Schools and Hospitals. We are lucky enough to have a first lady who happens to be good at it - but I'm not sure it's right for us to expect that from our Presidential spouses, male or female. What do you think?

Stylin' at the Palace

The fabulous Jill Adams sends along this gorgeous image from yesterdays Pro-Obama demo:



Jill designed the groovy Obama tube sign t-shirt herself. For more of her style goodness, check out her site.

G20 Leaders Announce Agreement on Global Reform

The most significant parts of the agreement comprises 6 broad principles that each of the 20 countries signed up to:

* Bankers' pay and bonuses will be subject to stricter controls
* A new Financial Stability Board will be set up to work with the IMF to ensure co-operation across borders and provide an early warning mechanism for the financial system
* There will be greater regulation of hedge funds and credit ratings agencies
* A common approach to cleaning up banks' toxic assets has been agreed
* The world's poorest countries will receive $100bn extra aid
* G20 countries are already implementing the biggest economic stimulus "the world has ever seen" - an injection of $5tn by the end of next year.

In particular, it strikes me as noteworthy that the group agreed to set aside more money for International Development aid - basically, support for the world's poorest nations - than anyone had expected.

In addition, tougher regulations frameworks were agreed for financial sector that will hopefully help to prevent such crises in the future.

I feel extremely grateful for the presence of the protestors during this event - without them there many people back home in the US might have mistaken this agreement to put a sharp curb on executive compensation, restrict the financial markets and redistribute wealth from the world's richest countries to it's poorest countries for an extremely progressive approach. Fortunately, the protesters were there to remind us that the world's leaders failed to abolish capitalism or put an end to money, so we can now see that these proposals are middle of the road pragmatic solutions.

Jonathan Freedland is Full of.... Baloney.

In his Guardian column about the G20 summit, Jonathan Freedland critiques President Obama's performance at this morning's press conference, saying:

Brown was relaxed and fluent at the podium, while it was Obama who gave the more faltering, sometimes long-winded performance. Obama appeared to be stumped twice, first by a question from the BBC's Nick Robinson – which invited the president to wonder why France and Germany blame the US for the recession – and next by a deceptively simple inquiry from a member of the travelling press corps: does the president advise ordinary Americans to spend or save? One brought audible hesitation; the other a bit of a ramble as Obama visibly tried to work out what to say.

OK, well fair enough - I thought - maybe our guy was just having an off day. It happens.

But then I went to the source. Here was the Q&A referring to France and Germany:

Q Prime Minister, thank you very much, indeed. Nick Robinson, BBC News. A question for you both, if I may. The Prime Minister has repeatedly blamed the United States of America for causing this crisis. France and Germany blame both Britain and America for causing this crisis. Who is right? And isn't the debate about that at the heart of the debate about what to do now?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I would say that if you look at the sources of this crisis, the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that had taken place in the global financial system.

I think what is also true is that here in Great Britain, in continental Europe, around the world, we were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and the highly integrated global capital markets that had emerged.

So at this point, I'm less interested in identifying blame than fixing the problem. And I think we've taken some very aggressive steps in the United States to do so -- not just responding to the immediate crisis, ensuring that banks are adequately capitalized, dealing with the enormous drop-off in demand and the contraction that's been taking place, but more importantly for the long term, making sure that we've got a set of regulations that are up to the task.

That strikes me as a good answer. It's gracious to the leaders he's going to be meeting with, avoiding a needless confrontation, it's constructive and informative. I mean, what was he looking for?

And as for the pause - yes, there was one. But it didn't sound to me like the President didn't know what to say, more that he was choosing his words carefully. See for yourself. In the video above, Nick Robinson's question comes at about 1 minute 55 seconds in.

So - am I right? Let me know in comments if you think I'm just being a shameless Kool Aid drinker - I'm tough I can take it.

Shorter Obama: More that unites us than divides us

At his joint press conference today with Gordon Brown, Obama expressed his faith and confidence that the world leaders would be able to agree a deal to boost the world's economy.

Mr Obama told the press conference in the Foreign Office’s Locarno Room that America was willing to lead the world out of crisis, but could not do it on its own.

With France and Germany making it publicly clear they are not yet ready to sign up to the final communique, Mr Obama was at his smoothest — and it was a hugely smooth performance — when playing down the divisions.

“I am absolutely confident that this meeting will reflect enormous consensus about the need to work in concert to deal with these problems,” he said.

“The separation between the various parties has been vastly over-stated.”

This is a very Obama theme:

The Smile...

on the face of this police officer, just says it all, for me.

Deep Thought...

So the protesters are apparently wearing signs that say things like:

"Balls to the Banks", "Abolish Money" and "All You Fascists Are Bound to Lose".

So what I'm wondering is - if the world's leaders woke up this morning in an agreeable mood, realised the errors of their fascist ways, and decided to live by these credos, would these protestors be able to support themselves in the new barter economy? Are they farmers and shepherds?

I'd Go to Michelle's Dinner...

Tonight the G20 leaders will be treated to a menu of british classic foods prepared by none other than the fabulous Jamie Oliver.

But, much as I would LOVE to be at the table with President Obama, I must admit that given the chance I might actually be tempted to skip it in favour of the Spouses dinner.

At the dinner for spouses, the US First Lady, Michelle Obama, will be seated between the Harry Potter author JK Rowling and Olympic gold medallist Dame Kelly Holmes.

Not Gonna Be Easy...

The Onion headline in the week after the election was "Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job". And they may have underestimated. Is the US Presidency now the hardest job in the world?

Certainly, Nicholas Sarkozy doesn't seem intent on making it any easier at this week's G20 summit:

Gordon Brown's hopes for a show of unity at the G20 took an unwelcome knock today with a declaration from President Sarkozy of France that he would not sign up to any "false compromises" at tomorrow's summit in London.